The rule in question:

https://imgur.com/nNCTX2w

The clarification required: Does being stationary allow you to fire the turret twice?

It's an important question to decide how sponsons would behave. If you must move in order to get the twin fire, then your sponsons would fire at -1.

To me, it seems obvious that you must move to gain twin fire. What do you think?

Moving 0" is moving less than half speed. I would say remaining stationary gets you the full benefits of the rule.

 Shadelkan wrote:
The rule in question:

https://imgur.com/nNCTX2w

The clarification required: Does being stationary allow you to fire the turret twice?

It's an important question to decide how sponsons would behave. If you must move in order to get the twin fire, then your sponsons would fire at -1.

To me, it seems obvious that you must move to gain twin fire. What do you think?

No clarification needed. Moving 0" satisfies the conditional. Hold still and fire at will.

[quote=Shadelkan 7

"CRB P. 180

HEAVY
[Fluff]
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn."

By both your definitions, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when firing heavy weapons if you want to fire twice with the turret weapon.

I think that you should take another look at the rule. Especially with the explanation in parentheses, the ability to fire twice while stationary is pretty clear.

As above, it isn't.

 Shadelkan wrote:
"CRB P. 180

HEAVY
[Fluff]
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn."

By both your definitions, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when firing heavy weapons if you want to fire twice with the turret weapon.

I think that you should take another look at the rule. Especially with the explanation in parentheses, the ability to fire twice while stationary is pretty clear.

As above, it isn't.

Wait, what? I'm afraid I'm going to need you to be clearer on this. Moving 0", AKA not moving, is moving less than half your movement stat. Therefore, you may fire twice, and fire with all sponsons and 0 penalty for moving, because you didn't move.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

 Shadelkan wrote:


Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

You're overthinking it. You don't have to move at all, or count as moving, despite your interpretation of the rules, to get the benefit of firing twice. You can sit right back on your ass and shoot all your weapons with no penalty for moving and also fire your turret twice.

Promise.

"Not moving" is included in "moving less than half".
You're not looking at the full sentences but instead interpret words out of context , that's why you end up confused.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

It doesn't count as moving, but it also counts as moving less than an arbitrary distance. If you didn't move, you qualify for any benefits you get that say "If you move less than x inches". It isn't a stipulation that you must move in order to get the benefit, it is only a stipulation that you don't move half speed or more in order to qualify. The difference in your position at the beginning and at the end of the movement phase is less than half your speed, therefore you qualify.

Like others said, you're trying to overthink it.

It's also not even a rule yet!

Telling someone 'you are overthinking it, I promise it works this way' is not very helpful....

It is a very good question and something we can only hope is made more clearer when the Rule is released, maybe by some Frequently Asked Question situation to go along with it. The Rule does begin by stating If this Model Moves ... and the part in parentheses even starts stating i.e it moves a distance, so it is more then reasonable to read this and come away believing this is a Rule that comes into affect whenever a Model moves. Then you are left with the obvious follow up question of what happens to the other weapons if you do use this 'move and fire' Rule, and hence the Opening Posters question being asked here and some very unreliable answers in response. A strict reading is exactly as the Opening Poster fears, and with Rules that have yet to hit the table it is near impossible to know if this is intended or not.

I would highly recommend the Opening Poster writes to Game Workshop about this, so they can better write out their intentions.

If something doesn't move it has moved less than X. There's no more to it. Trying to make this rule force a move is silly. The intent is clear. The wording is clear. What's to write to anyone about?

If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And it has moved "less than X" in that case. Whatever X may be.

JinxDragon wrote:If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And it has moved "less than X" in that case. Whatever X may be.

Yup, these two states are not mutually exclusive and I can't believe it's even in doubt!

A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

Like I said:- It should be brought to the attention of the Authors that the wording used in this new Rule references the Movement state of the Model in a way that could be confusing to some readers. It obviously has led to unintentional consequences as it does, from a strict reading, require the Model to have moved by stating 'if this model moves...' as the opening clause. At best it is an possible point of confusion for many players that they can take a moment to correct for us, and at worse it might even be the intended result of this Rule and they need to make that clear as well. I, for one, can not even rule out the possibility that it might actually be intended as this is found on the Lemon Russ Tank... a tank whom's whole gimmick was 'a weapon platform that is stable to fire on the move,' and for which a lot of griping was heard when it stopped being able to ignore Movement penalties all together. Likely they will simply write that not moving is enough to trigger this Rule and that will be that, because that is what I believe they intended.

Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

Personally - I would re-write it to remove the word of 'turret' from the 'furthermore' section - That way it can move and fire all weapons without penalty, and the turret gets to fire twice... even if you move 0 inches!

 JinxDragon wrote:
A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. However, no that rule wouldn't come into effect if the model remained stationary - it also wouldn't need to.

The rule we are discussing includes the wording "i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic..." which you quoted except you stopped before the "less than half its Move" portion, ignoring the fact that you're then basing your entire understanding of the rule on an incomplete rule sentence.

0 inches is less than 6 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JinxDragon wrote:


Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

I realize that your arguments aren't how you would play it most of the time, so I'm assuming you agree on the intent (you might not), but I'm not arguing basic mathematics. I'm arguing that you're disregarding part of X in your X-Y statement, which includes basic mathematics within it.

 JinxDragon wrote:
A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

Like I said:- It should be brought to the attention of the Authors that the wording used in this new Rule references the Movement state of the Model in a way that could be confusing to some readers. It obviously has led to unintentional consequences as it does, from a strict reading, require the Model to have moved by stating 'if this model moves...' as the opening clause. At best it is an possible point of confusion for many players that they can take a moment to correct for us, and at worse it might even be the intended result of this Rule and they need to make that clear as well. I, for one, can not even rule out the possibility that it might actually be intended as this is found on the Lemon Russ Tank... a tank whom's whole gimmick was 'a weapon platform that is stable to fire on the move,' and for which a lot of griping was heard when it stopped being able to ignore Movement penalties all together. Likely they will simply write that not moving is enough to trigger this Rule and that will be that, because that is what I believe they intended.

Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

Personally - I would re-write it to remove the word of 'turret' from the 'furthermore' section - That way it can move and fire all weapons without penalty, and the turret gets to fire twice... even if you move 0 inches!

I stopped reading after the incorrect example, sorry. Different rule, different sentence structure so different meaning. It doesn't prove what you think. That one you quote requires moving as a trigger. The Grinding Advance rule requires you to not have moved over a certain amount to trigger. Is zero movement over half Movement value? No. Demonstrably no. Do the rule say "if the unit moves"? No, it doesn't. You need to read and correctly parse the rule itself, not say we need to write to GW. It really is already clear.

Touch your model and say you moved it
0.001 inches.

Problem solved.

Are people getting all salty that guard get tank buffs? Seriously.

If a model moves up to half it's movement allowed, it can fire the main gun twice. All other weapons are at -1. If you stayed still, you still get to fire the main gun twice, and also all other weapons at full ballistic skill.

Rule states "if this model moves up to half it's movement" any move from 0" to 6" is half or less, so gets the benefit. Trying to say otherwise simply isn't logical. Think about it - why would a tank move to shoot twice? Surely sitting still gives the same result?

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And gets to fire twice. I'm glad you explicitly agree with the rest of the thread on this.

Lets try this from a different angle, because I am probably just poorly explaining why I view this as a problem:
I choose to make a teleport shunt and I pick up the Model in question, then place it 12 inches away from where it original position... how far has it moved?

 JinxDragon wrote:
Lets try this from a different angle, because I am probably just poorly explaining why I view this as a problem:

Your problem is that you "parse" the rule word for word, which removes important context. "Moving less than half" is the restriction, not "moving"+"less than half". There's a major difference between the two, if it was the later you'd be correct - but it isn't. "Not moving" is entirely within "moving less than half " , even though it is not within "moving".

I think what Jinx is trying to get as is that the rule can reasonably be read as "if this model moves" as one condition, and "under half speed" as another. Ie, the rule specifically talks about the model moving. Moving 0" is not moving, and therefore disqualifies it from the rule. This is further backed up by "it moves a distance in inchs...".

It is therefore reasonable to say that non-turret weapons get a -1 to hit when using this rule as you have to count as moving to use it.

IMO, I suspect that GW want you to use it while stationary, but there is a reasonable reading of the rules that says you can't.

Probably not pertinent ruleswise, but the rule is called Grinding Advance afterall, and not Grinding Camp ...

That said I'm in the Moving 0" Is Less Than Half -camp, so I'd say the rule kicks in while stationary. But it's a good example of yet another case of sloppy rules writing.

The rule is called grinding advance. An advance is movement. And it says "if this model moves". If you move 0", you remain stationary, thats not moving. So, you must move to be able to fire twice. And because you moved your sponson weapons are -1 to hit.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Yeah - it's a pretty [MOD EDIT - Please do NOT use workarounds for the expletive filter - Alpharius] reason for arguing. Of course the LR can fire twice after staying still. Sorry if you're playing a Guard Army in a fortnight....

I understand JinxDragon's argument, because the rule quite plainly qualifies what it means by "moves under half speed" with the explanation "moves a distance..."

Remaining stationary or "moving 0 inches" is not moving any distance, so is not moving a distance, or even moving at all.

That said, the intent is obvious. It was redundant to use the "moves under half speed" wording, and they should simply just have said, "remains stationary or moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic".

I do think a few people need to remember that this is You Make Da Call and not "40K for Friendship and Pleasure".

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I understand JinxDragon's argument, because the rule quite plainly qualifies what it means by "moves under half speed" with the explanation "moves a distance..."

Remaining stationary or "moving 0 inches" is not moving any distance, so is not moving a distance, or even moving at all.

That said, the intent is obvious. It was redundant to use the "moves under half speed" wording, and they should simply just have said, "remains stationary or moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic".

I do think a few people need to remember that this is You Make Da Call and not "40K for Friendship and Pleasure".

That's a fair point, even if arguments like this exist for there own sake.

I'll just say that '0' or zero is actually a value in maths, so it is actually possible to move '0'.

p5freak wrote:
The rule is called grinding advance. An advance is movement. And it says "if this model moves". If you move 0", you remain stationary, thats not moving. So, you must move to be able to fire twice. And because you moved your sponson weapons are -1 to hit.

I found the perfect solution. The rule is called grinding advance, so you clearly have to ADVANCE to benefit from it. When advancing you may only fire assault weapons, and a LR only has access to heavy weapons. So you can't fire the turrets, but you could fire any main turret ASSAULT weapon at -1 tohit twice. Am I doing this right?

Christ on a bike. Do GW have to write the rules so absolute dummies can read them?

The rules Translate to a slow moving or stationary Russ. What possible reason would be for a tank to move in order to fire twice when it's easier and more accurate to stay still?

The salt at the guard on this site is telling.

Technically, in 8th, distance moved is only the distance measured between start and end points.

Nobody plays it that way, especially with a clear intent that you actually count the inches along the path(terrain features and models "blocking a path"); but the RAW only accounts for final position.

How is this relevent? If you are moving 0", you are still moving for other heavy weapons. You are basically just declaring movement.

It seems like you do have to move for Grinding Advance(even moving 0", where yours sponsons and hull gun are taking the -1 to hit); but that is not likely to be the intent of the rule, we are fairly sure to have an FAQ on this.

It's probably going to be clarified but so far, if you want your russ to be able to fire twice because it moved 0', you'll have to fire all your heavy weapons at -1 penalty because they have moved 0'.

 Lance845 wrote:
Jesus feth this is dumb.

You have to be pulling some real dumb gak to read that rule as the tank needing to move to fire twice.

Agreed.

I'd love for GW to do a Comprehensive Rules Set that takes incredible care with their language, like Magic does. Their basic rules are 7 pages long, including lots of images and lots of dead space, and there's a 3 page glossary. Their Comprehensive Rules are 226 pages long. BUT Wizards doesn't make any money off their rules set, and GW does. GW can't do a comprehensive rules set so long as they're committed to selling their rulebooks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the topic; I understand why people are saying this. The term "move" has very specific wording in the rulebook for what it means, and whether something has or has not moved is important for many things. Therefore, it wasn't a great idea for them to use the term "moved less", because it implies at least some movement.

BUT COME ON!

If something doesn't move, then it has used LESS of its movement. If I sit in a chair all day and don't move, then I have "moved less" than someone who walks around. That's common parlance.

I suppose one easy way to kill that argument would be to use the grav chute insertion wording: "if it does not move more than half its movement".

But in contemporary english (and indeed, even in programming) those statements are nearly identical, with the only real difference being what happens at exactly half. That's what "or equal to" is for.

Here's the rule explained in C.

float d=distance_moved;
float m=max_movement;
int H_penalty=0;

If d<m/2
{
fire_twice();
}
If d>0
{
H_penalty=-1;
Else
{
H_penalty=0;
}}
return 0;

 ross-128 wrote:
I suppose one easy way to kill that argument would be to use the grav chute insertion wording: "if it does not move more than half its movement".

But in contemporary english (and indeed, even in programming) those statements are nearly identical, with the only real difference being what happens at exactly half. That's what "or equal to" is for.

Here's the rule explained in C.

float d=distance_moved;
float m=max_movement;
int H_penalty=0;

If d<m/2
{
fire_twice();
}
If d>0
{
H_penalty=-1;
Else
{
H_penalty=0;
}}
return 0;

Your brackets don't balance correctly... but on a more serious note you're assuming you understood the design spec correctly, where as it can easily (and just as correctly) be interpreted as:

float d=distance_moved; float m=max_movement; int H_penalty=0; If ( d > 0 ) { H_penalty=-1; If ( d < (m/2) ) { fire_twice(); } } Else { H_penalty=0; } return 0;

This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

Wow. I had to see it to believe it.

Its a shame these guys can't write up clear set of rules for things like this.

So, again: You will gain the benefit of Grinding Advance while remaining stationary, as, again, "not moving at all" satisfies the conditional.

The rule is written clearly enough. Keep arguing if you like, but if you'd like to be done arguing, I will point out (again) that I know what I'm talking about.

Or you can just stop going back and forth and look for other rules examples where something moves and not moves at the same time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Your logic is so bad I don't even know where to begin...

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Seems strange that you have conflicting notions between this and Supersonic.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740493.page#9621650

Supersonic:

Each time this model moves, first pivot it on the spot up to 90 degrees...

If you pivot 0 degrees, did you follow the instructIons to pivot? About as much as if you move 0", you have moved less than half your Move.

Scenario:

"How far did your LR move?"
"Zero inches."
"Is zero less than 5?"
"Think so, yeah."

Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

The rule is not written to say "If the model moves, AND moves less than half... yadda yadda..." - it simply states "If the model moves less than half."

Condition: Movement = <50% Move Characteristic

Moving 0" (not moving) satisfies this. The rule isn't written with any form of pause between "If this model moves" and "under half speed..." so to interpret as though there was is, in my opinion, incorrect.

Some of the reaching going on is... spectacular. Somewhere in Nottingham Phil Kelly is laughing at the stuff people seem to think needs clarifying, and pushing the SoB release date back each time someone is particularly dense.

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Absolutely! But you stopped too early - its Advance, not move! So you have to advance to trigger the rule, clearly!

BTW: I'm so glad I can use my Twin Assault Cannons while advancing, since they're obviously Assault weapons, it says so right there in the name.

Jacksmiles wrote:


Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

People who would complain, dont really care about the moving, they care about the -1 for sponson heavy weapons that moving causes. So if you indulge them by moving a few millimeter, they get what they want.

Malachon wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:


Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

People who would complain, dont really care about the moving, they care about the -1 for sponson heavy weapons that moving causes. So if you indulge them by moving a few millimeter, they get what they want.

Good call, I keep glossing over the word "turret" in my mind when reading the rule. I'd stand my ground then.

If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

Consistency

But I still don't need to move my LR at all, and you still don't need to pivot at all.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

And you'd be wrong, but at this point It's fair to say you don't argue in good faith.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

Well if you are ever in or around Aachen, feel free to not call me up for a game.

It is a tiny bit more complicated, but I am glad the conversation continued and the point I was making is understood by many....
'What does the Game recognize as Movement?'
As Nekooni pointed out, it entirely comes down to how you parse that sentence and what mindset you are in when you read any other Rule that references Movement.

I, for one, would have no problem if the Authors errata' the Rule (before it was even released) to allow all weapons on this Russ to ignore the Movement Penalty in question. That way, even if you encounter someone that demanded movement to use this fire-twice Rule, we can easily use the answer of 0.0000001 inch movement as a righteous middle finger. Still, no matter what I think about the wording used in this Rule, I have accepted that there is grounds for confusion. Referring to movement colloquially within any Rule is a mistake that the Authors should fix, because it can lead to this sort of confusion and abuse. Thus it would be right for the Authors to weigh on the issue at this time, it is their experimental Rule in the first place so they can clarify this issue.

With the fact the issue is now clearly understood by many I will simply bow out. The reason why I weighed in so heavily was a knee-jerk reaction to the Opening Poster being told things like 'You are over thinking it' and 'it works like this, promise.' My very first game involved an Opponent and one of their friends observing, both using similar arguments as to why my perfectly legitimate tactic did not function as intended. That interaction, before I even invested into the franchise, almost lead to me walking away entirely because this sort of 'argue my opponent out of a tactic' mentality was sadly common place in the places I was looking. Although, it did also lead me to finding this very site and I found an entirely new game I can play with these Rulebooks!

To have a thread here devolve into the lines of 'no, the problem doesn't even exist, these are 100% clear cut rules... you are just reading it wrong....'

The OP asked a question.
The first three replies gave the correct answer.
The OP refused consensus.

How did you expect things to go?

I don't know... maybe:
Instead of insulting the Opening Poster when he kept explaining why he still had an issue with your reasoning, one could have thought about it from his interpretation for more then just two seconds. Afterwards they could approach the opening poster with some more sympathy, starting by stating you understand where the confusion is coming from. You could then take a moment to laugh at how Game Workshop writes terrible rules and then proceed to explain that they simply used the colloquial use of the word 'move' and are not referring to the action known as Movement. This would cause the Poster to respond less defensively and more likely to accept your conclusion as correct. They simply will be less likely to walk away from you unconvinced if you take more time then simply telling someone to learn how to read.

Besides;
Have you ever thought that someone might have to take your explanation to a gaming group who has the same misconception?
They would have to convince said group with nothing more then 'some guy on the internet told me differently' and their group will easily convince them that the internet was wrong.

Absolutely, but people are simply reading it wrong. Instead of calling it an 'interpretation' they could be open to other viewpoints. Two sets of closed minds does not a conversation make: it's an argument. I'm absolutely always open to being wrong, but in this case the people saying you must move are reading the English language sentence wrong and inferring things not there.

If it was interpretations, fine. But there's some ridiculous reaching happening.

If there's any discussion to be had please provide rational reasoning. Otherwise, people need to be open to being wrong, and not just say "this needs an FAQ" every time they parse grammar incorrectly.

Rant over.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely, but people are simply reading it wrong. Instead of calling it an 'interpretation' they could be open to other viewpoints. Two sets of closed minds does not a conversation make: it's an argument. I'm absolutely always open to being wrong, but in this case the people saying you must move are reading the English language sentence wrong and inferring things not there.

If it was interpretations, fine. But there's some ridiculous reaching happening.

If there's any discussion to be had please provide rational reasoning. Otherwise, people need to be open to being wrong, and not just say "this needs an FAQ" every time they parse grammar incorrectly.

Meant over.

You could explain where they go wrong, or you could just state they're wrong. And I guess you could tell them they're wrong and insult them, too. It makes a huge difference which option you choose, even if you're right, as to how productive a discussion can be. That's what Jinx is pointing out, and he's criticizing the 2nd and 3rd option being taken way too often - and he's right at that.

I apologise for being rude, guess the gymnastics being performed to make the 'interpretation' fit got my goat. I was out of order.

Reading the whole rule clearly shows how its intended. The name is grinding advance. The first sentence "...even as it advances on the foe." You dont advance on the foe, if you remain stationary. The second sentence : "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase...". RAW, yes, you could move 0", RAI is that the tank has to move.

No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

p5freak wrote:
Reading the whole rule clearly shows how its intended. The name is grinding advance. The first sentence "...even as it advances on the foe." You dont advance on the foe, if you remain stationary. The second sentence : "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase...". RAW, yes, you could move 0", RAI is that the tank has to move.

"Advance". I do think it means what you think it means.

'Advance' is this game is term given to extra movement at the expense of shooting. You can't 'Grinding Advance' if you actually Advance).

..which highlights (not that it needed it) the conversational, 'just two guys pushing space soldiers around', relaxed style of the game. You just can't pretend it's written like Star Fleet Battles.

 JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know... maybe:
Instead of insulting the Opening Poster when he kept explaining why he still had an issue with your reasoning, one could have thought about it from his interpretation for more then just two seconds. Afterwards they could approach the opening poster with some more sympathy, starting by stating you understand where the confusion is coming from. You could then take a moment to laugh at how Game Workshop writes terrible rules and then proceed to explain that they simply used the colloquial use of the word 'move' and are not referring to the action known as Movement. This would cause the Poster to respond less defensively and more likely to accept your conclusion as correct. They simply will be less likely to walk away from you unconvinced if you take more time then simply telling someone to learn how to read.

Besides;
Have you ever thought that someone might have to take your explanation to a gaming group who has the same misconception?
They would have to convince said group with nothing more then 'some guy on the internet told me differently' and their group will easily convince them that the internet was wrong.

I'm sorry. Nobody owes anyone the lengthy hand holdy sympathetic BS you suggest.

A question was posed, an answer was given. Refusal to accept the answer does not mean there needs to be "sympathy" and a shared chuckle at GWs expense. Continuing to stretch the English language and nit picking specific words to attempt to justify the misreading/misinterpretation of the rule despite the many people correcting you is asking to get less and less nice responses. Nobody is going to bond with someone over TFG readings of rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

If GW wanted the tank to be able to fire twice while standing still they could have written that on the datasheet.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

"Advance". I do think it means what you think it means.

'Advance' is this game is term given to extra movement at the expense of shooting. You can't 'Grinding Advance' if you actually Advance).

..which highlights (not that it needed it) the conversational, 'just two guys pushing space soldiers around', relaxed style of the game. You just can't pretend it's written like Star Fleet Battles.

The word advance has nothing to do with the advance rule. Once again, not the best word choice by GW. While the rules allow you to advance a tank, and move less than your half movement value, you wouldnt be able to fire heavy weapons.

Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

If GW wanted the tank to be able to fire twice while standing still they could have written that on the datasheet.

Which datasheet are you talking about? The book isn't even out yet! It's not even up for pre order yet!

Gendif wrote:
Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

I would not accept that interpretation. If you interpreted the rule like that in a game against me, I would quit. There are plenty of places where I think both sides have a position that has some merit, and where I could accept an outcome other than my own interpretation. This is not one of them.

Gendif wrote:
Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

That's pretty much how the RAW translates. Of course it's more logical to be able to fire twice while stationary if you can do it on the steady move but it's not written this way. It is litteraly written: "MOVES under half speed". And we know for sure that there is a difference between moving and being stationary. You can't claim that you moved 0" if the model has remained stationary via rules. What some of the posters are trying to do is implement a concept of Not moving = Moving 0". But there can be no Moving 0" in 40k rules as of now. Because there is no such concept in the rulebook.
So, if you want this sweet double shooting, you got to move and this will make sponsons fire at -1 to-hit penalty. If you want to remain stationary, you don't get the -1 penalty but you also don't get double-shots for the main weapon.

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

It's slap dash moggy piddle like this that's making me a little worried that GW are just coasting of the glow of 'well 8th isn't 7th', I mean they must know how bunghole retentive some of the player base is and yet omit "or remained stationery" cos well we can sell you an errata book each year

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

What I put forward was my strict RAW reading and I don't really see any room for disputes of the RAW here. Now as for RAI we're obviously interpreting intentions and there's room for different readings so I'll add my opinion.

It's called grinding advance and the flavour is about how a Leman Russ can put up a "fearsome rate of fire as it advances on the foe". To me this conjures images of tanks shelling enemy positions as they crawl forward seizing ground and pushing the enemy back. The RAI seem to be to allow you to keep up a strong rate of fire whilst also moving.
They could very easily have just written something that said "All Leman Russ turret weapons shoot twice and ignore the penalties for moving with a heavy weapon." But it doesn't say that instead it talks about moving slowly forward whilst shooting. One way to look at it is that the extra main gun shot is to make up for the fact that any sponsons you have will be less accurate, the crew can't keep everything optimal whilst they advance so they focus their efforts on the main gun.

So yeah, my RAI reading on this lines up with my RAW one. Even if you don't want to move tapping your tank for an extra main turret shot seems like a good deal to me.

Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

Another thing with fluffy approach is that too much armor penetration is a bad thing because a shell can fly through an enemy tank and not damage it enough to stop it. The ideal shot is the one that penetrates one wall and explodes inside an enemy vehicle - often having the second wall trigger it's explosion.

 koooaei wrote:
Another thing with fluffy approach is that too much armor penetration is a bad thing because a shell can fly through an enemy tank and not damage it enough to stop it. The ideal shot is the one that penetrates one wall and explodes inside an enemy vehicle - often having the second wall trigger it's explosion.

This is... kind of a myth. Overpenetration is a problem in World War II tanks, but modern tanks have enough variety in anti-tank ammunition that it's really not. Tungsten AP vs Uranium AP for solid shot, HEAT for light vehicles, HE-FRAG for unarmoured vehicles...

It's not like they're just throwing around one kind of AP shell.

That's one of the reasons they actually do.

Gendif wrote:

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

What I put forward was my strict RAW reading and I don't really see any room for disputes of the RAW here. Now as for RAI we're obviously interpreting intentions and there's room for different readings so I'll add my opinion.

It's called grinding advance and the flavour is about how a Leman Russ can put up a "fearsome rate of fire as it advances on the foe". To me this conjures images of tanks shelling enemy positions as they crawl forward seizing ground and pushing the enemy back. The RAI seem to be to allow you to keep up a strong rate of fire whilst also moving.
They could very easily have just written something that said "All Leman Russ turret weapons shoot twice and ignore the penalties for moving with a heavy weapon." But it doesn't say that instead it talks about moving slowly forward whilst shooting. One way to look at it is that the extra main gun shot is to make up for the fact that any sponsons you have will be less accurate, the crew can't keep everything optimal whilst they advance so they focus their efforts on the main gun.

So yeah, my RAI reading on this lines up with my RAW one. Even if you don't want to move tapping your tank for an extra main turret shot seems like a good deal to me.

There is no pause between the mention of movement and the distance requirement for it. The condition is that it moves less than a given amount (50% of its move characteristic).

Is 0 less than half?

Don't add commas, hyphens or parentheses where they don't exist. The phrase is straight "if you move less than this", not "if you move, AND move less than this."

For a full-health LR, 0 is indeed less than 5".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

You forgot to include potentially infinite amounts of overwatch fire...

ItsPug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

You forgot to include potentially infinite amounts of overwatch fire...

True...

Larks wrote:
There is no pause between the mention of movement and the distance requirement for it. The condition is that it moves less than a given amount (50% of its move characteristic).

Is 0 less than half?

Don't add commas, hyphens or parentheses where they don't exist. The phrase is straight "if you move less than this", not "if you move, AND move less than this."

For a full-health LR, 0 is indeed less than 5".

Don't ignore parentheses where they do exist.

You say, "Don't add parentheses where they don't exist" but there are parentheses in the rule itself which qualify what is meant by, "moves under half speed in its Movement phase". You cannot rely on this condition without the qualifier explaining what it means. That qualification is that the model "moves a distance". Remaining stationary is not moving a distance, because 0" is the absence of distance in inches.

It's plain the RAI is otherwise, but don't tell people not to imagine parts of a rule you claim aren't there when they plainly are.

Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

 thejughead wrote:
Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Nooooope. Acknowledging that you move means your sponsons fire at -1. I tricked myself this way too lol.

thejughead wrote:Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Jacksmiles wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Nooooope. Acknowledging that you move means your sponsons fire at -1. I tricked myself this way too lol.

I'd also suggest that the Minimum Move rules give us an indication that movement should be considered as moving from one point to another, distant point.

I mean otherwise your opponent could claim that even though you only moved say 4" point to point and are therefore eligible to benefit from Grinding Advance, you actually moved 6" forward and 2" back, making you ineligible, or something.

There is no qualifier that the model *must* move. I'd suggest anyone hanging their argument on that re-read. By the exact wording as written zero is a valid distance that is less than half.

Honestly, unless you can somehow disprove that zero is less than <any given positive number> then the 'must move' argument falls flat. And that is impossible.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There is no qualifier that the model *must* move. I'd suggest anyone hanging their argument on that re-read. By the exact wording as written zero is a valid distance that is less than half.

Honestly, unless you can somehow disprove that zero is less than <any given positive number> then the 'must move' argument falls flat. And that is impossible.

Well, no. The benefit is conditional on the model "moving a distance", not "moving no distance", or "not moving any distance". Zero inches here means the asbence of distance in inches.

Again, while the RAI may be obvious, the RAW is, as is often the case, clear if not sensible.

It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

Seems seems pretty clear to me from knowledge of the English language.

_

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
No? Then you can't shoot twice as you haven't met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
No? Then you can't shoot twice as you haven't met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Because that's utterly stupid to be penalized for not moving. By your logic because the rule is called "Grinding Advance" you must advance for it to work.

It's not logic, it's parsing English. The requirement is to move less than 5. 0 is less than 5. The requirement is fulfilled

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because that's utterly stupid to be penalized for not moving.

But that's how it's written right now.

Maybe they have a gun-loading system linked to vehicle's treads, so they can reload fasta if the tank moves Morknissia would be pleased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It's not logic, it's parsing English. The requirement is to move less than 5. 0 is less than 5. The requirement is fulfilled

The thing is that remaining stationary =/= moving 0" via rules because movement is a certain clarified action which exactly contradicts what you're trying to claim.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
YES? Then you CAN shoot twice as , BY MOVING ZERO INCHES, you HAVE met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Nor do I.

I can't believe this thread is still going. I'm disappointed that I've drawn myself into it.

Movement, in this case, is measured in inches.

A value of zero is still a value.

Zero inches is less than X (knowing that X is positive)

It's English and Mathematics.... and it's fairly basic.

So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less than 5.

*edited for spelling.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance. And you're claiming that when you want to fire heavy weapons at no penalty, you haven't moved but when you want to fire your weapon twice, you in fact have moved.

Any official response to this from GW? I play with rules lawyers & as far as they are concerned you must perform a "move" in order to gain the benefit of Grinding Advance. 0 =/= moving. Therefore whenever Grinding Advance is used, sponsons suffer -1BS.

This rule hasnt been released yet. It will be in the upcoming AM codex. Its possible, although highly unlikely, that it gets changed.

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

And you're claiming that when you want to fire heavy weapons at no penalty, you haven't moved but when you want to fire your weapon twice, you in fact have moved.

I'm not claiming anything. Certainly not that "you in fact have moved". I'm explaining that the unit's movement value is zero.

The requirement to fire heavy weapons with no penalty is that the unit must not move.

A movement of zero inches means that the unit has not moved. Again, requirement met.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

Cool, you met one part of the requirements to shoot twice, but not the first requirement. Hint: it has to do with the word move. Moving 0 inches is also know as staying stationary, which most people know it as not moving. Requirement not met

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

Cool, you met one part of the requirements to shoot twice, but not the first requirement. Hint: it has to do with the word move. Moving 0 inches is also know as staying stationary, which most people know it as not moving. Requirement not met

In fact, it has to do with the word "less".

Cool?

Some people really can't stand the good old guard getting decent rules for a change.

Stating stationary is moving less than half speed as zero is a positive, thereby fulfilling that part.
Because you have remained stationary, your sponsons are at full BS. Even though you have technically 'moved' it's simply arbitrary due to zero being counted as a positive.

Arguing against this is simply trying to twist it to suit your own agenda. Seriously people, grow up and use common sense rather than devolving into TFG to screw an advantage.

I'm the kind of guy who points out you can't shoot Assault weapons after advancing and even I think this is a silly debate.

Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving less than half your movement value. It's really that simple and I wish GW's FAQs had a little more bite in them. I'd love for a rules question to be answered "No, don't be stupid" for once.

This is the exact same non-argument as "can a character buff itself".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

As alanmckenzieMade said, you're deliberately misparsing it and ignoring half the sentence.

"moved" is not the same as "moves under half speed".

 alanmckenzie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.

Right, let's look at this part specifically then: "(i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)."
If you move 0" did you move a distance? It's not that I'm deliberately mis-parsing the rules. You seem to be ignoring the requirement of movement. If you don't move then you didn't move any distance and can't trigger the rule.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

Having seen this thread since it first started, I'm confused as to how this is still being debated. it seems pretty clear cut to me.

What was your movement value from the last phase:

Movement 0 inches also carries the stipulation of not moving, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. for one to be true, so must the other.
Movement 0-5 inches is below half speed for the leman russ (If I'm remembering its speed correctly) therefore it can fire twice as dictated by grinding advance.
Movement >5 inches is not below half speed, so it does not benefit from grinding advance.

Remember, whatever you do, you're advancing, unless you retreating. if you are not advancing, please report to your nearby commissar for positive morale reinforcement.

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.

Right, let's look at this part specifically then: "(i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)."
If you move 0" did you move a distance? It's not that I'm deliberately mis-parsing the rules. You seem to be ignoring the requirement of movement. If you don't move then you didn't move any distance and can't trigger the rule.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic of those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

Agreed. It is NOT a strawman.

The conditional for heavy weapons and movement is a) it moves or b) it did not.

If A than -1 to hit. If B fire as normal

The conditional for grinding advance is a) it moves more than 1/2 M attribute or b) less than 1/2 M attribute.

If A shoot once. If B shoot twice.

Everything from 1/2 down to 0 is all LESS than 1/2 which all meets the conditional for shooting twice.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

 Lance845 wrote:

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

You are required to move a distance. The rule is called grinding advance, which means you have to move. You cant just pick only one sentence from the entire rule (the one which says moving less than half movement speed) and ignore the rest of the rule. Another sentence says that the tank keeps up a fearsome rate of fire even as it advances towards your foe. This clearly means you have to move.

p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

You are required to move a distance. The rule is called grinding advance, which means you have to move.

[Citation Needed]

What the rule is called has zero bearing on the rule itself. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

 Lance845 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

JakeSiren wrote:
I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

The rule isn't saying you have to move. It's saying you have to move less than half. 0 is less than half. Therefore staying still will allow for this rule.

You can dislike it, but you can't deny it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

The rule isn't saying you have to move. It's saying you have to move less than half. 0 is less than half. Therefore staying still will allow for this rule.

You can dislike it, but you can't deny it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

You're comparing throwing apples to oranges.

Should we take into context the new regiment rules? I believe it's been leaked tallarn vehicles will be able to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. What bonus would be achieved by either interpretation to incite people to take Tallarn? Just moving less than half movement or moving 0 inches up to less than half?

I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty. Thus RAI Grinding Advance means some fraction of an inch to less than half movement. That way tallarn regiments would benefit.

 mrwhoop wrote:
I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty.

Except you're equating two totally different things. Not moving being less than 0" doesn't suddenly make all HWT take -1 to hit.

The rule doesn't say you have to move though.

Let me try this a different way. It won't work, but let's see.

IF: (Moves less than half speed)
THEN: (Fires twice)

0" = (Moves less than half speed)
Therefore: (Fires twice)

You can't take one word of either phrase and have them still mean the same thing. You have to take the whole phrase, without stopping after the word "moves". Moving 0" means you don't move, but you never had to, because the phrase is "moves less than half speed" not "moves, less than half speed."

Does that help at all, or am I smashing my head against a brick wall?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 mrwhoop wrote:
I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty.

Except you're equating two totally different things. Not moving being less than 0" doesn't suddenly make all HWT take -1 to hit.

Well yes and no. I did say context, as in other rules affecting shooting. If the tank moves less than half movement it can shoot twice. If a hwt moves it takes a modifier to shooting. If you can say your tank moved 0 and thus half movement to qualify I can say your hwt moved 0 and get -1.

I think it would work for the Tallarn (if true about no moving penalty for vehicles) to combine with grinding advance rather than everyone staying 0 inches and they have a superfluous ability. Why move when I can sit like all the other regiments?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

Then let me ask differently:
How are you going to demonstrate "If this person throws under half of 10 apples in the afternoon"?
Someone who has not thrown an apple doesn't meet the description of someone who has thrown under half of 10 apples in the afternoon.

It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

JakeSiren wrote:
It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

Not if you had $0 to begin with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

Not if you had $0 to begin with.

I can't help that GW has been putting out so many good releases

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

Then let me ask differently:
How are you going to demonstrate "If this person throws under half of 10 apples in the afternoon"?
Someone who has not thrown an apple doesn't meet the description of someone who has thrown under half of 10 apples in the afternoon.

It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

You're twisting the wording. It's not "Under half of 10" it's "Less than half of 10."

Someone who has thrown 0 apples in the afternoon has in fact thrown less (strictly speaking fewer, because apples are a discreet object) than half of 10 (fewer than 5 - simplify your fractions!) . So you torpedo your own ship with this example.

And yes, if you gave BaconCatBug (or me) less than half your fortune, we would be very happy. If you gave us $0, we would be very sad. If we took you to court, though, you could demonstrably prove in court that zero is, in fact, less than half of something.

YMDC is that courtroom. Strict readings matter.

Probably time to move on as RULE #1 and RULE #2 can't take much more of a beating than they already have in here.

From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

 mrwhoop wrote:
Should we take into context the new regiment rules? I believe it's been leaked tallarn vehicles will be able to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. What bonus would be achieved by either interpretation to incite people to take Tallarn? Just moving less than half movement or moving 0 inches up to less than half?

I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty. Thus RAI Grinding Advance means some fraction of an inch to less than half movement. That way tallarn regiments would benefit.

The bonus to Tallarn would be that they can move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty on vehicles other than Leman Russes. Grinding Advance is for the Leman Russ. I don't see the Tallarn rule (which we'll probably find out quickly if it's correct) providing an argument for either side of the Grinding Advance argument.

Dionysodorus wrote:
They just had an Inside the Studio stream (if you're a subscriber I think you can watch the video on twitch). I'm told that they gave away some of the other doctrines:
Tallarn: advance and fire (not heavy weapons), vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons
Steel Legion: rapid fire up to 18", vehicles ignore AP of -1
Cadians: re-roll 1s to hit if they don't move

I caught the end where they said that Basilisks are now AP-3.

There's a grenade stratagem like the Death Guard one, where every model in the unit can throw.

I don't think I like the idea of Cadians sitting tight and re-rolling a punisher twice. Btw he did clarify it's for infantry and tanks. Guess we'll know for sure by the weekend.

Bowing out

*Edited for clarity: I meant shooting twice and re-rolling each separate attack.

You can't re-roll a dice twice...

Jacksmiles wrote:
I'd also suggest that the Minimum Move rules give us an indication that movement should be considered as moving from one point to another, distant point.

Really!? Cite a reference to that instead of an assumption.

 thejughead wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
I'd also suggest that the Minimum Move rules give us an indication that movement should be considered as moving from one point to another, distant point.

Really!? Cite a reference to that instead of an assumption.

"The first is the model's minimum speed - in the Movement phase, all parts of the model's base must end the move at least that far from when they started."

So, at least for minimum move there's no shenanigans allowed for saying you moved forward x" then moved back the same amount to satisfy the minimum movement. They're taking point to point.


That said, you can't just take a straight line point to point distance as the distance you move - if you're trying to move around a melee combat without being involved in it, you have to account for the distance it takes to move around the combat; you can't just pick a point on the other side of the combat, measure a straight line from where you started to where you ended, and say that you moved only that many inches.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Larks wrote:
There is no pause between the mention of movement and the distance requirement for it. The condition is that it moves less than a given amount (50% of its move characteristic).

Is 0 less than half?

Don't add commas, hyphens or parentheses where they don't exist. The phrase is straight "if you move less than this", not "if you move, AND move less than this."

For a full-health LR, 0 is indeed less than 5".

Don't ignore parentheses where they do exist.

You say, "Don't add parentheses where they don't exist" but there are parentheses in the rule itself which qualify what is meant by, "moves under half speed in its Movement phase". You cannot rely on this condition without the qualifier explaining what it means. That qualification is that the model "moves a distance". Remaining stationary is not moving a distance, because 0" is the absence of distance in inches.

It's plain the RAI is otherwise, but don't tell people not to imagine parts of a rule you claim aren't there when they plainly are.

This is the English language, not parsing algebraic equations. "Moves less than half" is the requirement - moving 0" satisfies this whether you agree or not.

Is 0" less than 5"?

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

You are required to move a distance. The rule is called grinding advance, which means you have to move. You cant just pick only one sentence from the entire rule (the one which says moving less than half movement speed) and ignore the rest of the rule. Another sentence says that the tank keeps up a fearsome rate of fire even as it advances towards your foe. This clearly means you have to move.

There wasa rule in 7th clled endless swarm. The swarm wasn't actually endless. The name has no baring on anything.

Not that fluff has anything to do with the rules either but,

KEEPS UP a RATE OF FIRE, EVEN as it ADVANCES.

So it maintains the same rate of fire even though it is moving. Meaning the rate of fire it has while stationary is maintained even while in motion.

??

 JinxDragon wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

Jeeze, I didn't see that.

Though the line, "We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move" is a nice thing to read. I'm a wargaming nerd so I'll take any validation I can get.

 JinxDragon wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

That sentence from the fb team oozes sarcasm. 'Pretty sure', huh?

Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?
I am fully on the side of the tank firing twice if it stays still, but we need something more solid then 'the Facebook team was sarcastic when someone brought it up' to please everyone....

We have been told the matter has been passed on to the studio, so let us see what the Authors have to say.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?

Unless it's a perfectly clear and unambiguous rule? Most likely.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?
I am fully on the side of the tank firing twice if it stays still, but we need something more solid then 'the Facebook team was sarcastic when someone brought it up' to please everyone....

We have been told the matter has been passed on to the studio, so let us see what the Authors have to say.

As they're not the Rules team, they don't give answers unless approved to. Stops people saying "GW SAID" So the behaviour you're snarking about is to stop the next thing you mention. ;-)

If the Facebook team are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use their Facebook posts as Errrata?
Also; Why would they inform us that the issue has been passed on to the Studio, if the next part they posted is meant to be taken as 'this is the answer' ?

Oh, someone got the answer in right as I was typing up the question... I actually am very impressed JhonnyHell, it wasn't even that obvious a lure!

 JinxDragon wrote:
If they are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use Facebook posts as Errrata?

They're employees of a company, doing their job. This "forbidden from expressing" phrasing is a bit OTT, chap.

Over the Top or not, my point is still this:
We are told by one department that the appropriate department has been informed of the problem.
Anything else the first department says on the matter is irreverent, as they are not the authorized 'errata guys'


So why not let us wait till the Authors have told us how to proceed?
I am quite confident 'stationary double fire' will win out.

Because their job is to respond and make people feel listened to, and pass it on (whether it is then heeded or not). I know you meant 'irrelevant' but the social team does specialise in 'irreverent' ;-)

They also *did* put their personal opinion in this time. And their opinion is that not moving counts.

 JinxDragon wrote:
If the Facebook team are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use their Facebook posts as Errrata?

You mean this from the tenets?

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

You'll notice it says nothing about Facebook. That's because that post is from 2009 and predates the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page by several years.

Also, the following is posted in the 'About' section on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

...did this discussion really happen?

m = movement (in)
s = shot multiplier
x = max movement (in)
x =! 0

if m <= x÷2, then s = 2.
if m > x÷2, then s= 1
m = 0
then x÷2 is and always greater than 0

 JohnnyHell wrote:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

To be totally fair to people that have said the other side (despite me thinking that they're crazy for arguing it that way), I don't think the question was whether or not 0 was less than half, but that the rule required some kind of movement, and movement is a non-zero amount (even if it would be "I move 1 nanometer."), and any movement would mean that while the turret weapon would shoot twice normally, other weapons on the vehicle would shoot at -1 to hit. It's crazy, to me, because I think the rule is supposed to mean "if you move less than half your movement speed, or don't move, you may fire the turret weapon twice". However, these things come up when you're not careful with your words, as a lot of words in the rulebook have their own meanings. "Move" is a very important word in the rulebook, and "if you moved" means some movement has occurred. Again, this is just playing Devil's Advocate, but there's a good reason here to issue an FAQ on this.

As I've often stated, until GW gives access to their rules for free, they will not be able to publish a comprehensive ruleset with the legal-document explanations of all the game's mechanics and concepts.

 Yarium wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

To be totally fair to people that have said the other side (despite me thinking that they're crazy for arguing it that way), I don't think the question was whether or not 0 was less than half, but that the rule required some kind of movement, and movement is a non-zero amount (even if it would be "I move 1 nanometer."), and any movement would mean that while the turret weapon would shoot twice normally, other weapons on the vehicle would shoot at -1 to hit. It's crazy, to me, because I think the rule is supposed to mean "if you move less than half your movement speed, or don't move, you may fire the turret weapon twice". However, these things come up when you're not careful with your words, as a lot of words in the rulebook have their own meanings. "Move" is a very important word in the rulebook, and "if you moved" means some movement has occurred. Again, this is just playing Devil's Advocate, but there's a good reason here to issue an FAQ on this.

As I've often stated, until GW gives access to their rules for free, they will not be able to publish a comprehensive ruleset with the legal-document explanations of all the game's mechanics and concepts.

The rule never said "if you move" , it always said "if you move less than half". Taking that requirement apart results in a wrong interpretation. That's what happened, nothing else. At least that's settled now - or, for the special cases - once the FAQ is online.

Huh. When I saw this rule, I just assumed it didn't work if you were standing still. Glad to see that's not how it's supposed to be.

We have a FAQ now. It says:

Page 86 – Grinding Advance
Change the second sentence to read:
‘If this model remains stationary or moves under half
speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in
inches less than half of its current Move characteristic)
it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following
Shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same
unit both times).’

So, confirmed and discussion closed :-)

Hallelujah.

It also indicates that we can probably expect a FAQ update to Craftworlds for the Fire Prism since in their preview it had similar wording about firing twice when moving less than half.

 doctortom wrote:
It also indicates that we can probably expect a FAQ update to Craftworlds for the Fire Prism since in their preview it had similar wording about firing twice when moving less than half.

Probably for similar abilities in every Codex coming out soon... I'd imagine all were sent to print before this FAQ was prepared!

They also added the troll statement of i.e. what the rule originally said. Like the two statements are identical in meaning. GW's history of answering silly questions with sass remains consistent.

 Arkaine wrote:
They also added the troll statement of i.e. what the rule originally said. Like the two statements are identical in meaning. GW's history of answering silly questions with sass remains consistent.

You think this is silly just because you happened to guess the intent correctly before GW clarified? Because I didn't, and I don't think I'm alone. I happen to know of at least one game where moving 0" and not moving are distinctly different, and I hadn't seen any indication as to how 40k treated this before they addressed this.

I'm glad they fixed it.

 Cream Tea wrote:
You think this is silly just because you happened to guess the intent correctly before GW clarified?

Not at all but I can see where you might have judged that to be the case. Don't worry, you're not the only person on these boards I've seen be quick on the draw.

I referred to GW seeing it as silly. Not me, I don't attach personal sentiment to fact-finding discussions and logical arguments. They answered it with sass, they have a history of doing so for questions they think are blatantly obvious, and the WarhammerTV stream where the question was asked directly to designers left us with a shot of their reactions to the question. It was rather apparent from their expressions what they were emoting.

 Arkaine wrote:

Not at all but I can see where you might have judged that to be the case. Don't worry, you're not the only person on these boards I've seen be quick on the draw.

I referred to GW seeing it as silly. Not me, I don't attach personal sentiment to fact-finding discussions and logical arguments. They answered it with sass, they have a history of doing so for questions they think are blatantly obvious, and the WarhammerTV stream where the question was asked directly to designers left us with a shot of their reactions to the question. It was rather apparent from their expressions what they were emoting.

If your feeling is correct that speaks a lot of of how serious GW are about rules writing. I guess I'm not surprised.

What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Dude , we had that one earlier - so its only going to work after you advanced, and then you can't shoot at all, right?

 Aenarian wrote:

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

Yes, Turtle Soup would also have been better than grinding advance. The word advance suggests movement, but no movement is required. Also when you advance you cannot fire heavy weapons. Even more confusion. Avoiding the word advance in that rule would have been better.

p5freak wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

Yes, Turtle Soup would also have been better than grinding advance. The word advance suggests movement, but no movement is required. Also when you advance you cannot fire heavy weapons. Even more confusion. Avoiding the word advance in that rule would have been better.

Do you also take issue with Assault Cannons being heavy weapons?
What about Strafing Run - you don't have to move for that one at all - is that a problem, too?
A Hellhound tank is not a daemon and it's also not a monster, even though it's name contains hell and hound.
I'm pretty sure I could find a ton more examples.

If you have the mental capacity to play a tabletop, you should also have the mental capacity to understand that an Assault Cannon with a type of "Heavy 6" is not an Assault weapon, because the rules tell us so. Names mean nothing, rules-wise.