If a unit has an ability that is triggered by a specific action in their preceding movement phase, do they use it in turn one if their opponent goes first?

For example, enemy unit goes first and turn 1 charges a Cadian unit (reroll hit rolls of one in the shooting phase if they didn't move in the preceding movement phase)

Does the Cadian unit reroll ones during overwatch?

I asked a similiar question, i had first turn and charged DA with my BA. My opponent wanted to re-roll 1s for overwatch. My response was that he couldnt do that because he didnt have a movement phase yet. But the general answer was yes, they can.

My answer is still no, they dont. They didnt have a movement phase yet, no chance for them not to move.

Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

Now the question is do they get the re-rolls, even though it is not the Shooting phase?

 p5freak wrote:
I asked a similiar question, i had first turn and charged DA with my BA. My opponent wanted to re-roll 1s for overwatch. My response was that he couldnt do that because he didnt have a movement phase yet. But the general answer was yes, they can.

My answer is still no, they dont. They didnt have a movement phase yet, no chance for them not to move.

The issue is that a phrase such as 'if the unit did not move in its previous movement phase' has an amount of logical ambiguity. To reduce it to a type of formal logic, you could express the sentence as:

Not(move in previous movement phase)

Which evaluates to TRUE if you haven't had any movement phases yet. In other words: did you move in the previous movement phase? No, clearly you did not move in the previous movement phase because you haven't had one yet.

Or

(Not(move)) in previous movement phase

Which evaluates to FALSE if you haven't had any movement phases yet. In other words: in your previous movement phase, did you not move? No, you haven't had a chance to not move in a movement phase yet because you haven't had one.

So it's unfortunately ambiguous. Until we get clarification from on high, we'll have to make mutual agreements with our opponents or roll off.

In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

I would go further, as demonstrated above. RAW it is logically ambiguous whether you get the bonus or not. Without an FAQ we literally don't know for sure one way or the other.

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

Well, to me seems like RAW is clear, if it refers to a prior movement phase and you haven’t had a Movement Phase yet. You had to get to the battlefield somehow, right? Mebbe your dudes were walking along then WHOOPS battle time, so no stationary bonus? Or they had to scramble to the ramparts of your Bastion and are setting up defensive positions as shots begin to fly? It’s easy enough to rationalise the abstraction if you need to. If you think you should get the rerolls then you can abstract it as being in defensive posture expecting an attack. Similarly easy to square away. Maybe it can even feed into the narrative of your game? An ambushed side shouldn’t get rerolls if not expecting the ambush, for instance.

My group have played it both ways depending on opinions that day. Talk it out with your opponent before placing a single model and agree how you’ll play it that day. Playing by the rules is not the most important thing... both players playing to the same interpretation of the rules is.

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

Can we please stop using Special Snowflake as an insult? It's a highly politicized term in the US right now and I come here to get away from the current nightmare that is US politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

Agree. It's logically ambiguous. Ask a TO or talk to your opponent beforehand. HIWPI... deployment is more or less moving onto the battlefield. I wouldn't ask for re-rolls until the unit has spent at least one turn standing still.

For me the deployment should count as movement. For counting that a unit has not moved it must be that in your movement phase you "loose" the movement and "win" those re-roll.

My opinion. Only logic.

As far what I think it should be from a balance standpoint, I think units should be able to use the ability if they haven't had a movement phase yet.

Because ruling it that way only really benefits the player going second, and the player going second is at a disadvantage.

I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

Says the person who had it in his signature until recently. It's not political or "right wing", it was popularised by the 1996 novel Fight Club (that's 22 years for those keeping count, it's not new and its usage goes back even further). It doesn't break any rules and I will continue to use it, unless the mods want to make a Special Snowflake exception. (Disclaimer for the mods, this is what is known as "tongue-in-cheek humour", I do not intend to cause any offence, just to make a self deprecating joke at my own expense.)

So, to reiterate and get back on topic, in short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

From a strict RaW standpoint, you never had a "preceding movement phase", thus you don't get a bonus. As with all things that GW don't bother to do "correctly", clarify how it's supposed to work pre-game or ask the TO before the tournament.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

Says the person who had it in his signature until recently. It's not political or "right wing", it originated from Fight Club.

It didn't used to be. It has since been politicized and is absolutely an insult used by certain parts of the political right wing to insult anyone seen as left leaning. Not only is it a highly politicized insult... it's also pretty low brow. If you don't think an issue is general enough to require an FAQ, perhaps instead just say, "maybe we can just treat this as a one off situation and rely on players to roll off or agree beforehand". Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

Which is it: RAW they can’t shoot or we don’t know? You can’t have it both ways, given you’re a RAW purist. Make a call.

 Kriswall wrote:
I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

FAQs are not people. You can't insult a document.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Which is it: RAW they can’t shoot or we don’t know? You can’t have it both ways, given you’re a RAW purist. Make a call.

RaW they can't shoot.
I already said that. What we can't know is the intent, because we can never know the intent because we didn't write the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

FAQs are not people. You can't insult a document.

Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

If semantics help you sleep at night, awesome. The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all. That says more about you, I think, than it does about the people who want to avoid politicized insult wording.

 Kriswall wrote:
Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

Then you have grossly misunderstood what I mean by Special Snowflake FAQ.

It's not an attack on wanting an official answer, it's an attack on the actual answer itself ignoring the rules. Such changes should be made by errata, not FAQ. However, GW disagree, fair enough. I accept the answers as actual answers, but that doesn't stop them being Special Snowflake FAQs that ignore the Rules as Written.

 Kriswall wrote:
Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

Not true in the slightest. I love FAQs. I don't want FAQs that ignore the rules. Rules changes should be done by errata.

 Kriswall wrote:
The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all.

I don't live in the US, so I don't care. I find the use of the letter E offensive. Do I demand everyone stop using the letter E? No, because that would be silly. In the US, the term spastic isn't offensive, in the UK it is a grossly offensive term for someone who suffers Cerebral Palsy (though it didn't used to be, euphemism treadmill in action). Do I go and screech and demand that you ban that word in the US? Of course not, because that would be silly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

Then you have grossly misunderstood what I mean by Special Snowflake FAQ.

It's not an attack on wanting an official answer, it's an attack on the actual answer itself ignoring the rules. Such changes should be made by errata, not FAQ. However, GW disagree, fair enough. I accept the answers as actual answers, but that doesn't stop them being Special Snowflake FAQs that ignore the Rules as Written.

 Kriswall wrote:
Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

Not true in the slightest. I love FAQs. I don't want FAQs that ignore the rules. Rules changes should be done by errata.

 Kriswall wrote:
The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all.

I don't live in the US, so I don't care. I find the use of the letter E offensive. Do I demand everyone stop using the letter E? No, because that would be silly.

Yeah... I think this is the core of the issue. You are knowingly offending/irritating people and you just don't care. Then, when pushed on the matter, as always, you come up with some ridiculous deflection. You're not actually offended by the letter E. That's a dumb argument to go with. Now, if I found out that some term I used had some offensive baggage for UK readers, I'd try not to use the term in a setting where I'm likely to run into UK readers. I consider that to be a basic courtesy. You clearly don't. You do you. Use offensive terms. Just don't be surprised when people find you offensive. I frequently find you offensive and abrasive. Not an attack. Just an observation based on your acknowledgment that you don't care that some people find your word choices to be offensive and your ongoing resistance to choosing less offensive terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In the US, the term spastic isn't offensive, in the UK it is a grossly offensive term for someone who suffers Cerebral Palsy (though it didn't used to be, euphemism treadmill in action). Do I go and screech and demand that you ban that word in the US? Of course not, because that would be silly.

I didn't know that. My brother actually has spastic diplegia, a form of cerebral palsy. As I am a decent person, I will try to avoid using 'spastic' in a setting where I will encounter UK readers. Thank you for helping me to become a better communicator.

Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

BCB does remind me of a former dakka member called "Gwar!"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

Going back to the OP, so if you could claim the benefits of the acting in such and such way during the first turn, can I claim that my Ravenwing has "advanced" inorder to arrive at its deployed location to gain the benefits of Jink?

Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

Actually it really isn't ambiguous. You have to be able to prove that you didn't move in your previous movement phase to get to use the ability. If there isn't a previous movement phase, you don't have a phase there to prove that you didn't move in it. If you can't prove you didn't move, you don't get to use the ability.

This is also how GW has historically handled it - there have been vehicles in previous editions that could get a cover bonus or another enhancement if they moved in the previous movement phase (I'm thinking Eldar grav vehicles a few editions back - I think it went for DE vehicles as well). GW ruled on these that in your first turn they can't take advantage of that because you didn't have a previous phase to either do or not do something in. I don't see them handling this any differently.

It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

 Kriswall wrote:

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

You are not the bad guy for asking neither is he the bad guy for refusing to do so. You have every right to request him to not use certain words that you find to be an insult and he has every right to continue to use those words despite your objection.

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

You are not the bad guy for asking neither is he the bad guy for refusing to do so. You have every right to request him to not use certain words that you find to be an insult and he has every right to continue to use those words despite your objection.

Eh... I consider people who intentionally use insulting terminology and refuse to change it with a dismissive 'I don't care' to be less than ideal. Maybe not bad, but definitely not winning points for communication, diplomacy or sportsmanship. I actually tend to agree with a lot of his points about how GW is terrible at writing rules and frequently uses FAQs to change the written rules (when they should use Erratas). I just don't agree with how he chooses to deliver his message.

Not really an issue anymore. He put me on ignore. The issue has been resolved with selective censorship on his part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

It's a permissive rule set, BUT this is a situation where we're trying to see whether or not we violated a restriction... or whether or not you fulfilled a requirement?

In other words...

If we get the re-roll so long as we didn't violate the restriction preventing us from moving in the previous movement phase, we get the re-roll. We objectively didn't move in the previous movement phase.
If we get the re-roll so long as we fulfill the requirement requiring us to have no moved in the previous movement phase, we don't get the re-roll. We objectively didn't not move in the previous movement phase as there was no previous movement phase.

The wording in the rule doesn't make it unambiguously clear as to whether we're looking at a requirement or a restriction. My gut tells me it's a restriction, but my gut also tells me that deployment should be considered prior movement. As I said before, HIWPI is to not allow the ability in turn 1 since the unit previously deployed and deployment feels like movement.

As previously mentioned, any rule that refers to an event that didn't happen is inherently meaningless.

It could say if the unit didn't jump up and down under its own power in their preceding movement phase, you win the game. There is no preceding movement phase to refer to. So the consequences are immaterial. Exaggerating for effect.

Does the unit gain a benefit by having "not moved", or does the unit have a benefit that is lost by "having moved?"

The rule can be validly interpreted either way. Neither conclusion is more accurate than the other.

HIWPI is that I'd allow such rules to benefit. 2nd turn is disadvantageous enough, so I'd let the 2nd player have the (very limited) benefit as a concession to poor game mechanics advantaging the first player so strongly.

 doctortom wrote:

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

I agree with the first sentence. It's not relevant to the rest of what you said at all though.

Read in a certain way the rule gives permission to apply the ability without there being a previous movement phase. That permission allows you to do just so, given it's a permissive ruleset.

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

If the answer is "there was no previous movement phase" then there wasn't a phase for them to move or not move in. If you are trying to get an ability based upon your previous movement phase, if you didn't have a previous movement phase then you don't get the benefit because there's no phase there to have done (or in this case not done) what you're trying to show. They're not just asking whether you didn't move, they asked if you didn't move in that previous phase.. You cannot say they did not move in their previous movement phase if there was no previous movement phase for them to not have moved in. Lack of phase = lack of verification.

The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

I think the act of defining the term "default state" begins to shift the focus onto a RAI stance and not necessarily that of a RAW.

RAW, you have not been given express permission to consider deployment as if the model had remained stationary nor as if it had moved.

By "default" state, any rule that revolves around looking at the previous turn/phase cannot be used as there is no turn/phase to look back to, unless otherwise noted.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

It's not just that you didn't move as determined by some nebulous default state, it's that you didn't move in the previous movement phase. You have to meet that criteria. That means that 1) you have to have had a previous movement phase, and 2) you haven't moved during it. If you don't meet both of those conditions, you don't get the benefit. If there's no previous movement phase, then you can't meet the criteria due to the lack of a previous movement phase. .

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

If the answer is "there was no previous movement phase" then there wasn't a phase for them to move or not move in. ....

And if "there wasn't a phase" then they could not have possibly moved.

Let's try this another way...

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may reroll, as the condition in which I would lose this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls allowed)

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may NOT re-roll, as the condition in which I would gain this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls not allowed)

The correct interpretation depends on which default state is presumed, which is a matter of RAI, as the rules do not express which is the correct default state.

The default state can sometime be determined by how the rule is written. Here's two examples:

1. This unit may reroll 1's to Hit if it did not move in it's preceding Movement Phase.
2. This unit may reroll 1's to Hit unless it moved in it's preceding Movement Phase.

For 1, the default is you don't get rerolls until you meet the criteria. The criteria requires there be a preceding Movement Phase that you did not move in before you gain the benefit of the ability.

For 2, the default is you get rerolls unless you meet the criteria. If there was no preceding Movement Phase you can't meet the criteria of moving in it.

As for the original question, Cadian's (or other Born Soliders) don't get to reroll 1's in Overwatch ever*. Their rule only applies in the Shooting Phase.

*Techincally, they can reroll 1's in Overwatch in the unlikely event they are charged during a Shooting Phase

 greatbigtree wrote:
Let's try this another way...

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may reroll, as the condition in which I would lose this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls allowed)

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may NOT re-roll, as the condition in which I would gain this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls not allowed)

The correct interpretation depends on which default state is presumed, which is a matter of RAI, as the rules do not express which is the correct default state.

Let's put this in another-another way. Can you reroll a roll that never occurred? As in, is there such thing as a reroll to a roll that never existed? Would that count as a reroll or a roll?

I firmly agree with deathleaper. The unit didn’t move in the preceding movement phase. It’s immaterial whether there even was a movement phase because even in that situation they obviously didn’t move. So it would get the rerolls.

@Skchsan: I don't understand what you're trying to say, at least in relation to the quote of my own words.

The only scenario I can imagine in which you could re-roll a roll that didn't occur would be a weird situation in which you could choose to voluntarily pass and/or fail a roll. You decide, announce it, and then change your mind. In this case, your opponent is apparently a massive jerk, and doesn't let you change your mind, but Ah-ha! You can reroll the roll you chose to pass/fail. Soooo.... Technically there is a situation in which you could hypothetically re-roll a roll you chose to pass fail, without having to actually roll the die/ce in the first place.

@ AlexTroy:

Your interpretation of the first "version" requires a comma that is not present, between "Hit" and "if". As it is, there is no comma between, to create a cause and effect relationship. I can apply my previous if yes then no, or if no then yes as being equally valid. That's what I'm trying to say. In order to have a clearly defined meaning, the rule would have to read (similar to) either...

A: This unit may always reroll 1's to hit, unless it moved in its preceding movement phase. - This establishes the default state as being able to reroll, unless a "trigger condition" of moving prevents that.

B: This unit may elect to forfeit its movement. If it does so, it may reroll 1's in the subsequent shooting phase. - This establishes that the movement must be actively forfeited, in order to gain the benefit. This establishes a default state as not being able to re-roll, unless the forfeiture occurs. It also clarifies that this rule wouldn't be useful in the assault phase for Overwatch. This could be altered by including the terms, "Reroll all shooting and overwatch attack rolls until their next movement phase".

clively wrote:
I firmly agree with deathleaper. The unit didn’t move in the preceding movement phase. It’s immaterial whether there even was a movement phase because even in that situation they obviously didn’t move. So it would get the rerolls.

You are wrong. The wording of the rule is clear. It requires a movement phase, no movement phase yet, no re-rolls. It doesnt say if the unit didnt move. It says didnt move in their previous movement phase. You cant ignore parts of the rule you dont like.

The rule specifically states that they must not have moved in their proceeding movement phase. Not that the unit hasn't moved at all.

So when deciding if the unit in question gets the benefit of the rule we ask ourselves two questions -

1. Has the unit had a proceeding movement phase?
2. Did the unit move in its proceeding movement phase assuming it had one?

If the answer to question 1 is 'no' then there is no way the unit can meet the requirements of the rule so we don't apply the benefit.

If the answer to question 1 is 'yes' then we ask question 2 and see if our unit gets the benefit.

This is clear. There is no ambiguity. It would be ambiguous if the rule was written 'if this unit hasn't moved' with no mention of a proceeding movement phase. The fact that the proceeding movement phase is mentioned makes the rule clear. If the unit charges but has stayed stationary in the proceeding movement phase they would then still get the benefit.

I kinda see the confusion with this but the RAW is clear. You need to have had a proceeding movement phase to get the benefit.

It is not ignoring. You have a rule that says you can re-roll. It has a stipulation that you may not re-roll if you moved in the previous movement phase. The rule does not describe what happens if there is no previous movement phase to refer to.

This, of course leads to what do you do if there's nothing to determine if you're not allowed to do something... but I've run through that about 3 times now.

Most people here are arguing RAI, depending on which base state.... bah.

The rule says you may only reroll if you didn't move in your proceeding movement phase right? It's not saying 'you may reroll always, but not if you did x', it's actually phrased 'you may reroll as long as you didn't do x'. It's a subtle but important difference that should make its resolution easier.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


If the answer to question 1 is 'no' then there is no way the unit can meet the requirements of the rule so we don't apply the benefit.

This is the leap of logic I disagree with. Yet again, we don't know the scope of the negation so we can't assume this.

We don't know if the intention is that the unit needs to have had a state of 'not moved' in the previous movement phase or if the unit must not have had a state of 'moved in the previous movement phase'.

These are vastly different but equally valid readings of the rule.

OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

Consequently, the stratagem can be used on a unit that elected to stay in combat during movement phase but moved to consolidate during fight phase.

Shame on all of us No one looked up what the cadian rule says. See spoiler.



Overwatch is a shooting attack, but its not happening in the shooting phase. Cadians cannot re-roll hit rolls of 1 when overwatching.

EDIT: Nevermind, eliminated after seeing p5freak's comment.

Are there any other examples of something like this besides the Cadian one? Just wanting to make sure this isn't a broader issue but is really just addressing the Cadian example.

The Dark Angels Grim Resolve rule, but that one allows re-rolling 1's in overwatch.

I did not have the rule available to me.

I concede that the benefit is not gained for overwatch, as it specifically stipulates the shooting phase and overwatch occurs in the assault pHase.

Thanks pg5.

This is the DA chapter tactic.

For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

It'd be more accurate to say that the result of moving changes the value from FALSE to TRUE.

You're assuming a nullable type here - that "moved" can evaluate to NULL. That is a requirement for your statement to be true. And this is not rules as written, a yes/no statement does not by default read as nullable.

"Have you ever murdered a man in Jew Jersey?"
"Wait, what? I've never been to New Jersey."
"So the answer is no?"
"Um, i'm going to go with NULL."

 Marmatag wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

It'd be more accurate to say that the result of moving changes the value from FALSE to TRUE.

You're assuming a nullable type here - that "moved" can evaluate to NULL. That is a requirement for your statement to be true. And this is not rules as written, a yes/no statement does not by default read as nullable.

"Have you ever murdered a man in Jew Jersey?"
"Wait, what? I've never been to New Jersey."
"So the answer is no?"
"Um, i'm going to go with NULL."

I agree that through the lens of a logical/programming viewpoint, we're being asked to evaluate the value of a variable where we haven't yet set a value. In that sense, the value is null and we get an error message. The game stops and we notify the developers that they have a bug that needs to be fixed via errata. In a non-programming environment, we just bicker endlessly on the internet. There was no prior movement phase. Did the unit move in the prior movement phase? No idea. Currently impossible to answer. They didn't move, but they also didn't stay still... because there was no prior movement phase.

 p5freak wrote:
This is the DA chapter tactic.

Spoiler:

It looks like the argument we've been having will apply to Grim Resolve as that isn't limited to Overwatch. Of course they haven't addressed it in the DA FAQ.

They wouldn't get to reroll 1's during their first shooting phase as they did not have a prior movement phase.

I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

By RAW it is clear, you have to have not hot moved in your previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you don't meet the criteria of not having moved in the previous movement phase. You might not think that is what they intended, but that is how the rule works now.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

No we do have an answer, and it's that not having a movement phase doesn't mean that you haven't moved. It's precisely because it returns NULL that the RAW stance is claiming you cannot claim the benefits of having "not moved in the prior movement phase."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

Yes, because there is no such thing as "default state." Nothing defaults to anything. If you didn't have a movement phase, you did not have the choice of not moving during prior movement phase.

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

It i impossible for a unit to move when they did not have a movement phase yet.

Therefore since they definitely did not move in their previous movement phase (after all how could they have if there was not a previous movement phase) they are eligible for the re-rolls.

I see how it could be clearer though. maybe this one requires an FaQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Shame on all of us No one looked up what the cadian rule says. See spoiler.

Spoiler:

Overwatch is a shooting attack, but its not happening in the shooting phase. Cadians cannot re-roll hit rolls of 1 when overwatching.

They can though because:

40k 8th ed BRB wrote: Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack...

Therefore, since you resolve Overwatch like a normal shooting attack, you would get the re-rolls if you would have if it were the shooting phase since "a normal shooting attack" occurs in the shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore, since you resolve Overwatch like a normal shooting attack, you would get the re-rolls if you would have if it were the shooting phase since "a normal shooting attack" occurs in the shooting phase.

Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack made during opponent's CHARGE PHASE. Born soldier only procs during SHOOTING PHASE only.

Making a normal shooting attack =/= firing in shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

It i impossible for a unit to move when they did not have a movement phase yet..

That doesn't matter. The rule states that you get the reroll if you didn't move in your prior movement phase. It doesn't care one jot about whether you moved or didn't move at some point that wasn't in the previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you can't show that you didn't move in it, and therefore you don't get to reroll 1's. I

You don't get to read only part of what the rule says, you have to read the whole thing and meet the criteria. The criteria is not to have moved in the prior movement phase, not just to have not moved before shooting.

 doctortom wrote:

That doesn't matter. The rule states that you get the reroll if you didn't move in your prior movement phase. It doesn't care one jot about whether you moved or didn't move at some point that wasn't in the previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you can't show that you didn't move in it, and therefore you don't get to reroll 1's. I

You don't get to read only part of what the rule says, you have to read the whole thing and meet the criteria. The criteria is not to have moved in the prior movement phase, not just to have not moved before shooting.

A unit that does not have a previous movement phase could not have possibly have moved in the "prior movement phase"...

The requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. Since they did not have a previous movement phase, the only answer to the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase?" is a solid: No.

 skchsan wrote:
Making a normal shooting attack =/= firing in shooting phase.

Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

 DeathReaper wrote:


A unit that does not have a previous movement phase could not have possibly have moved in the "prior movement phase"...

The requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. Since they did not have a previous movement phase, the only answer to the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase?" is a solid: No.
..

Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect. You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved. If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW. Prove that you did not move in the prior movement phase if you have no prior movement phase. The answer is not "no they did not move", the answer is "there was no previous movement phase, therefore they can't claim they didn't move during it."

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect.

So are you saying that they did somehow move in their previous movement phase?

You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved.

Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase.

If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW.

My assertion is correct, because without a previous movement phase there is no possible way for a unit to have moved.

Prove that you did not move in the prior movement phase if you have no prior movement phase.

Easy, there was no previous movement phase, so there is no possible way for them to have moved.

The answer is not "no they did not move", the answer is "there was no previous movement phase, therefore they can't claim they didn't move during it."

Incorrect.

The answer is "There was no previous movement phase, therefore they can not have moved during it."
.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase.

Yes, if you don't have a previous movement phase, then you cannot determine whether a model has "not have moved" or "have moved".

The rule cares not of representational and figural sense of movement. Of course, if you physically have never moved an object, it must have not moved. If you are so inclined to taking "literal" sense, at t=0, the model existed off the game board, inside a box. At t=1, the model was placed on the game board. At t=3, the case in point occurred. Under what assumption does the limits of "not having moved" prior to a movement phase become established? Afterall, it was LITERALLY moved from somewhere off the battlefield on to the battlefield at some point before the model's first movement phase.

So by the extension of your argument, the model literally had to be moved to the location it's claiming the state of "not having moved in the previous movement phase which did not exist." So, quite literally, the model has been moved despite there hasn't been a movement phase to legally make a move.

RAW, it LITERALLY says you must have not moved during the previous movement phase to qualify for the benefits.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

Why should I be limited to stratagems pertaining to overwatch only when shooting attacks made during overwatch is indeed shooting phase.

There are too much discrepancies and piecemeal reading from your interpretations.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect.

So are you saying that they did somehow move in their previous movement phase?.

I am saying there is no previous movement phase for them to have moved or not to have moved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved.

Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase..

That is not incorrect at all. You don't know what movement has happened before the first turn, as it is undefined.

Grim Resolve:

"You can re-roll all hit rolls of 1 for this unit whenever it shoots (including when firing Overwatch) so long as it did not move in its prior Movement phase"

I bolded the key part there. There are two conditions which must be met -

1) you must have had a previous movement phase.

2) You must not have moved in that previous movement phase.

If you don't have a previous movement phase, you do not meet the criteria,as there is absolutely no way to prove that you did not move in a phase that does not exist. You are making things up by saying they obvious had not moved.

If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW.

My assertion is correct, because without a previous movement phase there is no possible way for a unit to have moved..

Which presumes the bonus is earned by not moving, rather than the bonus lost by moving. Two equally valid... yawn... something... something...

 greatbigtree wrote:
Which presumes the bonus is earned by not moving, rather than the bonus lost by moving. Two equally valid... yawn... something... something...

More specifically not moving in the previous movement phase. Moving during fight phase (pile in and consolidate) would not count towards moving during movement phase.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

Why should I be limited to stratagems pertaining to overwatch only when shooting attacks made during overwatch is indeed shooting phase.

There are too much discrepancies and piecemeal reading from your interpretations.

Because a +1 to hit is meaningless if it does not specifically say that it affects Overwatch. So you can use a strat that states +1 to hit, but if it does not specify that it works for Overwactch, then you only hit on a 6 anyway and you have wasted CP's...

 doctortom wrote:
But, the criteria is not that you did not previous move, it is that you did not move in the previous movement phas. Again, explain how you can prove it about something that does not exist. If there is no movement phase, there is no "during" that you did not move in, therefore you do not get the bonus.

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

 skchsan wrote:
Afterall, it was LITERALLY moved from somewhere off the battlefield on to the battlefield at some point before the model's first movement phase.

I am not 100% sure what you are getting at but...

The rule cares about their previous movement phase... Not what happened before their previous movement phase.

So them being deployed does not count as them moving in their previous movement phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

 EagleArk wrote:

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Not quite... Since there was no movement phase, there is no possible way for them to have moved. Therefore they absolutely fulfill the condition of not moving in the previous movement phase, since there was not a movement phase for them to even attempt to move in...

They clearly did not move in a non-existent phase since the phase does not exist, no one did anything in that phase since it does not exist.

 EagleArk wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Did anyone read the actual doctrine from the Codex?

“Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase applies to the shooting phase. Overwatch does not happen in the shooting phase. Therefore, to answer the OPs original question - no, you don't get rerolls on Overwatch. The rules are specifically worded to indicate that firing Overwatch is not the same as shooting in the Shooting phase, so the wording matters.

As far as the greater question of "previous phases" goes, it would never affect this Doctrine. The Cadian player would have a movement phase 100% of the time in situations where this Doctrine applies.

Other rules where movement affects shooting work in a similar way. The Hellforged Scorpius, for instance: "On any turn in which the Scorpius does not move during the Movement phase, it may fire it's Scorpius multi-launcher twice in the following Shooting phase."

This means a) if I don't move b) I can fire twice in the Shooting phase. It does not mean c) I can also fire twice in the Charge phase of my opponent's turn during Overwatch.

I guess it just shows they aren't ready yet...so...yeah.
Done.

I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

Well I think the Fight Phase is a modifiers shooting phase as well, therefore it applies in the fight phase! /s

That's utterly ridiculous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
But, the criteria is not that you did not previous move, it is that you did not move in the previous movement phas. Again, explain how you can prove it about something that does not exist. If there is no movement phase, there is no "during" that you did not move in, therefore you do not get the bonus.

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.


The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

Not at all. You have offered absolutely no proof at all that, just an illogical statement that is false in the face of it. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If there is no previous movement phase, there is not a phase for you to determine whether or not you moved. Your assertion that you couldn't possibly have moved is missing the forest for the trees; you are given a specific defined phase during which you cannot have moved in order to get the bonus; if that previous phase does not exist, then you can't claim anything that depends upon something happening or not happening in that phase, because that phase does not exist That is how the RAW works. You don't get to make assumptions about whether something happened or didn't happen in a phase that does not exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Did anyone read the actual doctrine from the Codex?

“Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

We're not just dealing with that one doctrine now. As was pointed out, Grim Resolve for Dark Angels also has something similar; but a little different. That had been posted here, and was a more general statement for getting to reroll 1's if you didn't move in your previous movement phase, but was not limited to the shooting phase. If somehow an opponent had first turn and could declare a charge on a DA army, then they would get to fire Overwatch before the DA army had a previous movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Not quite... Since there was no movement phase, there is no possible way for them to have moved. Therefore they absolutely fulfill the condition of not moving in the previous movement phase, since there was not a movement phase for them to even attempt to move in...

They clearly did not move in a non-existent phase since the phase does not exist, no one did anything in that phase since it does not exist.

Nope, they don't fulfill it because there was no previous movement phase. You can not show that they did or did not do anything because that phase is non-existant. You have to show that they did not move during the previous movement phase, but there is no during that you can point back to for them to not have moved. Your sophistry ignores that you have to have had a previous movement phase to start with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

It applies for the Dark Angels since Grim Resolve specifically says that the rerolls for shooting include Overwatch. The Doctrine specifies the Shooting phase; it does not have a statement for including Overwatch the way the DA have, nor is it a more general statement of just applying to shooting (instead of saying specifically in the shooting phase).

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

No, you are wrong. Read the core rules. Overwatch is not a modified shooting phase. There is no such thing. Overwatch is happening in the opponents charge phase. Cadians only re-roll 1s in their shooting phase.

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

"Couldn't move because there was no movement phase" =/= "Didn't move in the previous movement phase".
Period.

Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

Actually the language is quite clear. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If you haven't had a previous movement phase, there is no phase during which you can determine whether or not they moved. As there is no previous movement phase, you can't claim the bonus. You can't legitimately parse it to ignore the fact that it states that you have to have had a previous movement phase to determine that it did or did not move in.

Again, any interpretation of the Cadian Doctrine that includes Overwatch is incorrect.

BRB, Charge Phase, Point 3: Overwatch

"Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker. A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several times a turn, thought it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attach (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's Ballistic Skill or any modifiers."

This is saying a) Overwatch (with a capital letter, meaning a proper noun) is separate from Shooting, b) Overwatch is done during the Charge phase, and c) Overwatch follows the normal rules (meaning, this is not shooting "as if" it was the Shooting phase.)

The Cadian Doctrine reads as such:

"Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

"Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase" means Shooting phase only. It does not mean Charge phase. It does not mean hit rolls in Overwatch, it means hit rolls in Shooting.

Any other interpretation is incorrect. Any opponent rerolling for this Doctrine in Overwatch is either misinformed or cheating.

With regards to Grim Resolve, that's a separate issue. It specifically calls out Overwatch. I would argue the fact the unit did not move in it's prior Movement phase does not apply because there was no prior movement phase. But that's not the question the OP was asking.

A normal shooting attack for a Cadian unit that didn't move included rerolling ones, and should occur during overwatch.

Riggs wrote:
A normal shooting attack for a Cadian unit that didn't move included rerolling ones, and should occur during overwatch.

The Cadian doctrine only applies in the shooting phase, it says so on it; it does not apply during the charge phase, and thus not to overwatch shots.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Again, any interpretation of the Cadian Doctrine that includes Overwatch is incorrect.

BRB, Charge Phase, Point 3: Overwatch

"Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker. A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several times a turn, thought it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attach (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's Ballistic Skill or any modifiers."

This is saying a) Overwatch (with a capital letter, meaning a proper noun) is separate from Shooting, b) Overwatch is done during the Charge phase, and c) Overwatch follows the normal rules (meaning, this is not shooting "as if" it was the Shooting phase.)

The Cadian Doctrine reads as such:

"Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

"Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase" means Shooting phase only. It does not mean Charge phase. It does not mean hit rolls in Overwatch, it means hit rolls in Shooting.

Any other interpretation is incorrect. Any opponent rerolling for this Doctrine in Overwatch is either misinformed or cheating.

With regards to Grim Resolve, that's a separate issue. It specifically calls out Overwatch. I would argue the fact the unit did not move in it's prior Movement phase does not apply because there was no prior movement phase. But that's not the question the OP was asking.

He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

 doctortom wrote:
He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

I've been following and there's been a little bit of waffling.

Hoping this does not turn into a rehash of all the Grim Resolve stuff. The Cadian Doctrine is much more cut and dry, it does not apply to Overwatch.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

I've been following and there's been a little bit of waffling.

Hoping this does not turn into a rehash of all the Grim Resolve stuff. The Cadian Doctrine is much more cut and dry, it does not apply to Overwatch.

There is no waffling.

"couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" =/= "didn't move during the previous movement phase"

If there was no previous movement phase to not move in, you have not "not moved during the previous movement phase". The RAW is clear cut - you need to have "not moved during the previous movement phase."

"Couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" is the same thing as "not moved" is the basis in which the RAI is being contested upon. You cannot claim RAW with RAI interpretation.

 skchsan wrote:
...

"couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" =/= "didn't move during the previous movement phase"...

You have this entirely incorrect.

The two are equal, but you should have wrote it like this: ["didn't move because there was no previous movement phase to move in" = "didn't move during the previous movement phase"]

Why are you still discussing this?

The OP has been unquestionably answered with a simple post of the Cadian doctrine.

If you want to discuss/argue a new point around hypothetical movement in a phase (or not), make a new thread.

Mods is it not time to close this?

To be fair, my post is actually about preceding movement phase, the Cadian doctrine appears to be a bad example as the consensus is they can't reroll ones anyways, but the original question still stands, regardless of a poor original example

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are you still discussing this?

The OP has been unquestionably answered with a simple post of the Cadian doctrine.

If you want to discuss/argue a new point around hypothetical movement in a phase (or not), make a new thread.

Mods is it not time to close this?

Dark Angels Grim Resolve came up during the discussion, and is still an issue, so we might as well let that continue here.

 doctortom wrote:

Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

Actually the language is quite clear. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If you haven't had a previous movement phase, there is no phase during which you can determine whether or not they moved. As there is no previous movement phase, you can't claim the bonus. You can't legitimately parse it to ignore the fact that it states that you have to have had a previous movement phase to determine that it did or did not move in.

Yes, I can. Like this:

NOT(Moved in its previous movement phase)

If you haven't had a previous movement phase, have you moved in the previous movement phase? No. So the phrase in the parenthesis evaluates FALES, then the negation turns it to TRUE so the condition of the rule is met and the unit gets a re-roll.

(Disclaimer - this is only one way to parse it, not the only way. Which is why my position is it is ambiguous rather than it being allowed)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Not quite... Since there was no movement phase, there is no possible way for them to have moved. Therefore they absolutely fulfill the condition of not moving in the previous movement phase, since there was not a movement phase for them to even attempt to move in...

They clearly did not move in a non-existent phase since the phase does not exist, no one did anything in that phase since it does not exist.

I'm sorry, but I feel this is just as valid as me arguing you wouldn't get the bonus because the previous Movement Phase (in the last Battle Round of our previous game), x unit may have moved.

HIWPI? No phase to "not act" in? No bonus. Also, GW should implement a USR that states EVERY model counts as moving in the first battle round of a game. You've mustered to the pitch, right? Only gunline "heroes" like myself could reasonably be upset at such a rule, I think. Though I could be tunnel-visioning here and not considering certain mechanics.