Hello! I didn't have any issues with this before now, as I've always played movement as when a model in a unit moves, the whole unit is considered to have moved. My reasoning comes from one of the first paragraphs in the basic rule book describing a turn. It states the following:

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models." p.176 BRB

I see this to following the same rules as if a model advances in a unit, the whole unit advances and if a single model has to fall back, the whole unit is considered to have fallen back.

The confusion comes from the fact that the shooting phase only references models individually, and the movement phase also only references models (as far as restrictions go) when directing you to do your basic move.

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

The implication of the movement phase instructions, as written, is that it does not ever actually restrict you from moving model A in unit 1, then model X Y Z in unit 2 then going back to move model B in unit 1 again. Since coherency would be checked when you finish any sort of move, you would then check coherency only when either of the two following conditions were met:
1. All models in a unit are moved.
2. You move less than all models and check coherency at the end of movement phase step, at the same time as deep striking occurs.

Example of how I have been playing: I have 5 Tac marines, 1 with a heavy weapon. I move a bolter carrying Tac marine onto and objective but keep the rest still (cohesion maintained). The heavy weapon gets -1 to hit since his "unit" has moved.

Rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do. Where do the rules allow you to move a part of one unit, then a part of another unit and then go back and move the rest of the first unit?

Penalties based on movement is done on model by model basis. If you move your unit of tac marines, you can elect not to move the model with heavy weapon and it does not suffer -1 hit penalty .
However, do note advance is declared on a unit basis, so if you elected to advance as part of your move, the model with heavy weapon will not be able to shoot even if it did not move.

“Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish.”

I fail to see how that’s unclear. It cannot be interpreted as allowing half a unit, do another, come back to the first. That’s just an entirely incorrect read of the rules.

Pieceocake wrote:


"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

The implication of the movement phase instructions, as written, is that it does not ever actually restrict you from moving model A in unit 1, then model X Y Z in unit 2 then going back to move model B in unit 1 again.

The rule you quoted from p117 says otherwise. You are required to pick a unit then move all the models you want to, before picking another unit.

As for the movement penalties, these are assessed on a model-by-model basis. The -1 to hit penalty for firing a heavy weapon, for example, only checks whether the model has moved, bot the unit.

Ghaz wrote:Rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do. Where do the rules allow you to move a part of one unit, then a part of another unit and then go back and move the rest of the first unit?

Slipspace wrote:As for the movement penalties, these are assessed on a model-by-model basis. The -1 to hit penalty for firing a heavy weapon, for example, only checks whether the model has moved, bot the unit.

These answers are both correct. You can't go back to move a unit once it has moved, and penalties for moving are on a model by model basis now.

So to recap the crux of this:
Units are picked to begin movement, which is then enacted on a model to model basis. Once you move onto a different unit, any models that didn't move in the original unit "lost their chance" to move as you are not allowed to pick a unit to move that already moved, even if some models in that unit didn't.
The "unit" is considered to have moved for the purposes of being an eligible unit to pick further in the same phase.

-

Huh. So nobody addressed my original quote
"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models." p.176 BRB

This part here is what makes the ruling obvious to me. I've only played 8th edition, so I have no knowledge of prior edition rules. Is the model by model -1 to hit penalty an artifact of older editions?

I know shooting says Model by Model (it has to due to units being able to take a range of weapons) but the fact the the first paragraph of rules states that models MOVE and FIGHT in UNITS seems clear that all models in a unit are considered to have moved if one model in a unit moves. The example is that a model 6" away from an enemy can still be considered to be fighting if another model from his unit is within 1" of an enemy model. The fact that this sentence under the UNITS heading says FIGHTING and MOVING are the same, i always took it as moving causes the whole unit to move. Shooting MUST be done model by model, otherwise a heavy weapon would give -1 to the whole unit, etc. That's where the disconnect is.

Rules are permissive. They tell you what you can do. Where do the rules allow you to move a part of one unit, then a part of another unit and then go back and move the rest of the first unit?

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

This rule states that you pick another unit. The rule never restricts you from picking a unit twice, it only restricts you from moving an individual model twice. The reason it works as a Unit by Unit selection is by playing the way I do, where every model is considered to have moved, therefore picking a unit a second time is moot as the models have already moved and cannot move again.

Maybe there was an FAQ I missed, but I thought I dug through the commentary and FAQ's thoroughly...

Pieceocake wrote:
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

What you're suggesting is essentially the same thing as taking back a move in chess, as you are told to move all the units you want to move in a unit before selecting another unit to move with.

On your first point: The unit is considered to have already moved, but individual models in the unit may not have moved. When it comes to shooting, that is on a model by model basis, and you look at whether the specific model has moved.

As to the second point, the rule states that you pick another unit. The rule does not state that you can go back and pick a unit you had previously picked. You have no permission for that.

You're overthinking it. If any model in a unit moves, that unit has moved for the purposes of picking units to move in the movement phase only.

'Moving together as a unit' is referencing that they must remain in coherency, which is again described in its own separate section.

The -1 to hit on Heavy weapons comes from the Heavy weapon type rule (in the Shooting Phase section), and very specifically states that its restricted to that model and weapon only. And shooting is still done Unit by Unit, step 1 of the Shooting Phase.

Yes the rules are somewhat poorly written, and some do rely on a bit of foreknowledge of wargaming rules, and a bit on simple problem solving.

On your first point: The unit is considered to have already moved, but individual models in the unit may not have moved. When it comes to shooting, that is on a model by model basis, and you look at whether the specific model has moved.

As to the second point, the rule states that you pick another unit. The rule does not state that you can go back and pick a unit you had previously picked. You have no permission for that.

That is where we disagree. Another unit means that you can't pick a unit twice in a row. (why would you do that anyway?) but it specifically calls out that no model may be moved more than once a movement phase.

What you're suggesting is essentially the same thing as taking back a move in chess, as you are told to move all the units you want to move in a unit before selecting another unit to move with.

You are equating two things that are NOT the same. I am not suggesting you can go back to a unit and pick a model to move that has already moved. I'm saying you can move an UNMOVED model, because you have stated that the "Unit" hasn't considered to have moved (in order to have your heavy weapon fire without penalty).

I think you avoid this awkwardness by considering models in Units to all move together. it fixes these issues quite simply. (And is stated in the rules to work this way)

Pieceocake wrote:

On your first point: The unit is considered to have already moved, but individual models in the unit may not have moved. When it comes to shooting, that is on a model by model basis, and you look at whether the specific model has moved.

As to the second point, the rule states that you pick another unit. The rule does not state that you can go back and pick a unit you had previously picked. You have no permission for that.

That is where we disagree. Another unit means that you can't pick a unit twice in a row. (why would you do that anyway?) but it specifically calls out that no model may be moved more than once a movement phase.

What you're suggesting is essentially the same thing as taking back a move in chess, as you are told to move all the units you want to move in a unit before selecting another unit to move with.

You are equating two things that are NOT the same. I am not suggesting you can go back to a unit and pick a model to move that has already moved. I'm saying you can move an UNMOVED model, because you have stated that the "Unit" hasn't considered to have moved (in order to have your heavy weapon fire without penalty).

I think you avoid this awkwardness by considering models in Units to all move together. it fixes these issues quite simply. (And is stated in the rules to work this way)

You can only move models in a unit when you select a unit to move. In order for you to select a unit, you must move ALL the models you want to move in the unit you've selected BEFORE choosing to select another unit to move with. This is very clear.

Like above, you're over thinking the concept of models and units in this game. A unit is equivalent of a piece in chess, where models are the minuscule parts that make up the unit.

Going back to a unit whose's models' have been already moved to re-move the models you haven't moved is akin to changing your mind about how you moved your unit and going back to fix it. You have no permission to reposition your unit after you've finalized your move for the unit (by slecting another unit)

Like above, you're over thinking the concept of models and units in this game. A unit is equivalent of a piece in chess, where models are the minuscule parts that make up the unit.

Again, why do models NOT operate in units when they specifically do a basic move? Units Shoot altogether, they advance altogether, they charge altogether, they fall back altogether, yet even though the game states that units move together EXPLICITLY in the rules I am to believe that they don't move together because heavy weapons get a penalty to firing their weapon when they move? How does that even make sense?

I am treating each unit directly as a chess piece, where when the piece moves all models follow the rule that the unit has moved. Firing a heavy weapon doesn't appear to override this. The heavy weapon rule does not state that the model counts as not having moved when it's unit moves, as long as the model sits still.

Pieceocake wrote:

On your first point: The unit is considered to have already moved, but individual models in the unit may not have moved. When it comes to shooting, that is on a model by model basis, and you look at whether the specific model has moved.

As to the second point, the rule states that you pick another unit. The rule does not state that you can go back and pick a unit you had previously picked. You have no permission for that.

That is where we disagree. Another unit means that you can't pick a unit twice in a row. (why would you do that anyway?) but it specifically calls out that no model may be moved more than once a movement phase.

What you're suggesting is essentially the same thing as taking back a move in chess, as you are told to move all the units you want to move in a unit before selecting another unit to move with.

You are equating two things that are NOT the same. I am not suggesting you can go back to a unit and pick a model to move that has already moved. I'm saying you can move an UNMOVED model, because you have stated that the "Unit" hasn't considered to have moved (in order to have your heavy weapon fire without penalty).

I think you avoid this awkwardness by considering models in Units to all move together. it fixes these issues quite simply. (And is stated in the rules to work this way)

There is no way to make the words you and I both quoted mean what you want them to.

Might be worth accepting consensus... you asked a question and the answers are all in agreement.

Arguing that isn't even the main point, JohnnyHell, its just a logical issue with your side of the argument and why I interpret the rules differently. My main argument is that Moving is done on a unit by unit basis (the same as advancing and fighting etc).

Pieceocake wrote:

Like above, you're over thinking the concept of models and units in this game. A unit is equivalent of a piece in chess, where models are the minuscule parts that make up the unit.

Again, why do models NOT operate in units when they specifically do a basic move? Units Shoot altogether, they advance altogether, they charge altogether, they fall back altogether, yet even though the game states that units move together EXPLICITLY in the rules I am to believe that they don't move together because heavy weapons get a penalty to firing their weapon when they move? How does that even make sense?

I am treating each unit directly as a chess piece, where when the piece moves all models follow the rule that the unit has moved. Firing a heavy weapon doesn't appear to override this. The heavy weapon rule does not state that the model counts as not having moved when it's unit moves, as long as the model sits still.

Because the rules explicitly tell you this:

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

While it may not be as relevant with tac's 6" move, it does come into play when you have to sacrifice the total distance a unit can potentially move for the sake of maintaining coherency and leaving a model stationary, or, not moved for the purpose of firing a heavy weapon without penalty. It's an active decision making (one of the few remaining in the game actually) players need to make.

If we follow your general line of logic of units act on unit-by-unit basis, then a tac squad with HB and 4 boltguns can't shoot as a unit against a enemy that is 25" away since not all models in the unit are in range. You activiate per unit basis, but ensuing action/resolution within each phase is mostly done on model-by-model basis.

For example,
in shooting phase: tLOS and range is checked on a model by model basis.
in charge phase: success of a charge is determined if a single model can make it within 1" of enemy unit
in fight phase: eligibility to swing is checked on a model by model basis (1" of enemy model or 1" of friendly model that is within 1" of enmy model)

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB


While it may not be as relevant with tac's 6" move, it does come into play when you have to sacrifice the total distance a unit can potentially move for the sake of maintaining coherency and leaving a model stationary, or, not moved for the purpose of firing a heavy weapon without penalty. It's an active decision making (one of the few remaining in the game actually) players need to make.

If we follow your general line of logic of units act on unit-by-unit basis, then a tac squad with HB and 4 boltguns can't shoot as a unit against a enemy that is 25" away since not all models in the unit are in range. You activiate per unit basis, but ensuing action/resolution within each phase is mostly done on model-by-model basis.

Where do the rules mention that a model does not count as moving when the rest of the unit moves? I can quote the rule that states the opposite:

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models." p.176 BRB

Edit:

For example,
in shooting phase: tLOS and range is checked on a model by model basis.
in charge phase: success of a charge is determined if a single model can make it within 1" of enemy unit
in fight phase: range to swing is checked on a model by model basis (1" of enemy model or 1" of friendly model that is within 1" of enmy model)

Correct, because those are actions taken by the models. But these effects apply to the whole unit. Say there is a rhino with troops inside that is just out of range of your boltguns, but in range of your heavy weapon. You shoot with the unit to kill the rhino and its contents disgorge into range of your boltguns. These boltguns did not fire, but count as having fired since their unit was selected and no eligible units were available. You cannot select them again. That is the same principle I am applying to the movement phase. If you move a model in a unit, the unit is considered to have moved. You have to make the tough choice to get the boltugns in range, or fire the heavy weapon more accurately.

Pieceocake wrote:

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB


While it may not be as relevant with tac's 6" move, it does come into play when you have to sacrifice the total distance a unit can potentially move for the sake of maintaining coherency and leaving a model stationary, or, not moved for the purpose of firing a heavy weapon without penalty. It's an active decision making (one of the few remaining in the game actually) players need to make.

If we follow your general line of logic of units act on unit-by-unit basis, then a tac squad with HB and 4 boltguns can't shoot as a unit against a enemy that is 25" away since not all models in the unit are in range. You activiate per unit basis, but ensuing action/resolution within each phase is mostly done on model-by-model basis.

Where do the rules mention that a model does not count as moving when the rest of the unit moves? I can quote the rule that states the opposite:

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models." p.176 BRB

And that quote means that models are activated on a unit basis, of which is comprised of models?

It appears under large, bold wording "UNITS". It goes on to explain what a unit is - unit is a group of models that act together and not as individual models unless specifically stated so.

And that quote means that models are activated on a unit basis, of which is comprised of models?

It appears under large, bold wording "UNITS". It goes on to explain what a unit is - unit is a group of models that act together and not as individual models unless specifically stated so.

Correct. Where does it state that models in a unit that has moved are not to be considered moving? It appears to state that the unit moves together if it moves, and the move phase allows you to keep models still if you think they are in an appropriate position rather than forcing you to move them at least a tiny bit.

Pieceocake wrote:

And that quote means that models are activated on a unit basis, of which is comprised of models?

It appears under large, bold wording "UNITS". It goes on to explain what a unit is - unit is a group of models that act together and not as individual models unless specifically stated so.

Correct. Where does it state that models in a unit that has moved are not to be considered moving? It appears to state that the unit moves together if it moves, and the move phase allows you to keep models still if you think they are in an appropriate position rather than forcing you to move them at least a tiny bit.

If you go on to read the rest of that excerpt, it explains to you why it is important the rules must establish models act in a group.
you are currently cherry picking words in a paragraph to make your argument.

Battleprimer pg 2:
Tools of War
In order to fight a battle,
you will require a tape
measure and some dice.

So as per rule, I only need a tape measure and some dice to play a game of warhammer 40k. As per rule, I don't need any miniatures depicting my army - infact, I don't need any sort of markers depicting the locations of my units at all! And by "some", for some people this will mean 4 dice, for some it'll mean 9 dice. Who knows?

Is this a legitimate question, or another one of those "look at this rule loophole I found, I'm so edgy" scenarios?

Might be worth accepting consensus... you asked a question and the answers are all in agreement.

So as per rule, I only need a tape measure and some dice to play a game of warhammer 40k. As per rule, I don't need any miniatures depicting my army - infact, I don't need any sort of markers depicting the locations of my units at all! And by "some", for some people this will mean 4 dice, for some it'll mean 9 dice. Who knows?

These types of responses are not helpful to the discussion.

If you go on to read the rest of that excerpt, it explains to you why it is important the rules must establish models act in a group.
you are currently cherry picking words in a paragraph to make your argument.

I picked the relevant part of the paragraph out. The rules explicitly state that units move and fight as one. There are implications for coherency that it describes as well, but that is more of an aside than part of the argument.

What the "Move" action does, is ALLOW all models in a unit to move. In order to be allowed to move, you suffer the penalty of the "Move" action. Nowhere does it say models can have a different action than others in the unit. You must fire all models in a unit, you must advance all models in a unit, you must fight with all models in a unit, you must move with all models in a unit. You must charge with all models in a unit. Units take action together, stated at the very beginning of the rule set.The reason wargear is explicitly called out later is to ensure models react to their actions separately. If a unit moves, only the heavy weapons suffer. If the unit advances only the assault weapons fire. They are clarifications so that mixed units can be taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is this a legitimate question, or another one of those "look at this rule loophole I found, I'm so edgy" scenarios?

It is a legitimate question, and the opposite of a loophole(I think moving models in a unit but keep the heavy guy in the back still to avoid the -1 to hit is the loophole). I think people have been interpreting the rule wrong, probably based on other editions.

Your question is actually irrelevant to the issue of the -1 to hit. You need to read the shooting rules, and they refer specifically to the model, not to the unit.

Moving
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its
datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

It states when you select a unit to move with, the "Move" action is resolved on a model by model basis.

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.

The rules for firing heavy weapon cares not if the unit moved, but if the model moved.

Advancing
When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that
it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all
models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot
or charge later that turn.

Rules for advancing states units that advance are ineligible units to be selected for shooting or charging later that turn, not on model-by-model basis.

Your question is actually irrelevant to the issue of the -1 to hit. You need to read the shooting rules, and they refer specifically to the model, not to the unit.

So then I can advance a unit, but as long as I keep my rapid fire and heavy weapons still, they can continue to fire? What if I only move the rapid fire weapons up to their base move? If shooting rules override movement rules as a blanket scenario, then this is what happens.

These are rhetorical questions. ^

Why does a base move action act differently than EVERY other action when it appears that it should act the same way, as the rules are written?

Pieceocake wrote:

Your question is actually irrelevant to the issue of the -1 to hit. You need to read the shooting rules, and they refer specifically to the model, not to the unit.

So then I can advance a unit, but as long as I keep my rapid fire and heavy weapons still, they can continue to fire? What if I only move the rapid fire weapons up to their base move? If shooting rules override movement rules as a blanket scenario, then this is what happens.

These are rhetorical questions. ^

Why does a base move action act differently than EVERY other action when it appears that it should act the same way, as the rules are written?

You seem to not understand the concept of rules treating a unit and models as different things at different points of the rules.

I understand the concept BaconCatBug, I just don't see a rule that says "moving" does not apply to the unit.

Pieceocake wrote:

Your question is actually irrelevant to the issue of the -1 to hit. You need to read the shooting rules, and they refer specifically to the model, not to the unit.

So then I can advance a unit, but as long as I keep my rapid fire and heavy weapons still, they can continue to fire? What if I only move the rapid fire weapons up to their base move? If shooting rules override movement rules as a blanket scenario, then this is what happens.

These are rhetorical questions. ^

Why does a base move action act differently than EVERY other action when it appears that it should act the same way, as the rules are written?

Models move and take penalties on a 1:1 basis, but it's their UNIT that is considered to be selected to move (and thus cannot be selected again later) and is considered to have Advanced.
UNITs that have Advanced consider all models to have done so, even if they didn't.
If the unit didn't Advance, only the models that actually moved than potential penalties for doing so.

-

Pieceocake wrote:

Your question is actually irrelevant to the issue of the -1 to hit. You need to read the shooting rules, and they refer specifically to the model, not to the unit.

So then I can advance a unit, but as long as I keep my rapid fire and heavy weapons still, they can continue to fire? What if I only move the rapid fire weapons up to their base move? If shooting rules override movement rules as a blanket scenario, then this is what happens.

These are rhetorical questions. ^

Why does a base move action act differently than EVERY other action when it appears that it should act the same way, as the rules are written?

It depends on what they want to fire. They couldn't fire pistols or grenades (or rapid fire or heavy weapons). You can fire assault weapons due to language specifically for the assault weapons.

"A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn."

Declaring the advance puts the restriction above on the unit. The wording on assault weapons overrides this specifically for assault weapons, but not for any other weapons. (Though, as I'm sure BCB will point out, technically RAW breaks down because you don't have permission to select the unit that will be firing if it advanced, even though the models have permission to fire assault weapons. That's a different story, however...)

Maybe an example will help?

Unit 1 has 5 models. Models A, B, C, D, E.

Movement phase: Choose a unit to move. Unit 1 is chosen.
Unit 1 is moving. Now move each model on an individual basis.
Model A moves 2"
Model B moves 3"
Model C moves 1"
Model D does not move.
Model E does not move.

Unit 1 has completed it's move and may not be selected to move again. However, only 3 of 5 models actually moved.
If you choose to advance with Unit 1, all 5 models may move an additional D6.
If you do in fact advance, even if the individual models have not moved or advanced further, Unit 1 still counts has having advanced.
If Unit 1 did not advance, you may shoot.

Shooting Phase:
Unit 1 is chosen to shoot. Unit 1 did move, but shooting doesn't care about the Unit moving, it only cares about the models moving.
Model A moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model B moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model C moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model D did not move. It had no penalties to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model E did not move. It had no penalties to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.

This is how the rules are written.

 deviantduck wrote:
Maybe an example will help?

Unit 1 has 5 models. Models A, B, C, D, E.

Movement phase: Choose a unit to move. Unit 1 is chosen.
Unit 1 is moving. Now move each model on an individual basis.
Model A moves 2"
Model B moves 3"
Model C moves 1"
Model D does not move.
Model E does not move.

Unit 1 has completed it's move and may not be selected to move again. However, only 3 of 5 models actually moved.
If you choose to advance with Unit 1, all 5 models may move an additional D6.
If you do in fact advance, even if the individual models have not moved or advanced further, Unit 1 still counts has having advanced.
If Unit 1 did not advance, you may shoot.

Shooting Phase:
Unit 1 is chosen to shoot. Unit 1 did move, but shooting doesn't care about the Unit moving, it only cares about the models moving.
Model A moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model B moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model C moved. It gets a -1 to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model D did not move. It had no penalties to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.
Model E did not move. It had no penalties to hit with its heavy weapon when firing.

This is how the rules are written.

What the OP is claiming is that if a unit has moved, then it's models have moved.

Pieceocake wrote:
I understand the concept BaconCatBug, I just don't see a rule that says "moving" does not apply to the unit.

I don't see a rule that says I can't 'throw an Egg and Cress Sandwich at a statue of Issac Newton to automatically pass a morale test' either. "It doesn't say it doesn't apply" is not an argument. You have to show that it DOES apply. The rule for Moving and Firing Heavy weapons only cares if the model itself firing moves, not any other models in its unit.

I don't see a rule that says I can't 'throw an Egg and Cress Sandwich at a statue of Issac Newton to automatically pass a morale test' either. "It doesn't say it doesn't apply" is not an argument. You have to show that it DOES apply. The rule for Moving and Firing Heavy weapons only cares if the model itself firing moves, not any other models in its unit.

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models." p.176 BRB

This statement in the rule book says that models move in units, and units are made up of one or more models. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I'm not making gak up BCB, look at the p. 176 of the basic rule book.

What you all have been saying is that for some reason Moving a unit ignores this statement. There is no statement that says "Models in a unit that you have chosen to move, but remain stationary, do not count as having been moved." It just specifies that when you move a unit, you don't have to actually move every model.

The above quote though still says that models MOVE ... in units (and then follows by defining what a unit is). Meaning that a unit move applies to the whole unit, not to each model.
What's better is that this method is actually consistent with EVERY other action a unit can take. Again, Units advance together, fall back together, fight together, charge together, consolidate together, shoot together, pile in together.

Yes, they move and fight in units. The rules then go on to specify how they move and fight in units (i.e. pick a unit to move, then individual models in the unit move or don't). Nothing in that original sentence says that all models move if any model in the unit moves, they say they move "in units". They're still in units, they move individually within the unit when the unit is selected to move.

Try reading page 6 of the Battle Primer, OP. BRB 180. That’s where it tells you it’s model by model.

It's too bad their other rules are so broken. Since you have to fill a gap to allow models to advance and shoot, it hurts my argument.

Here are the conditions that make these combinations of rules awkward and unplayable:
When a unit advances, even though it never mentions models specifically being affected by this "Advance action" only in that their maximum move increases for the phase. The rule calls out that the UNIT is considered to advance, not any model.

"When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn"

Now this unfortunately breaks the game and is ignored, but if you play the model by model shooting rules and IGNORE the "advancing effecting a unit" issue, you can select a unit that has a mix of assault weapons and heavy weapons to shoot. If the heavy weapons stood still, according to your logic of rules, they can fire with no penalty. They may have an extended move characteristic, but the heavy weapon models did not actually move.

I'm not trying to "gotcha" on rules. GW needing a rewrite is something we can ALL agree on. i'm just trying to make sense of these weird differences in how people play. It appears that everyone wants to move models in units attached to heavy weapons and keep their heavy accuracy though.

The -1 for moving or not moving is a specific property for Heavy Weapons, which specifies models and not units. For movement, you are given the option of models moving or not moving when the unit is considered to move. This means you go to the individual models to determine whether they moved or not.

If you advance, there is no similar provision for you to be able to consider whether individual models advanced.or not. This means that all models are considered to have advanced since you do not have the provision for advancing only individual models. This means the restrictions from advancing would apply to all models .

The -1 for moving or not moving is a specific property for Heavy Weapons, which specifies models and not units. For movement, you are given the option of models moving or not moving when the unit is considered to move. This means you go to the individual models to determine whether they moved or not.

If you advance, there is no similar provision for you to be able to consider whether individual models advanced.or not. This means that all models are considered to have advanced since you do not have the provision for advancing only individual models. This means the restrictions from advancing would apply to all models .

This is where we differ in opinion. The heavy weapon being on a model by model basis is a necessity for mixed units to work, other wise everyone would be -1 to hit if any model with a heavy weapon in the unit moved. That's just crazy.

For your second point - you are given options to move when you advance as well. The move characteristic is added to all models, but the restriction to firing is ONLY on the unit, not any model. Most people ignore (rightly so) that because it would prevent assault weapons from working as is obviously intended.

My question is why is the advancing of a unit treated differently than the moving of a unit? In the rule book there are 2 different statements that say that both scenarios should be treated the same:

"Models move and fight in units, made
up of one or more models. A unit must
be set up and finish any sort of move
as a group, with every model within 2"
horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least
one other model from their unit: this is
called unit coherency. If anything causes
a unit to become split up during a battle,
it must re-establish its unit coherency the
next time it moves."

"When you pick a unit to move in the
Movement phase, you can declare that
it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the
result to the Move characteristics of all
models in the unit for that Movement
phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot
or charge later that turn."

One says units move together, the other says a unit advances together. Neither mention things on a model by model basis. Hell the only reason I think they mention model by model is because it's not feasible to pick up an entire unit and move it at the same time.
What really gets me here is that after advancing you just go back to the Moving step to complete your move. You can choose any models to move or not after adding the additional advance number to their move.

Pieceocake wrote:

The -1 for moving or not moving is a specific property for Heavy Weapons, which specifies models and not units. For movement, you are given the option of models moving or not moving when the unit is considered to move. This means you go to the individual models to determine whether they moved or not.

If you advance, there is no similar provision for you to be able to consider whether individual models advanced.or not. This means that all models are considered to have advanced since you do not have the provision for advancing only individual models. This means the restrictions from advancing would apply to all models .

This is where we differ in opinion. The heavy weapon being on a model by model basis is a necessity for mixed units to work, other wise everyone would be -1 to hit if any model with a heavy weapon in the unit moved. That's just crazy.

For your second point - you are given options to move when you advance as well. The move characteristic is added to all models, but the restriction to firing is ONLY on the unit, not any model. Most people ignore (rightly so) that because it would prevent assault weapons from working as is obviously intended.

My question is why is the advancing of a unit treated differently than the moving of a unit? In the rule book there are 2 different statements that say that both scenarios should be treated the same:

"Models move and fight in units, made
up of one or more models. A unit must
be set up and finish any sort of move
as a group, with every model within 2"
horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least
one other model from their unit: this is
called unit coherency. If anything causes
a unit to become split up during a battle,
it must re-establish its unit coherency the
next time it moves."

"When you pick a unit to move in the
Movement phase, you can declare that
it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the
result to the Move characteristics of all
models in the unit for that Movement
phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot
or charge later that turn."

One says units move together, the other says a unit advances together. Neither mention things on a model by model basis. Hell the only reason I think they mention model by model is because it's not feasible to pick up an entire unit and move it at the same time.
What really gets me here is that after advancing you just go back to the Moving step to complete your move. You can choose any models to move or not after adding the additional advance number to their move.

True. It never once mentions moving an individual model... except for this whole part where it very clearly describes how you move individual models that belong to a unit that has been chosen to move.

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you've moved all the models you want to. You can then pick another unit to move, until you have moved as many of your units as you wish. No model can be moved more than once in each movement phase" p.177 BRB

But other than that clearly expressed section of the rules that explains exactly what everyone has been telling you, you're right.

Okay, so ignore the entire advancing example, deviantduck. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Pieceocake wrote:

The -1 for moving or not moving is a specific property for Heavy Weapons, which specifies models and not units. For movement, you are given the option of models moving or not moving when the unit is considered to move. This means you go to the individual models to determine whether they moved or not.

If you advance, there is no similar provision for you to be able to consider whether individual models advanced.or not. This means that all models are considered to have advanced since you do not have the provision for advancing only individual models. This means the restrictions from advancing would apply to all models .

This is where we differ in opinion. The heavy weapon being on a model by model basis is a necessity for mixed units to work, other wise everyone would be -1 to hit if any model with a heavy weapon in the unit moved. That's just crazy.

You are making assumptions on RAI here, not necessarily unwarranted, but still RAI. The weapon says that if the model moved it gets a -1. If you don't move the model, the model didn't move, so it doesn't get the -1.

Pieceocake wrote:
For your second point - you are given options to move when you advance as well. The move characteristic is added to all models, but the restriction to firing is ONLY on the unit, not any model. Most people ignore (rightly so) that because it would prevent assault weapons from working as is obviously intended.

You miss the point. Whether or not you move, you still advance. You don't have the option to turn off the advance part by not moving; you still get the bonus to potential movement of the model whether or not you choose to exercise the option. It states "Units that advance", not "units that move", There's no opt-out for a single model from advancing, so the penalties from advancing still apply. Whether or not you move, if the unit advanced you can not shoot or charge. You have the explicit exception of models with assault weapons being able to fire, but their exception would not extend to models without assault weapons in the unit.

Pieceocake wrote:
For your second point - you are given options to move when you advance as well. The move characteristic is added to all models, but the restriction to firing is ONLY on the unit, not any model. Most people ignore (rightly so) that because it would prevent assault weapons from working as is obviously intended.


You miss the point. Whether or not you move, you still advance. You don't have the option to turn off the advance part by not moving; you still get the bonus to potential movement of the model whether or not you choose to exercise the option. It states "Units that advance", not "units that move", There's no opt-out for a single model from advancing, so the penalties from advancing still apply. Whether or not you move, if the unit advanced you can not shoot or charge. You have the explicit exception of models with assault weapons being able to fire, but their exception would not extend to models without assault weapons in the unit.

You aren't "turning off the advance". A heavy weapon never asks if you advance or otherwise. It specifically just asks if your model has moved. If you take it at face value, the model can shoot with no penalty if its unit advanced but it stood still. The advancing applies ONLY to the unit. [I'm not arguing that this SHOULD be the case, just the way everyone's logic follows down the chain if you treat every scenario in the same manner]

This is why I think moving applies also to the unit. If you look at falling back, the same language is used. Every other step is done by units. I can quote every instance in the entire battle primer if you'd like.

There's no opt-out for a single model from advancing

I would like to emphasize this point - I totally agree. There is NEVER a way for a single model in a unit to opt out of ANY unit action. Special weapons allow you to treat actions differently, but when a unit moves heavy gets a penalty. its the same thing as a unit advancing and assault weapons getting a benefit.

Pieceocake wrote:
I'm not arguing that this SHOULD be the case, just the way everyone's logic follows down the chain if you treat every scenario in the same manner

The thing about 40k ruleset is that its written very inconsistently and considers everything on a case-by-case scenario.

1. Not every phase has same number of steps to resolve it, and at each phase, it can ask you to check at model level or unit level.
2. The "Units" heading you keep referring to is a description/definition of what comprises of a "Unit". How movement, or "Move", is defined and governed, can be found elsewhere under the heading "Movement Phase".
3. You insist our points are irrelevant to the discussion by referring to a segment of a paragraph - see my example to see what happens when you take a sentence out of context and read it at it's own facevalue only.

Pieceocake wrote:
There is NEVER a way for a single model in a unit to opt out of ANY unit action. Special weapons allow you to treat actions differently, but when a unit moves heavy gets a penalty. its the same thing as a unit advancing and assault weapons getting a benefit.

Rules for heavy weapon clearly states you check it at model level.

As Dr. Tom points out, this is a RAI argument on the wording/order of appearance on the battle primer.

you can house rule it as you see fit, but this is how it works RAW.

Pieceocake wrote:

Pieceocake wrote:
For your second point - you are given options to move when you advance as well. The move characteristic is added to all models, but the restriction to firing is ONLY on the unit, not any model. Most people ignore (rightly so) that because it would prevent assault weapons from working as is obviously intended.


You miss the point. Whether or not you move, you still advance. You don't have the option to turn off the advance part by not moving; you still get the bonus to potential movement of the model whether or not you choose to exercise the option. It states "Units that advance", not "units that move", There's no opt-out for a single model from advancing, so the penalties from advancing still apply. Whether or not you move, if the unit advanced you can not shoot or charge. You have the explicit exception of models with assault weapons being able to fire, but their exception would not extend to models without assault weapons in the unit.

You aren't "turning off the advance". A heavy weapon never asks if you advance or otherwise.

Because as a unit you can't fire if you advanced. Assault weapons in specific deal with that for individual models,

Pieceocake wrote:
It specifically just asks if your model has moved. If you take it at face value, the model can shoot with no penalty if its unit advanced but it stood still.

Wrong. The penalty of not shooting is there whether or not you move. Now, on a model by model basis you can go through and select the ones with assault weapons because those ones get to specifically ignore the ban.

Pieceocake wrote:
The advancing applies ONLY to the unit. [I'm not arguing that this SHOULD be the case, just the way everyone's logic follows down the chain if you treat every scenario in the same manner]

Wrong. You have no model by model mention for advancing. As I explained, whether or not you choose to move, you have advanced. When the unit advances, when you roll a die to determine the extra amount of movement is possible, that applies to all models in the unit. Here's the quote -

"Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement Phase." There's no opt out, it is applied to all models. Choosing not to move does not prevent that die from being added to the movement stat for how much you could potentially move. You could declare you are advancing, have everybody move only 1", or for that matter stand still, and all the models would still have advanced because that number was added to the movement characteristic. Since each model got the extra movement potential, each model also gets the restriction of not being able to shoot or charge.

Assault weapons - "A model with an Assault weapon can fire it even if it Advanced earlier that turn." You can see that that gets you back to looking at whether models advanced. A model with a Heavy weapon that Advanced doesn't get that permission to shoot that the Assault weapon gives. This means a model with a Heavy weapon doesn't get to fire it if the model Advanced. And, as I showed above, if the unit Advanced all the models in it Advanced.

The description of units on p2 of the Battle Primer describes the concept of unit coherency and how models are organised on the battlefield. Once that concept is described it can be used, or modified, by later rules.

The rules for moving clearly show that movement is done on a model-by-model basis within a unit. The rules for Units on p2 still apply, specifically the coherency rules. The basic movement rules are an example of model-by-model rules. They require you to pick a unit, but the rules under the heading "Moving" clearly specify they are applied at the model level. The Advancing rules are an example of a rule that affects an entire unit. There is no contradiction here. Rules can be applied to different game elements.

The same applies to shooting. Heavy weapons only care about the model, not the unit. This is specified very clearly. In order for it to work how the OP is asserting the rule would have to say something like "if a unit has moved, models armed with Heavy weapons suffer a -1 to hit penalty". Incidentally, this is how the rules used to work, and how they used to be worded in previous editions. For further clarification look at the rules for Grenades. These specifically deal with units, not models.

The problem seems to be that the OP has failed to understand the rules work perfectly well dealing with models or units as the rules require. There is no contradiction involved.

I have not failed to understand anything. I just find it curious that when everyone selects units to move, they instead drill down to the model level instead of applying the consistent UNIT selection that applies to EVERY other choice in the game. I understand how everyone plays the game currently, I just think its wrong. There is a SINGLE action that is taken on a model by model basis - how does that seem like a correct interpretation of the rules?

Also, its hilarious that a special weapon rule is dictating how people play a movement rule.

Pieceocake wrote:
I have not failed to understand anything. I just find it curious that when everyone selects units to move, they instead drill down to the model level instead of applying the consistent UNIT selection that applies to EVERY other choice in the game. I understand how everyone plays the game currently, I just think its wrong. There is a SINGLE action that is taken on a model by model basis - how does that seem like a correct interpretation of the rules?

Also, its hilarious that a special weapon rule is dictating how people play a movement rule.

Shooting is also done model-by-model. As is close combat. Plenty of things in the game are done on a model-by-model basis, not unit-by-unit. In fact, pretty much every major rule in the game is consistent with the movement rules, just not in the way you think. In both shooting and close combat we select a unit to act, but the actions are resolved model-by-model (albeit we often roll all the dice together for the sake of convenience). A weapon rule isn't dictating a movement rule at all. You're the only one here who thinks that. The concept is really, really simple: it is entirely logical and consistent to have a situation where a unit can be said to have moved but a model within that unit can simultaneously be said to have not moved. That's not contradictory and that seems to be the problem you're having when it comes to understanding the rule.

Shooting is also done model-by-model. As is close combat. Plenty of things in the game are done on a model-by-model basis, not unit-by-unit. In fact, pretty much every major rule in the game is consistent with the movement rules, just not in the way you think. In both shooting and close combat we select a unit to act, but the actions are resolved model-by-model (albeit we often roll all the dice together for the sake of convenience). A weapon rule isn't dictating a movement rule at all. You're the only one here who thinks that. The concept is really, really simple: it is entirely logical and consistent to have a situation where a unit can be said to have moved but a model within that unit can simultaneously be said to have not moved. That's not contradictory and that seems to be the problem you're having when it comes to understanding the rule.

This is where you are just wrong. I'm talking about UNIT actions. Moving is clearly a unit action. You NEVER select models to move by themselves. You select a unit and then choose to move the unit, which allows you to adjust each model up to its given move distance with the restriction of staying in coherency. This follows with the fact that you CANNOT select a UNIT to move again if ANY of the models in the unit have moved.

While different weapons shoot at different ranges and account for moving/advancing/LOS/S/AP/D/etc differently, the act of SHOOTING is a UNIT action. You CANNOT select a UNIT to shoot again after even one model has shot, and you've moved to the next unit.

While you may want to keep a unit daisy chained back to a buffing character and as such forfeit the full charge move of several models, even the model farthest from the fight has charged. There are NO models in a charging unit that are considered to have NOT charged.

While you may be attempting to wrap a guard squad with a death company squad and have only put 2 models within 1" of an enemy model or 1" of a model within 1", the other 8 are still considered to have FOUGHT when the UNIT is selected to FIGHT. No one can opt out of the action and no one can be selected again, because the UNIT has already fought.

Outside of the way everyone seems to see moving, tell me ONE instance where a single model can be selected for some action that is completely separate from its UNIT action. Or even show me an action a unit can take where models can "Opt out" and ignore the penalties of.

Stratagems like Hellfire round even make you select the UNIT and then activate the stratagem. The model never shoots outside of the group action to shoot.

You're only looking at it from the top level. Moving and shooting is initially selected by unit, but then drills down to model by model after said unit is chosen.

I't s like saying you read a book only by chapters and not paragraph by paragraph. When actually the rules for reading the book are Choose Chapter 1. Then read paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3, then choose Chapter 2...

You're only looking at it from the top level. Moving and shooting is initially selected by unit, but then drills down to model by model after said unit is chosen.

I't s like saying you read a book only by chapters and not paragraph by paragraph. When actually the rules for reading the book are Choose Chapter 1. Then read paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3, then choose Chapter 2...

I'm looking at the general actions at the top level because they are top level actions... What I'm saying is that you guys are calling the Move Chapter Heading, Paragraph 1, instead of the Move action being a Chapter Heading.

H=Move
P1=Select Unit to move
P2=Select model, move up to Move distance
P3=Repeat until move as many models as desired
P4=Repeat with UNITS that HAVE NOT Moved until complete

H=Shoot
P1=Select Unit to Shoot
P2=Select model, Shoot up to gun distance
P3=Repeat until you Shoot as many models as desired/possible
P4=Repeat with UNITS that HAVE NOT Shot until complete

H=Charge
P1=Select Unit to Charge
P2=Select model, move up to Charge distance
P3=Repeat until move as many models as desired
P4=Repeat with UNITS that HAVE NOT Charged until complete

I don't know how many ways I need to organize the information for you guys to catch on to the pattern.

Can you answer this question:

If a model armed with a Heavy weapon doesn't move, but other models in its unit do, does the Heavy weapon model get -1 to hit? If so, why does the shooting section specifically mention models when talking about Heavy weapons? According to you that distinction would be meaningless.

I can answer your question:

A Unit is selected to have moved in the movement phase. 4 bolter models move and a heavy weapon remains stationary. The unit is designated as "Moved" and can no longer be selected in this phase.

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they have no benefit or penalty for the Unit moving.

The heavy weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that moved causes a -1 to hit penalty.

If the whole unit does not move, the heavy weapon receives no penalty.

Similar scenario:
Choose to advance with 4 bolters and 1 assault weapon

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they cannot override the "if a unit advances, it cannot shoot" restriction.

The assault weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that advanced causes a -1 to hit penalty, but it can still shoot.

The reason to mention the special rules is so that you can make the choice up front to move the unit to get in rapid fire range, at the expense of the heavy weapon or sit still to fire the heavy more accurately. At that moment, which action is more valuable?

Pieceocake wrote:
I can answer your question:

A Unit is selected to have moved in the movement phase. 4 bolter models move and a heavy weapon remains stationary. The unit is designated as "Moved" and can no longer be selected in this phase.

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they have no benefit or penalty for the Unit moving.

The heavy weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that moved causes a -1 to hit penalty.

You're wrong. I really can't say it any other way, though myself and others have tried. The rules for Heavy weapons apply to models, not units. I have a unit of 5 Marines. 1 has a Lascannon. In the Movement phase I move 4 of them, but not the one with the Lascannon. In the shooting phase I check to see if the model with the Heavy weapon has moved. It has not. It doesn't get the -1 to hit. The rule for Heavy weapons specifies models. It's there in black and white. The concept of a model having moved if it's unit has is simply not present in the rules. This idea that the unit is designated as having "Moved", and then having that status apply to all the models in the unit is something you've come up with yourself.

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post: it is 100% possible to have a situation where a unit is considered to have moved but the individual models within the unit have not. That's completely consistent with the way the rules are written. It's how the rules work.

Pieceocake wrote:
A Unit is selected to have moved in the movement phase. 4 bolter models move and a heavy weapon remains stationary. The unit is designated as "Moved" and can no longer be selected in this phase.

False. There is no such thing as being designated to have "Moved". Lack of such designation does not result in being able to selected to move again.

Pieceocake wrote:
In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they have no benefit or penalty for the Unit moving.
The heavy weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that moved causes a -1 to hit penalty.

False. Heavy weapon checks if the model has moved.

It doesn't matter if you think the rule should be something else. RAW is RAW. What you're constant arguing for is "I think the rules should be like this, so this is HIWPI."

This is so stupid, how are people arguing over the handful of rules in 40k that are actually written very clearly and have nothing to confuse.

You can't attribute how 1 rule works to how a different rule works. Rules function independently unless they explicitly override other rules.

If you declare a unit advancing that unit cannot shoot unless you have another rule that explicitly allows you to override this prohibition, no arguments, no buts. Assault weapons explicitly say you can fire them even though you declared a unit will advance, with a -1 penalty.

Heavy weapons say they take a -1 penalty to hit if the model carrying them moved.

These rules are completely independent and have nothing at all to do with each other. There's no interaction, there's no way to rules lawyer around rules this clearly written. If you had some rule that would explicitly allow you to shoot a heavy weapon even though you advanced, the heavy weapon rule would still apply. If that model moved you take a -1 penalty. That's why most units with an ability like that say something like "This model may shoot after moving and/or advancing as if it were stationary" to allow you to avoid the -1 from the heavy weapon rule.

Someone in the thread said "penalties based on movement are model by model". That's not true. The specific heavy weapon rule is model by model. Each rule has its own specific conditions and we can't make blanket statements about how they all work.

You can't say "Well this is model by model so then everything is model by model" when the rules very clearly state what is model dependent and what is unit dependent. There are a lot of vague rules in 40k but they did a good job of making most of the core rules extremely clear.

This weird oscillation between model and unit based activation is what really gets me. According to the rules I can activate units to move AS MANY times as I want in the move phase. Now, I can only move each model once, but it just says to select another unit. No restriction on the whether the unit has moved. There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement that everyone seems to follow if movement is done solely model by model:

Each unit can be selected once in the movement phase.

If you consider the Unit to have moved, then, guess what, it actually works where when you move a unit, everything is considered to have moved. At that point, who cares if you can select the unit, because you cannot move any models after they are considered to have moved.

But hey, it appears we are at an impasse. I've not seen any evidence of another action that acts in a similar way to cause me to doubt, and y'all don't agree with the basic premise of Move being equivalent to Advance/Fall Back/Charge/Shoot/Fight/Consolidate/Pile-in

It says to select a unit to move and then move all the models in that unit that you want to move. It doesn't say select a unit and then move every single model in it.

Shooting is exactly the same thing. You pick a unit, and then shoot every model's guns that you want/are able to shoot.

Fighting is exactly the same way.

Heavy weapons say "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."

It doesn't say "If a model with a Heavy weapon was in a unit that was selected to have some of its models move
in its preceding Movement phase, you
must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made
when firing that weapon this turn."

" There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement" That's the problem. Rules don't work like that. You don't make a logical argument of If X then Y, you follow exactly what the specific rule says.

You can make an argument about whether you can activate a unit to move more than once RAW, I think RAI is pretty clear. You however cannot use that argument to change how an extremely clear rule like the heavy weapons penalty rule works.

"Unless otherwise stated, each model in
the unit attacks with all of the ranged
weapons it is armed with. After all of the
unit’s models have fired, you can choose
another unit to shoot with, until all
eligible units that you want to shoot with
have done so"

"First, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the
attacks. To target an enemy unit, the attacking model
must either be within 1" of that unit, or within 1" of
another model from its own unit that is itself within 1"
of that enemy unit. This represents the unit fighting in
two ranks. Models that charged this turn can only target
enemy units that they charged in the previous phase.
If a model can make more than one close combat attack
(see right), it can split them between eligible target units
as you wish. Similarly if a unit contains more than one
model, each can target a different enemy unit. In either
case, declare how you will split the unit’s close combat
attacks before any dice are rolled, and resolve all attacks
against one target before moving on to the next. "

Shooting is exactly the same thing. You pick a unit, and then shoot every model's guns that you want/are able to shoot.

Fighting is exactly the same way.

Please read above. Where does it say you can opt out of fighting or shooting? Oh wait, it says you must shoot with everything and that you have to declare your targets (no option to declare NO target.)

Its almost like the first sentence of the rules opens with the game philosophy of "Models move and fight in units".

Pile in is an optional 3" movement done on a model by model basis which happens during a Fight Phase.

You can "Opt out" of moving the said 3".

No, you can MOVE up to 3". It doesn't say that you don't count as moving.

Edit:
Additionally, your UNIT pile's in/consolidates as ONE. Every model moves individual distances, but you can't switch back and forth between units and there is no way to "skip" the pile-in step. You just say you choose to move the models 0".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, you're missing the entire game philosophy in the first sentence - models move and fight in units.

Pieceocake wrote:
This weird oscillation between model and unit based activation is what really gets me. According to the rules I can activate units to move AS MANY times as I want in the move phase. Now, I can only move each model once, but it just says to select another unit. No restriction on the whether the unit has moved. There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement that everyone seems to follow if movement is done solely model by model:

Actually, you only have the option of moving each model once. "Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in the unit [/u]until you have moved all the models yo want to." As soon as you're done with that unit, you've made the declaration that you've moved all the models that you want to in that unit. You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move. Even if you think you can select the unit again, you can't move any further models because you've already limited that unit to having already made all the moves with models in it that you want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pieceocake wrote:
No, you can MOVE up to 3". It doesn't say that you don't count as moving.

Wrong. Pile in: "You MAY move each model up to 3" - "

Consolidate: "You MAY]move each model in the unit up to 3" - "

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as having moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move.

Why is it shenanigans? I'm just using your "model by model" basis and applying it to rules. The rules state that you select a unit and move models until you don't want to. The rule then tells you to pick another unit. There is NO restriction on the unit you can pick (except maybe you could say 'another' would mean that you need 2 units to go back and forth). The ONLY restriction is a model cannot be moved more than once.

If you consider the ENTIRE UNIT to have MOVED, you don't need to resort to any sort of argument to deny someone the ability to select a unit again in the move phase. It is SIMPLER to play the game this way AND internally consistent with the other rules and statements (Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models).

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as having moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

Okay, so where does it say you can skip this step? The model not moving has nothing to do with whether it completed its pile-in or consolidation. You still have to complete each step, in order, unit by unit.

Good lord how does this thread have three pages?

Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

Pieceocake wrote:

You don't get to try shenanigans like selecting the unit again later and moving something you haven't yet because you have already declared by moving on to another unit that you have moved all the models in that unit that you want to move.

Why is it shenanigans?

You know it's shenanigans because you are trying to dodge that when they say to "choose another" unit they mean a unit you haven't chosen yet.

Pieceocake wrote:
I'm just using your "model by model" basis and applying it to rules. The rules state that you select a unit and move models until you don't want to. The rule then tells you to pick another unit. There is NO restriction on the unit you can pick (except maybe you could say 'another' would mean that you need 2 units to go back and forth). The ONLY restriction is a model cannot be moved more than once.

There's a restriction in that you have already moved all the model that you want to in the unit. If you have moved all the models you want to, then you obviously don't want to move any more models in the unit, so there's no reason to try to select the unit again to move a model you didn't the first time you selected a unit. "until you have moved all of the models you want to" is as much a restriction as not getting to move a model more than once. Also note that when they select another unit they say "until you have moved as many units as you have wished" So, they are treating the units as having moved. It's just that the units having moved does not mean each model in the unit has moved; as the movement rules have clarified, that is on a model by model basis.

Note that they say MAY in both statement, That means it's optional - you may choose to move or you may choose to not move. If you don't choose to pile in or consolidate, the model would not count as hav

Pieceocake wrote:
ing moved. That's how the English language works. Also note that they state it's the model moving, not the unit. moving. It's still movement on a model by model basis.

Okay, so where does it say you can skip this step? The model not moving has nothing to do with whether it completed its pile-in or consolidation. You still have to complete each step, in order, unit by unit.

Where are you coming up with that question; it shows you have no grasp on what they are saying. You don't skip the step at all. You have the step, but you can choose to not move any of your models. You've still gone through the step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neronoxx wrote:
Good lord how does this thread have three pages?

Someone doesn't want to accept what people are telling him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:
Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

dhallnet wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

 skchsan wrote:

dhallnet wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You're playing it like a holdover from previous editions, where movement was considered on a unit by unit basis, and movement of one model meant that the unit and therefore every model in the unit moved. Rules for shooting and the like were set up for units that moved. In this edition the rules are set up for penaties on models that move, not units that move.

I know about past editions and I think I said I understand why other players would do it on a model basis as its how it's worded. But the rules are still on a per unit basis afaik. The only debatable case I'm aware of is heavy weapons shooting. If a unit advance, the whole unit is considered advancing, if a unit charge, the whole unit charge, if a unit fall back the whole unit fall back, etc.

Without defining in the rules what "moving" means, both reading are valid to me though. One just makes more sense as far as i'm concerned (and we have a bunch of scenarios where we have to call upon our common sense already, it's not so far fetched to assume this is another one).

With your interpretation I can elect to move a unit but chose to not move its models and thus the unit isn't considered having moved since no models have moved.
Some keywords for this sentence to not look this silly would be great.

With mine I can move a unit and whatever I physically do with the models, it has moved.

That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

As you say, he is arguing HIWPI.

He is ignoring that in the movement rules they did have the statement ""until you have moved as many units as you have wished", so if you've selected the unit, the unit has moved even if the models didn't, disproving his statemen about my interpretation. With RAW, however, there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved. The rules for heavy weapons are on a model by model basis; they don't ask whether the unit has moved. So, by RAW, you should be playing it that if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move, it doesn't get the -1 to hit.

The reason why this argument has gone on 3 pages is because the initial paragraph of the battle primer says:

Models move and fight in units, made
up of one or more models. A unit must
be set up and finish any sort of move
as a group, with every model within 2"
horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least
one other model from their unit: this is
called unit coherency. If anything causes
a unit to become split up during a battle,
it must re-establish its unit coherency the
next time it moves.

there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved.

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

skchsan wrote:That's HYWPI, which is absolutely fine as long as you discuss with your opponent before the game starts.

RAW is RAW however.

I agree. If I had to play with someone outside of my group, I would just ask him how he plays it and roll with it.
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

doctortom wrote:
As you say, he is arguing HIWPI.

He is ignoring that in the movement rules they did have the statement ""until you have moved as many units as you have wished", so if you've selected the unit, the unit has moved even if the models didn't, disproving his statemen about my interpretation. With RAW, however, there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved. The rules for heavy weapons are on a model by model basis; they don't ask whether the unit has moved. So, by RAW, you should be playing it that if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move, it doesn't get the -1 to hit.

Is "he" referring to me ? If it's the case I'm not really arguing. I'm just saying both interpretations seems really valid to me as what is considered "a move" isn't explained at all in the rules. I wasn't disproving anything at any time, I think ?
Also, maybe i'm missing something but you are saying in the same sentence that a unit can be ordered to move but not move its models at all and still being considered as having moved for rules intent but as well as have specific models being considered as not having moved inside that unit as long as they didn't physically move. I know that's what the heavy weapon's rules "tells" you by RAW but it really feels like a stretch (to me ofc).

dhallnet wrote:
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

Except here the RAW does make sense. A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

 Ghaz wrote:
A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Unless Trooper Jenkins was wearing her most form fitting fatigues and moving just the right way. A distraction like that is enough to give any of us -1 to hit.

-

Pieceocake wrote:

there's no statement that if the unit has moved that all the models within the unit are considered to have moved.

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

When you're quoting me or someone else, please keep the tag to indicate who you're quoting. You just threw up a post that except for your first sentence consisted of different quotes from somewhere. I had to look to see that you're actually addressing me with this

As to your quote, that does not say that if a unit moves, all of its models are considered to have moved. Sorry, try again.

 Galef wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Unless Trooper Jenkins was wearing her most form fitting fatigues and moving just the right way. A distraction like that is enough to give any of us -1 to hit.

Private Jenkins is definitely not a woman, not that you could tell if someone were a woman in standard Cadian gear.

 Ghaz wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
Regarding RAW sometimes we all agree it doesn't make sense. Some other times, we can't and argue a lot and it's fine

Except here the RAW does make sense. A heavy weapon shouldn't have a penalty to hit just because Trooper Jenkins moved on the far side of the unit.

Since you like RP in rules discussions, would the heavy gunner not be annoyed if his whole squad rushed in front of/around him ? That might be enough to upset his aim. I dunno.

But yeah RAW, not moving while moving at a slow pace can be considered as "not moving" but not moving while moving really fast is considered as moving fast, as long as you are in the shooting phase.

I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

Normal movement would be what is currently called Individual Movement Techniques and would be designed not to impede the squad's heavy weapon's fire. Advancing would be more akin to moving 'on the double' where covering ground is more important than keeping open fire lanes for the heavy weapon.

Galef wrote:I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

It would apply to the "move" order too I guess

Ghaz wrote:Normal movement would be what is currently called Individual Movement Techniques and would be designed not to impede the squad's heavy weapon's fire. Advancing would be more akin to moving 'on the double' where covering ground is more important than keeping open fire lanes for the heavy weapon.

Maybe that's why the heavy weapon can still fire at -1 instead of having to wait for the rest of the squad to stand still. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, as I previously said, I can't disagree with any "side" of this argument. Just wanted to show some support to the op

Pieceocake wrote:

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Nothing in that rules quote prevents rules also being applied on a model-by-model basis. There is absolutely nothing in that quote that results in what you're trying to argue. What that rule is actually describing is unit coherency. Having models fight in units doesn't mean the status of the unit necessarily transfers to all models in it. In some cases it does, in others it doesn't. The specific rules describe these situations. Advancing is an example of a rule that applies to a whole unit. The Heavy weapon penalty is an example of a rule that is applied at the model level, rather than unit. How do we know this? The rule itself tells us.

dhallnet wrote:

Galef wrote:I think the philosophy behind not being able to shoot while Advancing is because Advancing is an ordered maneuver. As in, the unit was ordered by their commander to double step. For a heavy weapon gunner to shoot afterwards would show that he disobeyed his commanders orders.
I dunno

It would apply to the "move" order too I guess

Not necessarily. Units are often given autonomy to use their training to find the best positions to achieve the main objective of their mission.
But when the commander or squad leader determines they need to pick up the pace or move "on the double" heavy gunners should forego attempting to take shots to comply with this order.
I feel this a fair reason why GW designed the rules to deny models from being able to shoot if their unit Advanced. GWs likely standpoint is that if the player chooses to Advance a unit, all models "should" be Advancing. The leave it open to prevent weird situations where forcing all models to do so might cause problems, but I can see their intent.

Remember, one of the big issue with GW rules design is that it isn't always for game balance, but for thematic game play.
GW wants you to play the game the way they have it in their head, but that doesn't always translate to the actual rules

-

Thanks for the support dhallnet!

I agree with him that neither of the two opposing viewpoints is wrong because of how poorly the rules are written. It would definitely be decided by T.O. or a roll off, or a mutual agreement before the game.

Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

Saying a unit advanced means nothing if it doesn't apply to the models, since weapon rules always go model by model. Especially since we have to break the game to even select the unit to fire assault weapons in the first place.

If you decouple Units and Models, MANY things in the game break. Any rule that strictly references units and happens to leave out a reference to models, really. I play Tau - Kauyon/Montka references Units, not models at all, and would have no effect since units aren't actually shooting, its models that get to shoot.

Really its a hierarchy: Anything that applies to the unit ALSO applies to all models. Anything that applies to a single model, does NOT apply to the unit, just the model.

Pieceocake wrote:


Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

That's actually a bit of a strawman argument. Let's look at advancing. "A unit that advances can't shoort or charge later that turn." Step 1 of Shooting is "Choose a unit to shoot with". Step 1 of Charging is "Choose a unit to charge with" Advancing prevents you from choosing the unit at step 1, so you don't get to go to the further steps where you would see things on a model by model basis.

Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

Pieceocake wrote:
Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

Unit wide buffs affect all models in the unit even if only 1 model is within the range of the aura, unless otherwise stated (i.e. models wholly within x"). It might seem inconsistent at times but it's just how the game works as per RAW.

Pieceocake wrote:
Unfortunately it becomes very relevant when you need to select an advancing unit in order to shoot your assault weapons.

Not to mention the fact that aura's and such tend to target Units (a lot of rerolls come to mind). How do those models ever check for Unit-wide buffs? It's not the Unit shooting, but the models. if you confer every unit benefit (or penalty or action) down to the models, things work out for the most part.

It depends on what the aura says. Like every special rule. What does the rule say? There's auras that say units within X", and there's auras that say models within X". It's case by case.

Pieceocake wrote:

Slipspace: The issue I see with your argument is that then there is absolutely NO text that states that a status of a Unit EVER applies to a model, if you dismiss the Unit paragraph. I would challenge you to find other text that states A Unit action is directly applied to a Model.

That's not actually a problem at all. The rules work perfectly fine if some things affect units and others affect models. I really don't know how else to explain this to you, but you don't seem to be grasping the concept at all. Advancing is a good example of a unit effect - it specifically says it applies to the whole unit, rather than being on an individual basis. Other rules, such as whether a model counts as having moved, don't say that. In fact, there are no specific rules detailing the status of "moved" for individual models so we have to use the basic English definition when it comes to determining that for things like Heavy weapons and the movement penalty.

As for auras, there are some that affect models and some that affect units, illustrating my point yet again. Blood Angels actually have one (the Standard of Sacrifice) that does both at once. It gives a 5+ save against any wounds to models within 6" while simultaneously giving re-roll 1s to wound to units within 6". Again, the specific aura will tell you whether it affects units or models. If it affects units, all models in the unit get the buff/debuff. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but this is not a problem. I have no idea why you think it is.

Pieceocake wrote:I can answer your question:

A Unit is selected to have moved in the movement phase. 4 bolter models move and a heavy weapon remains stationary. The unit is designated as "Moved" and can no longer be selected in this phase.

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they have no benefit or penalty for the Unit moving.

The heavy weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that moved causes a -1 to hit penalty.

If the whole unit does not move, the heavy weapon receives no penalty.

Similar scenario:
Choose to advance with 4 bolters and 1 assault weapon

In the shooting phase the bolters look at their rapid fire weapons and see that they cannot override the "if a unit advances, it cannot shoot" restriction.

The assault weapon looks at it's rules and sees that being in a unit that advanced causes a -1 to hit penalty, but it can still shoot.

The reason to mention the special rules is so that you can make the choice up front to move the unit to get in rapid fire range, at the expense of the heavy weapon or sit still to fire the heavy more accurately. At that moment, which action is more valuable?

This is incorrect as weapons go by a model by model basis on if they moved or not. The heavy weapon in this scenario does not receive a -1 to hit because the model did not move.

Pieceocake wrote:This weird oscillation between model and unit based activation is what really gets me. According to the rules I can activate units to move AS MANY times as I want in the move phase. Now, I can only move each model once, but it just says to select another unit. No restriction on the whether the unit has moved. There is no logical way to get the rules to follow this statement that everyone seems to follow if movement is done solely model by model:

Each unit can be selected once in the movement phase.

If you consider the Unit to have moved, then, guess what, it actually works where when you move a unit, everything is considered to have moved. At that point, who cares if you can select the unit, because you cannot move any models after they are considered to have moved.

But hey, it appears we are at an impasse. I've not seen any evidence of another action that acts in a similar way to cause me to doubt, and y'all don't agree with the basic premise of Move being equivalent to Advance/Fall Back/Charge/Shoot/Fight/Consolidate/Pile-in

Units activate in the different phases by a unit by unit basis. However the actual part of the phase where things are done is actually resolved model by model within the unit itself.

Example is the unit is selected for the movement phase, but the models in the unit resolve their individual movements.

This is the same with shooting, Close Combat ect.

An advance would be classified as a unit blanket effect. Much like adding another phase on to the unit (in this case MOVEMENT + ADVANCE) in which the advance rule has it's own restriction that applies to the unit

dhallnet wrote:Won't probably help much the discussion but where I play, we play the rules as the OP implies regarding shooting heavy weapons.

If a unit is selected to move, every model is considered having moved, even if none physically did. It just makes more sense to keep track of units rather than models.
Just like I would declare an advance with a dark shroud without actually physically moving it (but with the model still being considered as having moved) just to get the 4++ and stay in range of another unit that isn't moving.

While the shooting rules consider models, it can't do it in any other way as, inside units, models can have different weapons thus they need to be considered one by one.

I still understand the other interpretation though as if you take the rules as written, if a model didn't move (and "move" not being defined in the context of the rules), then you have no penalty to shoot. I just consider "move" being a unit order, not the result of me actually moving a model.

This is false. The unit is considered "activated" for the phase. However it's movement (which is a specific function in the phase) is resolved model by model.

This feels like you have brought in mechanics from previous editions. Which do not apply in this edition because it is a completely new ruleset.

Forget about what you remember last editions. Because it won't help you in this edition.

You just have to remember, UNITS "activate" on the phases. MODELS "activate" in the phases.

It's a simple thing to remember. One part is used on the phase, and one part is used in the phase

Slipspace:
but you don't seem to be grasping the concept at all.

I understand exactly what you are saying: Since the "Moving" heading/ movement phase block doesn't explicitly state "All models in a unit selected to move count as having moved" (or something similar), and the rules tell you that you can choose not to move individual models when you activate the unit to move, you default to the heavy weapon special rule to provide you with the interpretation that models can be in different sates of moved or not. The issue that GW has here is that they already used the keyword Move and it is just a stat block telling you the legal distance any individual model can move, not an action like everything else in the game.

I am telling you that I think movement works the same way as every other action rule - and that GW told us, albeit more subtly.

"UNITS
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models. A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves." P.2 Battle Primer

There are a few things here that tell me GW wanted models to take actions (including the move action) together:

Models move and fight in units

This statement is completely unnecessary to the rest of the paragraph. Describing coherency only requires that you state that Units are made up of groups of one or more models and that they must maintain a certain distance.
Why add that they must "move and fight" in units? This statement sets up the basic premise of the game: Models do actions in groups, called Units. While they may be equipped differently, they still act as one - a model isn't fighting while the rest of his unit shoots.

A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group...

The rule continues on stating that a unit MUST set up or finish a move as a GROUP.

If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves.

Finally, the rule states that if a UNIT becomes split up, it [the UNIT] must re-establish its [the UNITs] unit coherency the next time it [the UNIT] moves
Another reference to the entire unit moving together.

I'd also like to point out the turn summary on the right-hand side of battle primer pg. 2:
"1.Movement phase
Move any units that are capable of doing so.
2.Psychic phase
Psykers can use powerful mental abilities.
3.Shooting phase
Your units may shoot enemy units.
4.Charge phase
Your units may move into close combat against enemy units.
5.Fight phase
Both players’ units pile in and attack with melee weapons.
6.Morale phase
Test the courage of depleted units."

Notice the reference to "Move any units" and that there is a complete lack of reference to "models".

mchammadad wrote:
You just have to remember, UNITS "activate" on the phases. MODELS "activate" in the phases.

Sorry no, afaik there is no model activation in the ruleset.
You "activate" a unit and then resolve the unit's action model by model because, guess what, units are made of 1+ model(s)
For example, shooting doesn't tell you to pick a model to shoot with, it tells you to pick a unit and then resolve model by model inside that unit.
It's actually one of the clearest thing in the book, units are comprised of models and a unit's models do everything together.

This is some daft topic.

I've read every response and it seems there is agreement on what the rules state from all but the OP and one other guy?

OP - you have been shown, multiple times where the rulebook disproves tour premise. Various posters have literally quoted the rules for you and those rules are contrary to your thoughts on moving as a group and the effect on heavy weapons. There is no more to say on the topic. Your thoughts are incorrect as the rules are defined. Are the rules a little inconsistent? Yes. But they're the rules and they are clear. If the point of this thread is to try and prove your idea on moving and the impact on heavy weapons and you are unwilling to accept the thoughts of others this topic does not belong in YMDC.

To summarise the response, its as follows;
1. A unit gets one opportunity to 'move' where all models in the unit that the player wants to move are moved.
2. Not all models in a unit must be moved when a unit is selected to 'move'.
3. When a unit is selected to fire its weapons the individual models check whether they moved for the purposes of firing heavy weapons. If they did, they suffer the penalty. If not, they don't.

I hope this helps.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is some daft topic.

I've read every response and it seems there is agreement on what the rules state from all but the OP and one other guy?

OP - you have been shown, multiple times where the rulebook disproves tour premise. Various posters have literally quoted the rules for you and those rules are contrary to your thoughts on moving as a group and the effect on heavy weapons. There is no more to say on the topic. Your thoughts are incorrect as the rules are defined. Are the rules a little inconsistent? Yes. But they're the rules and they are clear. If the point of this thread is to try and prove your idea on moving and the impact on heavy weapons and you are unwilling to accept the thoughts of others this topic does not belong in YMDC.

To summarise the response, its as follows;
1. A unit gets one opportunity to 'move' where all models in the unit that the player wants to move are moved.
2. Not all models in a unit must be moved when a unit is selected to 'move'.
3. When a unit is selected to fire its weapons the individual models check whether they moved for the purposes of firing heavy weapons. If they did, they suffer the penalty. If not, they don't.

I hope this helps.

It won't, despite being a completely true and accurate account of this thread and the question.

Mods ought to lock it.

Mods please lock this. The single worst thread I’ve ever seen on dakkadakka hahahaha

OP is wrong, everyone else is correct, end of thread.

I love that people who don't take the topic seriously decide to post in it. About half of everyone against me had absolutely nothing to contribute to the conversation except to restate what the opposing viewpoint is and saying that I'm flat wrong. I hope you understand the difference between consensus and being correct.

Thanks to doctortom, skchsan, deviantduck, and slipspace for actually arguing and articulating their points. I hope you at least see where I'm coming from, if i haven't changed your minds. I certainly understand where you are coming from in your rules interpretation.

Pieceocake wrote:
I love that people who don't take the topic seriously decide to post in it. About half of everyone against me had absolutely nothing to contribute to the conversation except to restate what the opposing viewpoint is and saying that I'm flat wrong. I hope you understand the difference between consensus and being correct.

Thanks to doctortom, skchsan, deviantduck, and slipspace for actually arguing and articulating their points. I hope you at least see where I'm coming from, if i haven't changed your minds. I certainly understand where you are coming from in your rules interpretation.

I do agree that the first line in the "UNITS" description is rather misleading. However, you have to follow the general concept/principle of "permissive ruleset" and "specific over general" in order to understand/use the rules as written.

I have made a helpful flowchart to help understand the situation.

Technically at no point do the rules state that a unit who has moved counts as having moved, the "moved" title is never applied to them, and is only applied by the literal application of the word "Moved", which means to have ended up somewhere other than where they started. then you say models who have moved have -1 to hit with heavy weapons.

so, has the model moved?

The rules seem pretty clear here. I don't understand what the debate is.

The rules for shooting specific weapons somewhat trump the unit movement rule as they refer to specific models.

And in a 'spirit of the rules' way, you can imagine the heavy weapons guy standing still to fire as his buddies moved forwards, with the formation stretching out...

And of course next turn he'd have to move if the rest of the unit did otherwise they'd break formation.