ENCIRCLEMENT lets a unit outflank.

Aquilon Optics says "If, in your Movement phase, this model does not move or moves a distance less than half its Move characteristic, it can shoot with its [weapon] twice in the following Shooting phase..."

The main rulebook states that "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes" but doesn't state how far.

The only FAQ entry is from Spring FAQ 2019, but it's about units that are removed and setup again:
"Q: What rules apply to units that are removed from the battlefield after deployment (via abilities, Stratagems or psychic powers), and are then set back up again on the battlefield?

A: If a rule or ability causes a unit to be removed from the battlefield and subsequently set back up, the following rules apply to that unit:

1. Any rules that are triggered by or apply to units that are ‘set up on the battlefield as reinforcements’ are also triggered by and apply to that unit when it is set up on the battlefield.

2. Models in that unit count as having moved a distance equal to their Move characteristic that turn (and so suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for moving and firing Heavy weapons)."

Leman Russes have a similar rule and stratagem, Ambush, that interacts the same way. However, that was errata'd to add ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance.’ in the Astra Militarum FAQ. Furthermore, that's a more powerful stratagem that can be used for a unit of Leman Russes.

This old chestnut again.

In short, the unit has moved a null distance. It has moved, but we have no way of knowing how far it has moved. This is the exact same situation as Cloudstrike.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777217.page#10487720
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778126.page#10517966

GW fixed it for the Astra Copywritum stratagem "Ambush" and have refused to fix it for anything else.

RaW you cannot fire twice because you did not move "a distance less than half its Move characteristic", nor did you "not move".

treat it as having moved it's full movement speed, unless you have another rule that negates this. That's probably what they intended, and it helps us with dealing with this.

I'm gonna side with BCB on this. I'd say the "x" variable would have to be counted as full, or risk being abused as broken.

There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

 doctortom wrote:

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

It's an Executioner, not an Exterminator.

Why would it be unable to use that stratagem? The stratagem simply allows it to deep strike, and we know how to do that. The question at hand is whether or not this counts as moving more or less than half its movement speed, because all we really know is that it counts as having moved.
And as I said earlier, I would go with "it counts as having moved at full speed" due to how the same situation was clarified/errata'd elsewhere - since we can't just ignore the issue,and that's the best answer I can come up with outside of "we need GW to clarify this" which is the obvious 100% correct, but totally useless answer.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

It's an Executioner, not an Exterminator.

Why would it be unable to use that stratagem? The stratagem simply allows it to deep strike, and we know how to do that. The question at hand is whether or not this counts as moving more or less than half its movement speed, because all we really know is that it counts as having moved.
And as I said earlier, I would go with "it counts as having moved at full speed" due to how the same situation was clarified/errata'd elsewhere - since we can't just ignore the issue,and that's the best answer I can come up with outside of "we need GW to clarify this" which is the obvious 100% correct, but totally useless answer.

Sorry, I meant the Aquilon optics, where it can't say it's moving at half speed or less.

It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It's moved all the way from off the table! That's potentially a long way away

I don't think it's as straightforward as you're claiming here. This needs clarification from GW.

I vote for has moved its maximum distance, similiar to the ambush stratagem. The april FAQ 2019 answer also says it has moved its maximum distance. While its not the same, its similiar, and the closest we have so far as a clarification.

Another vote for “has moved maximum”, using other FAQs as guidance/precedent.

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

And, again, not moving any distance is not the same as moving 0 distance. A null value is not the same as zero.

Agreed. To move 0" it would need to be in the same place it started.

An undefined number is not the same thing as 0.

No, you people are confusing 'counts as moved' with moving some specific distance. It has both moved and moved zero inches. This is not possible for a physical object, but it is a possible result of a rule. Just like an unit disembarking from an Impulsor counts as having moved, yet can move its full move distance.

 Crimson wrote:
No, you people are confusing 'counts as moved' with moving some specific distance. It has both moved and moved zero inches. This is not possible for a physical object, but it is a possible result of a rule. Just like an unit disembarking from an Impulsor counts as having moved, yet can move its full move distance.

I'm not confusing that. You are confusing zero distance with moving from a zone without distance to a zone with distance.

It has moved, but hasn't moved any distance, thus it has not moved over the allowed distance.

It hasn't moved under the allowed distance either. It has moved an undefined distance, so it cannot accurately be said to have moved any specific number of inches. It hasn't moved 0", it hasn't moved 10", and it hasn't moved 2.37856". It's moved from off the table onto the table. Unless you're going to run the tape measure from your storage area to where it landed, you cannot say how far it moved, only that it moved.

Since the rule requires remaining stationary or moving under half distance, and you have not done either of those things, you can't shoot twice. If the rule applied when you have not moved more than half distance, as opposed to requiring it to move under half distance, there might be an argument.

No. That is the fallacy of thinking 'counts as moved' as having moved some distance. That is not the case. It is just a status effect, no distance is involved.

 Crimson wrote:
No. That is the fallacy of thinking 'counts as moved' as having moved some distance. That is not the case. It is just a status effect, no distance is involved.

If it had moved 0", it would have had to have been in the same position before it gained the status. It wasn't, so it has not moved 0".

It has set been set up. It has not moved any distance, just like the models you deploy in the beginning of the game haven't or just like models who disembark haven't.

Correct, it has not moved a distance. So it has not moved more than, less than, or the same as any distance. It hasn't moved less than half distance, so it cant shoot twice.

No, it is not some Shrödinger's distance, the actual distance is zero. Or do you also think that models which have disembarked from a stationary or assault transport cannot move as they have already moved some unknown but actual distance?

BCB: null distance is more 0" than it is 5" or greater.

I am sure it will be FAQ'd to count as full distance; and until then, we should play erring on the side of caution. But, also until then; the executioner dod not move more than half of its movement and can, technically by RAW, fire twice.

Long story, short; discuss it with your opponent first.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

It counts as having moved, but as BCB said it doesn't count as moving 0. In fact, that can be disproved by the fact that it wasn't in that spot at the beginning of the turn and it is in that spot after the movement phase. If it moved 0 it would have been there beforehand. It counts as having moved an indeterminate amount that, barring a FAQ, you have no way of proving it having moved a specific distance. Precedent from other rulings may end up being applied here, having it count as having moved full distance, but you can't prove right now any distance that it moved, including 0 distance.

Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

They are explicitly given permission to move as normal, it's a separate movement and irrelevant to this conversation.

It's Cloudstrike all over again. Demand from GW same fix Tallarn got.

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

They are explicitly given permission to move as normal, it's a separate movement and irrelevant to this conversation.

Move as normal but what distance? You could argue that they can move normally their remaining movement distance, which acording to you is unknown.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

They are explicitly given permission to move as normal, it's a separate movement and irrelevant to this conversation.

Move as normal but what distance? You could argue that they can move normally their remaining movement distance, which acording to you is unknown.

The rule states they can move their normal distance, which is what is listed on their datasheet. Their movement is different from the transport's movement. You'll also notice that you can't disembark from a deep striking transport (except drop pods, which have explicit rules) because they arrive at the end of the movement phase.

No, it says the can move normally (i.e. in a normal manner) no distance is mentioned.

 Crimson wrote:
No, it says the xan move normally (i.e. in a normal manner) no distance is mentioned.

Exactly...

It can move normal, therefore you use the models move value on the datasheet.

This has nothing to do with firing twice after using the strat. When you deploy via the Strat you have moved, there is no mention of distance you have moved. You need to have moved under half to fire twice. You cannot prove you have moved less than half so you cannot fulfill the conditions for firing twice.

The exact same scenario has been clarified with the Leman Russ and Tallarn already.

The distance it has moved is zero.

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

You can keep repeating that, but you've failed to convince anyone of its truth.

From the Imp. Guard FaQ:

Page 136 – Ambush
Change the second sentence to read:
‘Choose up to three Tallarn units to be set up in
ambush instead of placing them on the battlefield (only
one of these units can have the Vehicle keyword).’
Add the following sentence:
‘The units are considered to have moved their
maximum distance.’

Why do we think the White Scar Encirclement stratagem would function differently?

Because it is written after that FAQ and if they wanted it to count as max move they would have used the same wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

You can keep repeating that, but you've failed to convince anyone of its truth.

I find it really bizarre how so many people confuse a status effect with actual movement.

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

You keep saying this, where is your proof?

If you can provide anything by GW that supports this view I will happily reconsider my view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Because it is written after that FAQ and if they wanted it to count as max move they would have used the same wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

You can keep repeating that, but you've failed to convince anyone of its truth.

I find it really bizarre how so many people confuse a status effect with actual movement.

Actual movement? I keep my units that are deep striking at least a foot away from the table, so it has "actually" moved over 36"

The unit is set up. This is when it starts to 'exist' on the tabletop. It doesn't move, it has moved zero inches. Then it gains a status effect 'has moved' which changes the answer to any 'has this model moved Y/N? ' to Y. The double fire rule is not affected.

 Crimson wrote:
The unit is set up. This is when it starts to 'exist' on the tabletop. It doesn't move, it has moved zero inches. Then it gains a status effect 'has moved' which changes the answer to any 'has this model moved Y/N? ' to Y. The double fire rule is not affected.

Again where is your proof that units set up via a deep-strike mechanism have moved zero inches?

Because that is the distance they have moved! If such stratagems wouldn't have 'counts as moved' stipulation would you still be arguing they have moved the distance from your army case to the table? This is bloody absurd...

 Crimson wrote:
Because that is the distance they have moved! If such stratagems wouldn't have 'counts as moved' stipulation would you still be arguing they have moved the distance from your army case to the table? This is bloody absurd...

Yes it is, almost everyone is arguing the opposite way to you, there has been an FAQ posted covering the exact same situation and mechanics with the Leman Russ stating opposite to you.

Sometimes GW's rules do not follow 'real-world' logic.

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

Prove it. It wasn't in that spot before the movement phase, so saying it's move zero seems a dubious proposition.

But that FAQ changed the wording. If they had wanted this to count as full move the could have used the same wording. That they didn't implies that they didn’t want it to be a full move.

 Crimson wrote:
The unit is set up. This is when it starts to 'exist' on the tabletop. It doesn't move, it has moved zero inches. Then it gains a status effect 'has moved' which changes the answer to any 'has this model moved Y/N? ' to Y. The double fire rule is not affected.

It moved from somewhere off the board. It still moved.

 Crimson wrote:
Because that is the distance they have moved!

Where was the model before it was placed?

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

Prove it. It wasn't in that spot before the movement phase, so saying it's move zero seems a dubious proposition.

Measure the distance between the point the model first appeared on the tabletop and its position at the end of the movement phase. How much is it?

More than 0".

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
More than 0".

No it is not. You set up the model, that's it.

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
More than 0".

No it is not. You set up the model, that's it.

Ok, seen as you're being literal, how does the model get to where it is set up? It MOVES there, therefore the model has moved over half it's movement.

Stop being silly.

So, this is a completely foolish argument. You are just being a TFG trying to get a turn 2 double shot from your super tank, rather than accept the rules. This is honestly worse than the argument that Ro3 isn't a rule.

 Crimson wrote:
Stop being silly.

It's unfair and intellectually disingenuous to dismiss positions you dislike as "silly." Answer my question: where was the model before it was set up?

 Crimson wrote:
Stop being silly.

I'm not, i'm asking a valid question.

You are saying because the unit, literally, has not moved from setup it has moved zero. I am asking how did the unit get to it's set up position? It must have moved to get there.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, this is a completely foolish argument. You are just being a TFG trying to get a turn 2 double shot from your super tank, rather than accept the rules. This is honestly worse than the argument that Ro3 isn't a rule.

I literally do not even own the model in question, this has nothing to do with a personal advantage. I just think that is utterly absurd to either to treat 'has moved' status effects as some sort of actual but unknowable distance and even more absurd to start to measure movement distances from army case to the table.

Deploying a model on the table is not movement. And only thing that 'has moved' status effect does is is forcing a 'yes' answer to 'has this model moved?' questions. Anything else is just needlessly over complicating the matter.

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, this is a completely foolish argument. You are just being a TFG trying to get a turn 2 double shot from your super tank, rather than accept the rules. This is honestly worse than the argument that Ro3 isn't a rule.

I literally do not even own the model in question, this has nothing to do with a personal advantage. I just think that is utterly absurd to either to treat 'has moved' status effects as some sort of actual but unknowable distance and even more absurd to start to measure movement distances from army case to the table.

Deploying a model on the table is not movement. And only thing that 'has moved' status effect does is is forcing a 'yes' answer to 'has this model moved?' questions. Anything else is just needdlessly over complicating the matter.

I agree with your statement that it isn't movement and is only flagged as having moved. However, when other 'have moved' instances have been FAQd to full movement, it isn't a stretch to assume that's the intent here, too. Until further clarification, it is in fact Schrodinger's Movement. We all agree it moved, but there's no clear answer how far.

Also any arguments of 'where was model sitting before you placed it on the table' are silly.

The 1.5 FAQ/ April Update does seem to make clear that the differences between deploying onto the table straight from reserves, and those abilities that allow you to (re)deploy units already on the table as if from reserves (e.g. Da Jump) stem not from requirements/ implications of the (re)deployment from Reserves (both can be targetted by Auspex and similar affects), more that if the unit was already on the table then it may have affects/ conditions (e.g. having an active psychic power affect, lost wounds remain lost etc….) which continue to apply once the unit is returned to the table.

It's clearly stated units that redeploy are treated as having moved thier maximum distance, thus by extension this would apply to those coming straight into the table from reserves.

Cornishman wrote:
It's clearly stated units that redeploy are treated as having moved thier maximum distance, thus by extension this would apply to those coming straight into the table from reserves.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Units that redeploy started on the battlefield. Units that don't start on the battlefield cannot, by the very definition of the word, redeploy. You're taking an FAQ and extrapolating it to something entirely unrelated. This would be like saying "Re-roll hits" also works on wound rolls because both are dice that can be re-rolled.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The distance it has moved is zero.

Prove it. It wasn't in that spot before the movement phase, so saying it's move zero seems a dubious proposition.

Measure the distance between the point the model first appeared on the tabletop and its position at the end of the movement phase. How much is it?

More than the distance from the model to the edge of the board.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
It's clearly stated units that redeploy are treated as having moved thier maximum distance, thus by extension this would apply to those coming straight into the table from reserves.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Units that redeploy started on the battlefield. Units that don't start on the battlefield cannot, by the very definition of the word, redeploy. You're taking an FAQ and extrapolating it to something entirely unrelated. This would be like saying "Re-roll hits" also works on wound rolls because both are dice that can be re-rolled.

Technically they started in the Teleportarium, or the Drop Ship, or the Webway, or in the Warp. They were taken from that point, and placed on a new point. Even using logic, that is a shift in temporal existence, hence a new spot in existence.

 deviantduck wrote:
I agree with your statement that it isn't movement and is only flagged as having moved. However, when other 'have moved' instances have been FAQd to full movement, it isn't a stretch to assume that's the intent here, too.

Sure, perhaps they will errata this too. But I say this third time: this rule was written after those previous rules were changed. Had they wanted it to work similarly surely they would have used the updated wording here too, making it clear it is a full move? Granted, it is possible that they just forgot that the FAQ existed. It is GW, who knows?
*shrug*

 Crimson wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I agree with your statement that it isn't movement and is only flagged as having moved. However, when other 'have moved' instances have been FAQd to full movement, it isn't a stretch to assume that's the intent here, too.

Sure, perhaps they will errata this too. But I say this third time: this rule was written after those previous rules were changed. Had they wanted it to work similarly surely they would have used the updated wording here too, making it clear it is a full move? Granted, it is possible that they just forgot that the FAQ existed. It is GW, who knows?
*shrug*

I can see where you are coming from.

However how can it be determined when the various rules elements of the new Marine Codex were finalised? To enable a multi-lingual global release the rules must be finalised a significant time before release to enable the translation into other languages, printing and onwards distribution of the physcial media.

Up until the Redemptor Executioner there was only the need to define movement, or lack thereof with respect to marine units (e.g. heavy weapons, aggressors double firing). Specifying the amount of movement (i.e. answering is this equal to or less than 1/2) such deployment is taken as being wasn’t necessary.

GW have a habit of both a) making a decision for a (seemingly) comparative case, setting a precedent there and assuming we all know that that ruling applies everywhere and b) making a decision for a seemingly comparative case that doesn’t set a precedent… Which both lends itself behind taking a precendent from Ambush in C: AM, not to not do so.

However in the absence of a ruling to determine how much it has effectively moved then surely how much it has moved is undefined (it wasn't on the table at the start of the movement phase), and thus can’t meet the criteria for double firing.

Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.

BCB has the right of it-there's no value given. Precedent would indicate it should count as having moved full movement, but RAW right now just doesn't work properly.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

The model is placed on the table. It does not move, thus it has moved zero inches. To the question of whether the model is moved, the answer is 'yes' because it has been tagged with that status effect. To the question of whether the model is move less than five inches answer is also 'yes' because zero is less than five. It is perfectly clear and simple is you don't start to invent bizarre Shrödinger's movements out of thin air.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

The model is placed on the table. It does not move, thus it has moved zero inches. To the question of whether the model is moved, the answer is 'yes' because it has been tagged with that status effect. To the question of whether the model is move less than five inches answer is also 'yes' because zero is less than five. It is perfectly clear and simple is you don't start to invent bizarre Shrödinger's movements out of thin air.

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero.

Also, from a rules standpoint it does not get to fire twice because the rules state that it has moved, so that you can not say that it hasn't moved, and the rules do not state that it moved half its movement or less. It's that simple.You are the one inventing bizarre non-movements when the transport has been itself transported from another spot - a non-zero distance between where it was and where it ends up.

 doctortom wrote:

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero..

No, this is absurd. As far as the rules are concerned, the model did not exist before it was placed on the table.

No, your position is absurd
You cannot measure form where it was - because it didn't exist - to where it is now
You have an undefined (not null) distance
You are unable to prove - and this is a fact you cannot dispute with any rules - that it moved under half.

The model has not been in any other place. You're now literally claiming that you cannot tell how far a model that stayed in one place moved.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero..

No, this is absurd. As far as the rules are concerned, the model did not exist before it was placed on the table.

As far as the rules are concerned the model counts as moving and has not specified a distance for how far it moved, therefore there is no proof that it moved half its movement distance or less by RAW. Your insistence that it moved 0" is what is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The model has not been in any other place. You're now literally claiming that you cannot tell how far a model that stayed in one place moved.

It didn't stay in one place - it came from somewhere else when you set it up on the table. The unit did exist before being deployed on the board - you have it listed in your army list to prove its existence.

You can't count movement outside the table! This is bloody insanity. Movement is something that can only happen on the gaming table.

 Crimson wrote:
You can't count movement outside the table! This is bloody insanity. Movement is something that can only happen on the gaming table.

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved. You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero. You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less. You have no RAW ground to stand on.

 doctortom wrote:

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved.

True.

You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero.

Yes I can. That is the distance the model has moved on the gaming table. This is the normal GW decreed way of defining movement distances in this game.

You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less.

Yes I can. Zero is less than half it's movement characteristic.

You have no RAW ground to stand on.

Yes I do. I am not inventing imaginary movements outside the table. I guess you want next to shoot at the models on shelve with your artillery.

I agree with Crimson. The wording for Reinforcements and all these different abilities is just like those for units disembarking from Transports. If I disembark from a Transport, how far can I move? My Move characteristics. If I don't move a unit that disembarked from aTransport, it moved 0" (i.e. remained Stationary). It just counts as having Moved.

GW's failure to define their "moved" status as having any particular distance means it is 0", the distance by route between where the model started on the board and where it ended on he board during the move (or lack of one). After all, there is no rule defining a move as the distance between where a unit started the phase and where it ended the phase, only where it started the move and ended the move. This is no different than a unit that Advances and then doesn't move. It moved 0", but counts as having Moved and Advanced.

As for the two FAQs for redeploying units and Ambush, they are special case FAQs that so many like to point out can't be generalized.

Now given that an FAQ is due within 2 weeks, how about we stop arguing and wait an see if GW fixes this disconnect that was pointed out right after the Spring FAQ was published?

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved.

True.

You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero.

Yes I can. That is the distance the model has moved on the gaming table. This is the normal GW decreed way of defining movement distances in this game.

You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less.

Yes I can. Zero is less than half it's movement characteristic.

You have no RAW ground to stand on.

Yes I do. I am not inventing imaginary movements outside the table. I guess you want next to shoot at the models on shelve with your artillery.

You keeping conflating ACTUAL movement with RULES movement. These are 2 different things. According to the rules the model has moved, the fact that it is in the same place as it was does not mean anything in terms of rules.

You can advance and not move, if I do this can I still shoot and charge (in the absence of special rules)? No you cannot as, despite the model still being in the exact same place, according tot he RULES it has advanced.

Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Dadavester wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Except in this specific instance the distance matters. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that this distance would be anything other than the actual distance moved on the tabletop, which is zero. We're not discussing whether the model counts as having moved, we know it does. People are confusing toe different matters, the distance moved and whether the model has moved.

It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

 Stux wrote:
It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

No. That is just pure nonsense. Movement only happens on the gaming table.

 Crimson wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Except in this specific instance the distance matters. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that this distance would be anything other than the actual distance moved on the tabletop, which is zero. We're not discussing whether the model counts as having moved, we know it does. People are confusing toe different matters, the distance moved and whether the model has moved.

We are going around in circles.

Most people on here agree it cannot fire twice, there is an FAQ for the exact same scenario but a different unit/strat saying it cannot fire twice (and GW are known to make the mistake of FAQing rules and not taking it into account in other later rules).

I will be playing it as it cannot fire twice. If i play someone with one I will be checking with them first.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

No. That is just pure nonsense. Movement only happens on the gaming table.

Nonsense to you. Perfect sense to me and most others.

It hasn't moved while off the table, it's moved from off the table. You can't measure that of course, so it's undefined and not zero.

We're clearly not going to convince you though, and you're clearly not going to convince us. We're just going in circles now. But based on the consensus here, be prepared to have to argue it if you want to play it your way, and be prepared to not be able to convince the other person.

Not much point carrying on here though.

He won't have to argue it, he has stated he doesn't own the model, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. He is literally just trolling.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
He won't have to argue it, he has stated he doesn't own the model, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. He is literally just trolling.

Oh. So why am I trolling but people who disagree with me aren't? This is just a discussion.

While I won't play it this way as stated earlier, I really wonder why everyone is bashing Crimson. He's right, there is nothing that tells us the unit moved even one inch. It moved, sure, because we're told that it did so. But since it didn't physically move, it's a 0" move - similar to how disembarked models moved 0 inches but count as moved if they disembark and skip their actual movement.
But if we require that other instance to be errata'd to specifically state that we moved at full speed, we can assume that this errata was necessary for it to work the way it was intended.

To me, they clearly didn't learn their lesson and made the same mistake again here, and I will play as if the tank moved at full speed in that situation.

I don't know how to better explain this to you. Perhaps a basic college level course on Mathematics. But it's a pretty simple fact,

Zero is not Null. Null is not zero. It has not moved ZERO inches, it has moved NULL inches.

You keep repeating an untruth, that "it has moved 0"". It is false. It have moved Null. NULL is not ZERO.

You clearly state this when you say thinks like "It has moved "X" distance." So whatever X is, it's HAS MOVED. The fact that it has moved is clear in the rules and the logical truth. The difference is the idea that ZERO is somehow Null. Which is a logical impossibility.

Crimson - prove it moved zero

Prov it

Stop asserting. Prove.

In an actual game you could not, because you would be unable to measure from off table to where it is now.

You're done here, as your argument is disproven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - prove it moved zero

Prov it

Stop asserting. Prove.

In an actual game you could not, because you would be unable to measure from off table to where it is now.

You're done here, as your argument is disproven.

This is like asking me to prove that 1+3=4. Movement happens only on the tabletop. The model has remained stationary on the tabletop. It has moved zero inches. All this is perfectly self evident. and you refusing to accept it doesn't change it, any more than you refusing to believe 1+3=4 would.

Seriously the idea that you would measure movement distances outside the tabletop is blatantly absurd.

 Crimson wrote:
Seriously the idea that you would measure movement distances outside the tabletop is blatantly absurd.

You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

In other words, calling an argument you disagree with "absurd" does not actually dismiss that argument. You have to have proof for your position and against the other position. Dismissing the opponent's proposed position without evidence is at best bad form.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't know how to better explain this to you. Perhaps a basic college level course on Mathematics. But it's a pretty simple fact,

Zero is not Null. Null is not zero. It has not moved ZERO inches, it has moved NULL inches.

You keep repeating an untruth, that "it has moved 0"". It is false. It have moved Null. NULL is not ZERO.

You clearly state this when you say thinks like "It has moved "X" distance." So whatever X is, it's HAS MOVED. The fact that it has moved is clear in the rules and the logical truth. The difference is the idea that ZERO is somehow Null. Which is a logical impossibility.

I guess you didn't pay that much attention at your maths class then. Or your at German or Latin classes, for that matter.

Null literally is zero.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - prove it moved zero

Prov it

Stop asserting. Prove.

In an actual game you could not, because you would be unable to measure from off table to where it is now.

You're done here, as your argument is disproven.

This is like asking me to prove that 1+3=4. Movement happens only on the tabletop. The model has remained stationary on the tabletop. It has moved zero inches. All this is perfectly self evident. and you refusing to accept it doesn't change it, any more than you refusing to believe 1+3=4 would.

Seriously the idea that you would measure movement distances outside the tabletop is blatantly absurd.

You were not in that position on the tabletop before the movement phase, so therefore you couldn't have moved zero inches. You have moved an indeterminate number of inches, or as others have said a null value of inches. It is perfectly self evident, and you refuising to accept it doesn't change it.

 Octopoid wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

In other words, calling an argument you disagree with "absurd" does not actually dismiss that argument. You have to have proof for your position and against the other position. Dismissing the opponent's proposed position without evidence is at best bad form.

Ok. I pick up a model from the tabletop. In doing so I lift the model seven inches from the tabletop. Then I place it on another point on the tabletop, six inches from its original position. Model has a move value of six. Was this a legal move? Or how about this. An opponent has placed their reserve units on a coffee table, two metres from my Shadowsword on the gaming table. Can I shoot those models with my Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon? Do these question seem absurd to you?

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't know how to better explain this to you. Perhaps a basic college level course on Mathematics. But it's a pretty simple fact,

Zero is not Null. Null is not zero. It has not moved ZERO inches, it has moved NULL inches.

You keep repeating an untruth, that "it has moved 0"". It is false. It have moved Null. NULL is not ZERO.

You clearly state this when you say thinks like "It has moved "X" distance." So whatever X is, it's HAS MOVED. The fact that it has moved is clear in the rules and the logical truth. The difference is the idea that ZERO is somehow Null. Which is a logical impossibility.

I guess you didn't pay that much attention at your maths class then. Or your at German or Latin classes, for that matter.

Null literally is zero.

However this doesn't stop the distance the model has moved as being undefined.

The model was introduced to the table during the movement phase, hence it wasn't on the table at the beginning of the phase.

This is important as given a suitable description of the movement the model will do/ has done (e.g. move 6" directly towards the enemy deployment zone) then the finishing position for that model can be determined from the start position (the usual movement sequence), however it will also be possible to determine what the model's start position was from the models' final position.

The position the model arrives from reserves is the final position of the model (the rules prevent any further movement such as advancing). The starting position is off the table and outside the frame of reference of the game mechanics, thus as far as I can tell the movement in terms of an exact distance can not be determined.

Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

No, because you do not measure from the start of the phase, you measure from the start of the move. And placing the model on the table is not a move. And as I noted earlier, you cannot start measuring things outside the table or assume that the models really exist for any rule purposes outside the table. As far as the rules are concerned the model has ever existed in one spatial position on the tabletop. A thing that remains in a fixed spatial position has, by definition, moved zero inches (or CM , or Planck lengths or anything.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

No, the model counts as moved in such situations, but there is no measurable movement. If there was a psychic power that would teleport the Repulsor across the table, the distance being teleported wouldn't count toward the movement for double shooting purposes either.

Distance as a value is null, not zero. You are a troll.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

How far has a unit that disembarked, but didn't move, moved? We know that it counts as having moved, and noone is claiming that the executioner doesn't count as having moved. But it moved exactly as far as that disembarking unit, which is still allowed to move its entire movement speed, while counting as having moved.
The logical conclusion should be that both units moved, but they moved 0 inches

 Crimson wrote:
No, because you do not measure from the start of the phase, you measure from the start of the move.

The model isn't on the table at the start of the move, it's deployed onto the table at the start of the move. Previous statements still apply.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Distance as a value is null, not zero. You are a troll.

You still do not know what 'null' even means.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

The model isn't on the table at the start of the move, it's deployed onto the table at the start of the move. Previous statements still apply.

Yes, it is deployed on the table. In one spot. In which it stays. Zero inches.

Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

Well done. 4 pages of bickering wrapped up into 5 concise lines.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

Well done. 4 pages of bickering wrapped up into 5 concise lines.

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

Dadavester wrote:

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

It was not a mere FAQ, it was an errata. They literally added ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance’ line. Such line is not present in this stratagem. The IG FAQ is pretty old thus reasonably the writer should have used this updated wording if they wanted it to count as full move. Whether this is a mistake or intentional, we really cannot know.

 Crimson wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

It was not a mere FAQ, it was an errata. They literally added ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance’ line. Such line is not present in this stratagem. The IG FAQ is pretty old thus reasonably the writer should have used this updated wording if they wanted it to count as full move. Whether this is a mistake or intentional, we really cannot know.

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

 doctortom wrote:

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

Indeed. That it moved zero inches means that though. And certainly they added the line in the IG stratagem for a reason? It was to stop Russes using Ambush from double shooting with Grinding Advance. If your reading of the rules would be correct, the additional line would have been unnecessary.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

Indeed. That it moved zero inches means that though. And certainly they added the line in the IG stratagem for a reason? It was to stop Russes using Ambush from double shooting with Grinding Advance. If your reading of the rules would be correct, the additional line would have been unnecessary.

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

 doctortom wrote:

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

I read it. It had nothing new so I didn't bother to repeat what I have said many times already. There is no reason to think that the movement distance is unknown, that is just something that some people seem to have concocted out of thin air. It is just like with transports. A model that disembarks but doesn't move further counts as moving, yet has moved zero inches. The same thing here.


BTW, I am sympathetic to the RAI-based argument that this is indeed a mistake. That they wanted it to work same way than IG's 'Ambush' but the writer fethed up and they didn't include the updated wording. Perfectly possible, albeit really not something we can know. However, if we assume that they know what they're doing (a dangerous assumption, I know) then these two stratagems are intentionally worded differently, which results them working differently. And I maintain that as written the 'Encirclement' allows the Repulsor to double shoot.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

I read it. It had nothing new so I didn't bother to repeat what I have said many times already. There is no reason to think that the movement distance is unknown, that is just something that some people seem to have concocted out of thin air. It is just like with transports. A model that disembarks but doesn't move further counts as moving, yet has moved zero inches. The same thing here.

A model embarked in a transport is treated as being on the battlefield even if not on the table (as shown in other FAQ questions/answers, only one topic of which is that disembarking passengers can't be targeted by someone with Auspex). The transport in your case is not on the battlefield to start with, so it's a different situation. Thinking that something that was not on the battlefield before its move and is on the battlefiled after its move counts as moving zero inches stretches credulity.

Setting up the model on the table is not a move. No actual move is happening at any point of this scenario. Only things related of movement is the lack of it, and the rule tagging the model having moved.

I'm a maths and physics teacher.

Mathematically and physically, being undefined and being zero are NOT equivalent. Try getting away with saying that something is zero in an exam just because it is undefined would see you get zero marks on that question!

In this rules case, the vehicle has not moved at all. It just counts as having moved. It hasn't actually done it, it just counts as if it has. No movement value is specified. Therefore there isn't one. Therefore it has not moved under half movement.

Furthermore, whilst the semantic argument about the word null is interesting, it does not invalidate the statement above.

However, to get into a discussion of the word null anyway, the term null can mean zero in some contexts, but the more correct use of the word as it would generally mean an empty set. That is clearly the context people are using the word in here. Arguing otherwise is not arguing, it is just playing word games.

 Fifty wrote:

Mathematically and physically, being undefined and being zero are NOT equivalent. Try getting away with saying that something is zero in an exam just because it is undefined would see you get zero marks on that question!

Sure. But nothing is undefined here.

In this rules case, the vehicle has not moved at all. It just counts as having moved. It hasn't actually done it, it just counts as if it has.

I agree with this.

No movement value is specified. Therefore there isn't one. Therefore it has not moved under half movement.

With this I do not agree with though. You said you're physics teacher: how far has an object which has not moved at all moved? Because that is a measurable distance and that distance is zero.

Jeeeeeezy peeps. Early in the thread it was identified that this isn’t covered by rules and you need to use precedents or house rule it. Lay off trying to beat each other up with tangential splainy. Neither of you has rules backing so everyone ends up just wasting thread space. Talk it over with an opponent before a game and agree how to handle it. That and HIWPI is all we have here.

Seems like we've heard all the arguments we're going to hear here. Future readers can decide which way to play based on the circular arguments already here, no need to go on