If an individual model in a multi-model unit that moves less then it's max move then after that another model in the unit moves can the first model move again after the second one finishes?
I have a pic describing the question here:
Can A move like in 1, B move in 2, then A move again in 3?
BRB Page 206 wrote:Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield.
BRB Page 207 wrote:When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 198).
You're only given permission to move, not move twice.
Blackie wrote: BCB is right, you cannot do a move like that, unless the unit can somehow explicitly move twice by ability, stratagem, etc...
I dont move a unit, i move models.
Where are you given permission to move more than one model simultaneously?
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
Imagine B has a melta, and wants to get within half range. A blocks his path, so it must move away, but also position of A is important for unit coherency, area denial, holding an objective, etc.
So movement trays are not allowed anymore? As that would be moving multiple models at the same time.
You're not getting the point. p5freak is trying to move models from different units simultaneously.
You have to finish the move for one unit before proceeding to another unit to move.
Two units cannot be selected to move at the same time. It must be done one after another. Therefore, you cannot move model from unit A and model from unit B at the same time.
If you can move multiple units at the same time, the whole 'no moving over/through/count as if not there/etc unless it FLYs' clause is moot because you can always say 'oh this part of the unit moves first so that this other unit can move past it, then I'm going to move my first unit back to where it was as a part of its move."Apparently I'm the one who's not getting the point.
So movement trays are not allowed anymore? As that would be moving multiple models at the same time.
Different question, and trolling. Trays are like fast rolling dice. As long as the end result is the same as it was if you moved the models individually no problems. But OP wants to move a model twice, no permission to do so.
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
Imagine B has a melta, and wants to get within half range. A blocks his path, so it must move away, but also position of A is important for unit coherency, area denial, holding an objective, etc.
It's still pointless unless there is a specific rule that you can invoke to target a specific model in a unit since wounds & damages are allocated by the controlling player anyways. Even if the model with the melta is the closest model it doesn't mean that model has to be removed as casualty first.
The point is, there's no point of 'hiding' a model in the back. If you needed melta upfront, you can always have the melta up front without any increased risk to it.
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
Imagine B has a melta, and wants to get within half range. A blocks his path, so it must move away, but also position of A is important for unit coherency, area denial, holding an objective, etc.
It's still pointless unless there is a specific rule that you can invoke to target a specific model in a unit since wounds & damages are allocated by the controlling player anyways. Even if the model with the melta is the closest model it doesn't mean that model has to be removed as casualty first.
Imagine the enemy unit has only one model, and thats a vehicle, still pointless ?
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
Imagine B has a melta, and wants to get within half range. A blocks his path, so it must move away, but also position of A is important for unit coherency, area denial, holding an objective, etc.
It's still pointless unless there is a specific rule that you can invoke to target a specific model in a unit since wounds & damages are allocated by the controlling player anyways. Even if the model with the melta is the closest model it doesn't mean that model has to be removed as casualty first.
Imagine the enemy unit has only one model, and thats a vehicle, still pointless ?
Yes because that model with the melta could've been set up at the front of the unit's formation during deployment without any downside.
Being the only model left while being a vehicle still doesn't let you pick off the model with the melta.
Positioning of an individual model does matter. You don’t need to protect a melta model because of casualty removal rules, but where a model is will have an impact on which models you choose to remove as casualties due to the coherency rules with regard to removing models not in coherency.
Also, range and LOS are measured from individual models, so again, positioning matters. Imagine the melta model is positioned at the front of the unit when deployed but in your movement phase you react to reserves or other movements by the enemy and now you want that melta model on the flank of the unit or near the rear.
This seems like some seriously artificial fringe scenario that begs the question WTF are they trying to abuse?
Instead of just moving A forward and them moving B to where A was?
Imagine B has a melta, and wants to get within half range. A blocks his path, so it must move away, but also position of A is important for unit coherency, area denial, holding an objective, etc.
It's still pointless unless there is a specific rule that you can invoke to target a specific model in a unit since wounds & damages are allocated by the controlling player anyways. Even if the model with the melta is the closest model it doesn't mean that model has to be removed as casualty first.
Imagine the enemy unit has only one model, and thats a vehicle, still pointless ?
Yes because that model with the melta could've been set up at the front of the unit's formation during deployment without any downside.
Being the only model left while being a vehicle still doesn't let you pick off the model with the melta.
Imagine the vehicle arrived from strategic reserves, it wasnt there during deployment.
BRB Page 206 wrote:Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield.
BRB Page 207 wrote:When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 198).
You're only given permission to move, not move twice.
As presented; nothing states the way you are trying to state it.
You select a Normal Move for your unit A(5 models); You then move Model 1(with a Mv 6) 3" at a slightly left angle. You then move model 2 3" at a slightly right angle. Next you move Model 3 6" straight forward. Next you go back to model 1 and move it up to 3" straight forward or even slightly right to maintain full unit coherency at the end of your unit's 1 allowed Normal move. Model 2 Also moves up to 3" straight or possibly slightly left for the same reasons. Models 4 and 5 can move however they want, as long as they end in coherencey.
The only rules for Movement that we have is that the Unit all moves near the same time, can only move once, and that the models must all end their move in coherency.
So, in summation: First Quote is "Whenever you move a Model" which does note proclaim "Only move once"; and second only restricts each model's movement to within their Mv characteristic. You are given permission to move your models within specified constraints, you do not need permission to finalize each model's movements before moving on to the next model in the unit(those specifics are given for Movement at the unit level: i.e. move unit A fully before moving Unit B).
The rules are very explicit about the fact it's the unit that's only allowed to move once. The individual models can be moved however many times you want so long as the path is shorter then the move characteristic.
BRB Page 206 wrote:Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield.
BRB Page 207 wrote:When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 198).
You're only given permission to move, not move twice.
As presented; nothing states the way you are trying to state it.
You select a Normal Move for your unit A(5 models); You then move Model 1(with a Mv 6) 3" at a slightly left angle. You then move model 2 3" at a slightly right angle. Next you move Model 3 6" straight forward. Next you go back to model 1 and move it up to 3" straight forward or even slightly right to maintain full unit coherency at the end of your unit's 1 allowed Normal move. Model 2 Also moves up to 3" straight or possibly slightly left for the same reasons. Models 4 and 5 can move however they want, as long as they end in coherencey.
The only rules for Movement that we have is that the Unit all moves near the same time, can only move once, and that the models must all end their move in coherency.
So, in summation: First Quote is "Whenever you move a Model" which does note proclaim "Only move once"; and second only restricts each model's movement to within their Mv characteristic. You are given permission to move your models within specified constraints, you do not need permission to finalize each model's movements before moving on to the next model in the unit(those specifics are given for Movement at the unit level: i.e. move unit A fully before moving Unit B).
each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic
A distance, not a combination of distances, which is how it would have to be worded to work as you claim.
There is no permission to move a model more than once.
On a personal note though, I don't actually care if my opponent moves his model 15 times as long as he doesn't exceed its movement value in distance from its starting point.
I also don't see anyone trying to enforce an opponent from moving his model and then changing its position to get it where he wants it.
"Ohh sorry bob, you picked your finger up, he's gotta stay right there"
You select the unit, while the unit is selected you can select any of it's models. A model that has already moved is "any of it's models". It just has to end in coherency (Something that can force a model to move twice) and not go beyond it's full MV.
You select the unit, while the unit is selected you can select any of it's models. A model that has already moved is "any of it's models". It just has to end in coherency (Something that can force a model to move twice) and not go beyond it's full MV.
Having to have the unit end in coherency does not force a model to move twice as there is no permission to move a model twice. If the model would need to move twice to have the unit be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement, you either need to rethink where you move (or don't move) that model the first time, as after all the models have moved once you have to be in coherency.
So the sequence is:
1. Select one eligible unit to move, that unit can then perform one of the types of movement (in this case a normal move)
2. Those models may move a distance equal to or less than their respective Move characteristic
3. Select another unit to move
4. Rinse and repeat until all units have moved.
The explicit permission is given for a model to move as soon as its unit is selected. That permission is ONLY removed:
A. When a new unit is selected to move
B. When the model reaches its max movement distance
To be clear, a models permission to move is not removed once it has moved, only once the whole unit is done moving, or it has reached its maximum movement distance. So in this case, there would have to be verbiage to remove its permission to move again, which there isn’t.
Another argument in favor of the OP’s scenario that I saw is, unlike many things that happen sequentially (pick one unit, move the models, pick the next unit, etc.), moving models in a unit seems to happen simultaneously. So just switching places would be legal too.
Edit: Also, a combination of distances is a distance. Just like how any distance is a combination of shorter distances. If that was the logic, you wouldn’t be able to move models in non-straight lines. And that’s sort of silly.
You select the unit, while the unit is selected you can select any of it's models. A model that has already moved is "any of it's models". It just has to end in coherency (Something that can force a model to move twice) and not go beyond it's full MV.
Having to have the unit end in coherency does not force a model to move twice as there is no permission to move a model twice. If the model would need to move twice to have the unit be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement, you either need to rethink where you move (or don't move) that model the first time, as after all the models have moved once you have to be in coherency.
Cant measure coherency until after it's moved. You have just reduced every multi-model unit's MV characteristic to it's coherency distance. 1 Inch in most cases. You move your unit, check coherency, one model is 1.1" away, you have no permission to move it back 0.1". You're not allowed to move the entire unit back to where it started. You can't remove the incoherent model because the rules says you can't make the move, let alone get to the phase where incoherent models are removed. The only legal move now is to move the rear (relative to the direction being moved) models 1", then the next layer, then the next and so on until all models have moved 1 inch to remain in unit coherency at all times.
Breton wrote: Cant measure coherency until after it's moved.
Where'd you get that idea? Especially when Measuring Distances has that nice summary bullet point "Can measure distances whenever you want." and the same sentence is in the paragraph text.
At worst, you get a situation where you may have to resort to measuring distances on the table to figure out where models have to be moved to. But, more practically, remember that the Unit Coherency rules say:
"Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency (pg 4)� If this is impossible, then that move cannot be made� "
---
The simple fact of the matter is that the movement phase rules don't actually say -how- each model in a unit moves when you're told to follow the instructions to move each of the models.
Do you move them one after the other? Can they all move at the same time? Can you start moving a model, then move another model, then continue moving the first one? While there are answers that have been true for previous editions, at least the rules PDF doesn't say specifically.
--
As far as movement trays vs. one-at-a-time movement goes, if there aren't any intervening obstacles, then it doesn't make any difference. "I'm going to move all of the models in this unit 5" that way" has the same outcome if you pick up each model and move it five inches at one at a time; or you pick the entire unit up (because it's on a tray) and move the tray five inches over.
If there's something in the way, then you basically have to give up using the movement tray, because the movement rules require you to explain what each of the models are doing (so it can be measured) and your movement tray probably can't flex to bend around the obstacle.
It is an interesting point that you don't appear to be prohibited from returning to a model during a units moment unless that model has moved its full move distance. This allows for making small adjustments during/at the end of a move that where technically prohibited. It also permits edge case scenarios where you might want to shuffle a guy out of the way and then back into position. It's hard to think of good examples, but I'm sure it can happen. Maybe a melta wanting to go from the front of a unit to the back, and the intervening models want back in place to hold an objective.
None of this overides the one unit at a time rule. You cannot take a line of Hormagants with a Tyrant behind them, move the middle Hormagants to make path, move the Tyrant through the hole, then move the Hormagants back to sesl the gap.
babelfish wrote: It is an interesting point that you don't appear to be prohibited from returning to a model during a units moment unless that model has moved its full move distance. This allows for making small adjustments during/at the end of a move that where technically prohibited. It also permits edge case scenarios where you might want to shuffle a guy out of the way and then back into position. It's hard to think of good examples, but I'm sure it can happen. Maybe a melta wanting to go from the front of a unit to the back, and the intervening models want back in place to hold an objective.
None of this overides the one unit at a time rule. You cannot take a line of Hormagants with a Tyrant behind them, move the middle Hormagants to make path, move the Tyrant through the hole, then move the Hormagants back to sesl the gap.
What you just said is all completely correct. The way I see it is: say a unit is in some good terrain, and a model with a melta gun is on the left side of the unit and destroys a tank. During the subsequent turn another tank moves to within 12” of the right side of that unit but out of range of the melta equipped model. If models in his own unit prevents him from moving to within range of that tank, they can simply be moved for the melta equipped model to move, and then moved back. Replace melta with fusion for those who play xenos. gross.
This plus side of this is that it jives with real life when someone can ask someone else to move the hell out of the way so they can shoot. These rules aren’t always consistent with real life, but it’s nice when they are.
Tricky... interesting points raised for and against…
Having read, and re-read the rules I'm in favour of such movement being permitted.
The pertinent restrictions to this case would appear to be that all the movement for a single unit is completed before moving onto the next, and using the path that each model takes no model may move more than it’s movement characteristics.
This movement would seem to adhere to these restrictions, consequently so long as the unit ends in coherency it appears legal.
You select the unit, while the unit is selected you can select any of it's models. A model that has already moved is "any of it's models". It just has to end in coherency (Something that can force a model to move twice) and not go beyond it's full MV.
Having to have the unit end in coherency does not force a model to move twice as there is no permission to move a model twice. If the model would need to move twice to have the unit be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement, you either need to rethink where you move (or don't move) that model the first time, as after all the models have moved once you have to be in coherency.
Cant measure coherency until after it's moved. You have just reduced every multi-model unit's MV characteristic to it's coherency distance. 1 Inch in most cases. You move your unit, check coherency, one model is 1.1" away, you have no permission to move it back 0.1". You're not allowed to move the entire unit back to where it started. You can't remove the incoherent model because the rules says you can't make the move, let alone get to the phase where incoherent models are removed. The only legal move now is to move the rear (relative to the direction being moved) models 1", then the next layer, then the next and so on until all models have moved 1 inch to remain in unit coherency at all times.
You make no sense. My statement does not do what you claim. My comments about thinking where you are moving the models to are only in relation for when the unit would be in coherency after all the models in the unit have moved and not during the movement itself. Note that I didn't state that the model must maintain coherency while it's moving (a patent absurdity for any unit that can move 5", you wouldn't be able to move the unit 5" if you had to maintain coherency while during the move.) You have a strawman argument misrepresenting what I said. Sorry, try again.
You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.
You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.
You’re right. There is no permission to move twice, or even once for that matter. There is only permission to “move”. And once it has been established that the model is allowed to move, which is when its unit is chosen to move, it only has to stop moving once a new unit is chosen or it has reached its maximum move distance. There is no other time that this permission is taken away, unless you can cite one.
The rules could not possibly encompass every situation where you would continue to be allowed to do something. So it tells you when you have permission to do something, and when that permission is removed. What if you move all the models in a unit as far as you can reach, and then walk to another side of the board, and finish moving them. Is this legal? Yes, because as long as they haven’t reached their maximum movement distance and another unit hasn’t been picked, they can still move. Unless it can be cited that they can’t.
You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.
You’re right. There is no permission to move twice, or even once for that matter. There is only permission to “move”. And once it has been established that the model is allowed to move, which is when its unit is chosen to move, it only has to stop moving once a new unit is chosen or it has reached its maximum move distance. There is no other time that this permission is taken away, unless you can cite one.
The rules could not possibly encompass every situation where you would continue to be allowed to do something. So it tells you when you have permission to do something, and when that permission is removed. What if you move all the models in a unit as far as you can reach, and then walk to another side of the board, and finish moving them. Is this legal? Yes, because as long as they haven’t reached their maximum movement distance and another unit hasn’t been picked, they can still move. Unless it can be cited that they can’t.
There's permission for models to move (given they describe types of moves), but no explicit permission to move twice. So, can models move? Yes. Can models move more than once? No, because "but the rules don't say I can't" isn't permission for you to be able to do it.
There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.
rbacus wrote: There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.
By that logic you also have permission to shoot. Shooting once, twice, or 17 times is all shooting.
That’s a great point. And it would be completely true (like how it is in the moving phase) if it didn’t say that “a ranged weapon can only be shot once per shooting phase”
That’s in the pdf page 15 second paragraph in the parentheses. I’m positive it’s in the BRB as well and will double check myself when I get home.
But the point is, the explicit permission for a model to shoot ends once a model had shot all ranged weapons it is equipped with once.
It has a very clearly defined start and end to the permission, just like our primary argument in the movement phase.
rbacus wrote: There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.
By that logic you also have permission to shoot. Shooting once, twice, or 17 times is all shooting.
The difference is that the Shooting phase rules, and the Fight phase rules, specify how many attacks the model is allowed to make (in Number of Attacks) and there's a helpful example demonstrating that you're not actually going "select model, fire model's weapons, resolve that model's attacks", you're resolving X models firing Y weapon; then the next bunch of weapon fire.
The simple fact of the matter is that there's nothing in the rules to contradict the expectation that all of the models in the unit move at the same time and end their movements at the same time. (The fact that you probably have to pick up and move each model one at a time due to human limitations is a minor sportsmanship detail, similar to what to do if you have to resolve more attacks than you have dice...)
BRB Page 206 wrote:Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield.
BRB Page 207 wrote:When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 198).
You're only given permission to move, not move twice.
As presented; nothing states the way you are trying to state it.
You select a Normal Move for your unit A(5 models); You then move Model 1(with a Mv 6) 3" at a slightly left angle. You then move model 2 3" at a slightly right angle. Next you move Model 3 6" straight forward. Next you go back to model 1 and move it up to 3" straight forward or even slightly right to maintain full unit coherency at the end of your unit's 1 allowed Normal move. Model 2 Also moves up to 3" straight or possibly slightly left for the same reasons. Models 4 and 5 can move however they want, as long as they end in coherencey.
The only rules for Movement that we have is that the Unit all moves near the same time, can only move once, and that the models must all end their move in coherency.
So, in summation: First Quote is "Whenever you move a Model" which does note proclaim "Only move once"; and second only restricts each model's movement to within their Mv characteristic. You are given permission to move your models within specified constraints, you do not need permission to finalize each model's movements before moving on to the next model in the unit(those specifics are given for Movement at the unit level: i.e. move unit A fully before moving Unit B).
each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic
A distance, not a combination of distances, which is how it would have to be worded to work as you claim.
End result of 3", then later 3 more inches, is still "a distance" of equal to or less than the Mv characteristic in inches.
"A distance" can be in a single move, or multiple separate moves.
Yeah put me down for the "you can move each model up to its movement characteristic, and you can do that in as many stages as you want" camp. Nothing in the rule suggests the move must be single and uninterrupted. Just that you have to move units one at a time, and that each model can move total distance no further than its move characteristic. It's not even "moving twice," it's just moving.
Why just limit it to twice? Why not four times? Why not six?
This seems like a terrible idea. Now the opponent needs to watch each individual model to be sure it’s not being abused. Was it moved 1.5” the first time, and just 4.5” the second? Or was it the other model that moved 1.5”, and this model actually moved 3.25” the first time, .5” the second, and 4” the third? It sounds like a good way to introduce a three card Monty scheme.
If you want to introduce an option to effectively slow down the game and increase the chance of moving more than the minimum (whether deliberately or accidentally),, you should require a rule that expressly allows it.
Mastiff wrote: Why just limit it to twice? Why not four times? Why not six?
This seems like a terrible idea. Now the opponent needs to watch each individual model to be sure it’s not being abused. Was it moved 1.5” the first time, and just 4.5” the second? Or was it the other model that moved 1.5”, and this model actually moved 3.25” the first time, .5” the second, and 4” the third? It sounds like a good way to introduce a three card Monty scheme.
If you want to introduce an option to effectively slow down the game and increase the chance of moving more than the minimum (whether deliberately or accidentally),, you should require a rule that expressly allows it.
But there is a rule that expressly allows it.
The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.
You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.
The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.
You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.
How do we define 'exceeding its movement value" in 9th ed?
If a model moved 2" northerly, 2" easterly, 2" southerly, then finally 2" westerly, how many inches has the model moved?
Even if the model has net displacement of 0", the model nonetheless has moved 8" total. (for the sake of this argument, lets say the model has M = 8")
9th edition makes an important distinction between moving (whether via Normal Move, Advance and Fall Back) vs. not moving (remain Stationary).
Under the current rule set, can we say having a net displacement of 0" = remain stationary?
If having net displacement of 0", despite actually having moved, meant that the model remained stationary, then has the model moved or not moved?
Furthermore, take an example of AIRCRAFTS with bombing type abilities where it asks you to pick a unit it flew over before resolving the effects of the ability - if the said aircraft did not have any movement restrictions (i.e. supersonic), and has enough M value to reach it's intended target AND come back to it's original position (i.e. target is ~10" away, M = 20"), then has this aircraft moved over the target enemy unit or not? If it moved, how many inches did the aircraft move?
The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.
You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
You are now redefining movement to suit your opinion by adding implicit conditions and situations that don’t exist in print. You’re filling in the gaps with what you would like to see.
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
skchsan wrote: How do we define 'exceeding its movement value" in 9th ed?
Well, just like you would in any other edition. Look at its movement value, it is the number expressed in Inches. Going over that, would be "exceeding its movement value" Because that is not the english language works.
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)
It does give permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.
The rules are permissive, and we have permission to move. Once that permission is given, you can do that thing until permission is taken away. Thats how permissive ruleset's work.
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
You still seem to be confused by the definition of “expressly”. It means “clearly, unambiguously, plainly”. You keep using as the opposite, “implicitly”.
If you are going to redefine a rule to your advantage, the onus is on you to find an express rule to allow it, not just an omission of clarity that is open to opinion.
There is no express rule that I can’t stand on the gaming table and use a sand wedge to move my models up to 6”, it’s just implied that you should use your hand, a ruler, and not crush other models while you do so. But if I want to do so, it’s encumbent on me to justify it, not my opponent to prove it’s not allowed by the rules as written.
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
You still seem to be confused by the definition of “expressly”. It means “clearly, unambiguously, plainly”. You keep using as the opposite, “implicitly”.
No, I am not confused. Because the rule gives permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.
If you are going to redefine a rule to your advantage, the onus is on you to find an express rule to allow it, not just an omission of clarity that is open to opinion.
There is no express rule that I can’t stand on the gaming table and use a sand wedge to move my models up to 6”, it’s just implied that you should use your hand, a ruler, and not crush other models while you do so. But if I want to do so, it’s encumbent on me to justify it, not my opponent to prove it’s not allowed by the rules as written.
I am not redefining anything.
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
“Since the rules don’t expressly say I can’t move multiple times, I therefore am allowed to interpret it the way that gives me an advantage.”
You still haven’t given any compelling reason why your reading is more legitimate than any other interpretation. You are slowing down the game, you are increasing the opportunities to cheat, you are giving yourself the advantage of precise placement and matchups, so I can see why you might like this advantage, but you still can’t explain why unclear rules need to be decided in your favour.
Mastiff wrote: No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.
And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.
No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)
It does give permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.
The rules are permissive, and we have permission to move. Once that permission is given, you can do that thing until permission is taken away. Thats how permissive ruleset's work.
You have permission to move. You have no permission to move again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mastiff wrote: You’re asking your opponent to prove a negative.
“Since the rules don’t expressly say I can’t move multiple times, I therefore am allowed to interpret it the way that gives me an advantage.”
You still haven’t given any compelling reason why your reading is more legitimate than any other interpretation.
This. Permission to move is not permission to move multiple times. There is no explict statement that you are allowed to move a model multiple times. Then again, DeathReaper is big on saying you have to read a rule with "context" which in this case the context is to see how he can contort what is actually written to make it do what he wants to do.In this case, apparently the "implict" instruction amounts to "but the rule doesn't say I can't"
You have not shown anything at all your making a bunch of unsupported claims and claiming proof. Thats not how rules work and it's certainly not how factual arguments work
Rules that give you an advantage are explicit, not implied by omission.
DeathReaper wrote: The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Correct. Bringing them back would be an advantage.
Is any advantage explicitly stated? No. Therefore, do you get to imply an advantage? No.
Necrons have a special rule. Roll X die, bring back Y models.
Is this advantage explicit? Yes. Therefore, do you get an advantage? Yes.
You're this close to getting it. Apply that to movement:
You can move a model up to its M value. Is your advantage (multiple movements to get around your own models) explicitly stated? No. Therefore, do you get to imply an advantage? No.
I see what he is saying. Once you select the unit to move, models in the unit gain the Can Move status, as it were.
The only things that remove this status, in the rules, are reaching the model's maximum movement distance or selecting another unit to move.
Things like "you can't move twice" prevents a model from, say, moving up to a corner, stopping to check LoS, then moving back again (or further forwards).
It also prevents models from being adjusted to meet unit coherency, so if you accidentally find out you are out of coherency at the end of a move, the game explodes, because it has reached an illegal state after one move and a second move to fix the first illegal state would cause a second...
No, what he is saying is the rules DO give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
1. The rules say you can't move a "unit" more than once. You could logically imply that a "model" can't be moved more than once, but you can't imply that its okay to move a model multiple times... where's the precedent?
2. If multiple moves were allowed, I would also assume that movement restrictions that are in the rules stating that you can't leave the battlefield or cross over another base, would not exist... but they do. I wonder why... (not really, its your choice to make poor decisions in prior turns.) Also GW says you may move up to your M in inches... its permissive but not guarannteed you get your full move.
3. You are allowed to move a model, when you move a unit. It says nothing about pluralizing move. That's my interpretation. You can move your model once... one time, take your finger off and you are done... (Okay its not chess, lol)
4. Maybe the problem is understanding the definition of the word move in the context of a game enviroment?
Move - verb (used with object), moved, mov·ing.
to change from one place or position to another.
The definition of a move is: a change from one place to another... Therefore multiple places or positions would be multiple moves. GW uses the word move, not moves.
Okey dokey. 40k is now like chess, where once your hand leaves the model, it is there forever.
I eagerly await the time my opponent's knee sticks out from behind cover and he reaches back down to rotate it or scoot it back a millimeter or something and I can tell him "no, sorry, here is a thread on Dakkadakka, you took your hand off and now you can't move it anymore."
I look forwards even more to when that happens with a unit ending its move out of coherency and I can call my opponent a cheater. Sorry, mate, can't move any of those models to fix it. You just broke the rules. Victory by forfeit?
Sazzlefrats wrote: 1. The rules say you can't move a "unit" more than once. You could logically imply that a "model" can't be moved more than once, but you can't imply that its okay to move a model multiple times... where's the precedent?
that has nothing to do with model movement. They say each model can be moved etc...
2. If multiple moves were allowed, I would also assume that movement restrictions that are in the rules stating that you can't leave the battlefield or cross over another base, would not exist... but they do. I wonder why... (not really, its your choice to make poor decisions in prior turns.) Also GW says you may move up to your M in inches... its permissive but not guarannteed you get your full move.
This has nothing to do with a model's movement.
3. You are allowed to move a model, when you move a unit. It says nothing about pluralizing move. That's my interpretation. You can move your model once... one time, take your finger off and you are done...
100% false, there is no basis at all for this.
Can you move your models? (A: Yes).
Do the rules say once you take your finger off and you are done? (A: No, it does not say that at all).
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 3 inches
Move model with lasgun 2.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 5 inches
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Move model with lasgun 6 inches
Move model with lasgun 3.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 1 inch
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Unit1126PLL wrote: Okey dokey. 40k is now like chess, where once your hand leaves the model, it is there forever.
So, this is what you think the creators intended when they say that no model can cross over another's base during movement:
"Marine number eight needs to get to the front, so, marine one moves .75" to the left, marine two moves 1.25" left, marine six moves 1" left and back, marine nine moves right .75 inches, marine seven... or was that five? moves right 1" right. Now, marine eight scuttles 4.5" up the gap. Now, marine one moves back .75", marine two moves back 1.25", marine six moves back 1", marine nine moves back .75', but forward 1" to move the tree. So, the unit wants to move forward. Marine one has 6.5" left, marine two has 4.5" remaining, marine six has 6" left, marine nine has 4.5"... no wait, 3.5" because of the tree... hunh. That screws up coherency so eight goes back 1"..."
Okay. Unit two..."
Seriously, you think that's what the writers were aiming for?
Or, Occam's razor: If they wanted to allow players to circumvent the "no crossing bases" rule, do you think they would only imply that moves can be as complex as needed to make the rule irrelevant, so only half the players would be smart enough to avoid it?
Or, is it more likely they would have just cut the "no crossing bases" rule entirely, and shorten the game by 45 minutes so players wouldn't be required to read between the lines to utilize incremental movement? Tough call...
I can't wait for my 120 orks to move quarter inches at a time so the entire game can be filmed as part of my "stop-go" animation project.
Hey, don't complain, it's totally legal. The rules explicitly fail to say otherwise.
Ice_can wrote: Okay so unit with 6 inch move characteristic
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 3 inches
Move model with lasgun 2.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 5 inches
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Move model with lasgun 6 inches
Move model with lasgun 3.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 1 inch
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Is that a legal or illegal movement?
Can't tell. You haven't individualized the models, except for the Sargent (I'm assuming the unit only has one Sargent), so I don't know if you move one model with a Lasgun 10 times or 10 different models with a Lasgun once. Same is true for the model with plasma gun. Is it one model or two models?
From page 206:
"When you move a unit, you can move any of its models (you can also choose not to move some of the models in that unit if you wish). Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change it's position on the battlefield along any path but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the ... blah blah blah."
"any of its models" to me means one or more at a time. The "whenever you move a model" details restrictions for each model that is moved and isn't part of the preceeding sentence.
So the initial situation of A moving backward, then B moving then A moving back in would be legal as you are moving "any of the models" and none of them have one over each other's bases. BUT, the normal move rules (p207) detail total movement, not displacement (unlike the old vehicle movement rules), so the movement backwards counts against that model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which is a lot of text to say, no you can't move twice but the initial example doesn't require moving twice anyways.
Unit1126PLL wrote: No, what he is saying is the rules DO give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
Yeah, this is the best explanation of it. You aren't moving a model twice. You're moving it once, as part of moving the unit. If you want to do that in several stages within the unit, that's fine, as long as you don't exceed the model's total movement characteristic. The rules are very clear that each unit must be moved in turn with no going back to a prior unit, but say nothing about each model within a unit having to be moved in turn with no going back.
Think about the simple scenario: You have one model, and you're trying to carefully move around a big square obstacle.
So:
- You put down your tape measure and measure out 3" forward along one corner. You put down the model and pick up the tape measure to move it.
- You put down your tape measure and measure out 3" forward along to the second corner. You put down the model and pick up the tape measure to move it.
- You put down your tape measure and measure out 2" forward along the next side.
That's a movement of 3+3+2 inches.
Does it matter that the starting and end points are less than 8" apart? No.
Does it matter that you moved the model three different times? No.
Note that the movement rules DO specify that you measure along the path that the model moved:
"The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot)." (emphasis added)
So in Ice_can's scenario with the "model with plasma gun", if it's same 'model with plasma gun' on both lines, that's describing a model moving eight inches. Note: Ice_can's example is deficient because it doesn't identify any of the models, or how many unique models there are. There are fourteen lines with "move .... X inches" but between "Move model with lasgun 2 inches" and "Move model with lasgun 3 inches" are those the same model?
The no crossing bases thing is a red herring, since it refers to any situation when movement might cross a base, including between two different units. So it would have to be in there regardless of whether you could move a model once or infinite times.
Also note that this result is essentially mandated by the coherency rules. The way they are worded, you are not allowed to end a movement of a unit without all models being in coherency. If a model can only be picked up and physically moved once as part of its move, what do you do if you leave yourself in a situation where your last model can't create coherency with all the others? The rules state that if you can't end a unit's movement in coherency, the move "cannot be made." That would logically mean based on this interpretation that if you screwed anything up during your movement of indivdual models, the result would be that you'd be forced to roll back the movement of the entire unit and act as if you hadn't moved. It's hard to believe that's what they intended - "hey, you took your finger off your model there without thinking about coherency, take the other 25 models you moved back to where they were before! No, you can't just shuffle model 23 back a tenth of an inch to fix the problem, the whole move has to be undone and you don't get to move this phase!"
The coherency rule also makes clear that moving a unit is moving a unit, not moving each model in the unit. There is no such thing as moving a single model except as a consequence of moving the unit; you move the unit, and as part of that, you can physically pick up and put down any of its models as many times as you like.
solkan wrote: Think about the simple scenario: You have one model, and you're trying to carefully move around a big square obstacle.
...
So in Ice_can's scenario with the "model with plasma gun", if it's same 'model with plasma gun' on both lines, that's describing a model moving eight inches. Note: Ice_can's example is deficient because it doesn't identify any of the models, or how many unique models there are. There are fourteen lines with "move .... X inches" but between "Move model with lasgun 2 inches" and "Move model with lasgun 3 inches" are those the same model?
---
Then use my example above. It can get very complicated, very fast. It's creating a "three card monty" game, where your opponent has to watch ten models all move random directions and distances, and hope they end up moving the correct amount in the end. It slows the game down, increases the chances of exceeding movement allowances, and negates a specific rule of not allowing bases to overlap.
I have yet to see anyone give a plausible explanation of why the developers wanted that level of complication added to the game.
It's always worked that way as far as I know. But it's super clear they intended it to work that way in 9th, because the coherency rules don't work in practice without it. Moving a horde of 30 models one at a time in a way that makes sure every one is in coherency with 2 others without the opportunity to adjust models when you're done to make sure would be essentially impossible.
Some element of trust is required to play the game. I don't insist on measuring my opponent's moves for him, and if he wants to wiggle in squiggly lines to move 8" instead of 6", then fine. He is an unethical cheater and can earn the victory (if that is the result).
I also trust my opponents not to have loaded dice, or edited digital rulebooks/codexes, or to track which squad is which in a crowded space.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah put me down for the "you can move each model up to its movement characteristic, and you can do that in as many stages as you want" camp.
Yeah I'm with Yuk on this one.
I don't see any reason why you can't mix and match and move around all the minis in a single unit as long as none of them violate the requirements of moving.
Whats different in 9th than 8th... in all the other editions this was never a consideration?
Also lets say you were allowed to move a model twice (never legal before)... Why ... why bother having this rule at all?
"BRB Page 206 wrote:
Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield."
Seriously... if that rule was gone, no one would argue for saving movement so you can get models out of the way?
Ice_can wrote: Okay so unit with 6 inch move characteristic
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 3 inches
Move model with lasgun 2.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 5 inches
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Move model with lasgun 6 inches
Move model with lasgun 3.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 2 inches
Move model with lasgun 1.5 inches
Move model with lasgun 4 inches
Move Sargent 1 inch
Move model with plasma gun 4 inches
Is that a legal or illegal movement?
Can't tell. You haven't individualized the models, except for the Sargent (I'm assuming the unit only has one Sargent), so I don't know if you move one model with a Lasgun 10 times or 10 different models with a Lasgun once. Same is true for the model with plasma gun. Is it one model or two models?
Which is exactly why this whole argument that you can move models multiple times is utterly unplayable abusing the rules to cheat your opponents.
It's saying despite the wording not explicitly stating you can do it the designer's intended to allow players to regularly have to follow Ten model monte scams.
If you get to say 30 ork boys that now by intention can be moved as many times as the owning player wants to in any order and combination.
Let's sat they aren't taking the absolute out of their opponents and move each model 3 times
Thats 90 individual movement values, ah but wait can you tell Ork boy 1 from ork boy 5 and ork boy 27? Hope your good at it as you have 27000 possible moment combinations.
At that point either the games a farse or hope you enjoy video refereeing your opponents movement phase for an hour or more each turn.
Ok, so there’s a few things that need to be cleared up.
Mastiff, a plausible explanation of why the developers might have wanted a rule to work some way is probably a better question for the general discussion board, and considering we are discussing RAW, it is not needed here. Also, yes you can move each of 30 boyz .25” at a time until all of them have moved their full 6”. Just like you’re allowed to roll 1 die at a time when they fire their weapons. And it’s because you’re explicitly allowed to do that. Not just that you aren’t *not* allowed to. There is explicit permission to. Both are completely legal, and some of the rules permit people to be jerks.
2nd, despite how some are claiming, the scenario the OP presented is not some horrible-nightmare-gamebreaking scenario that would only be used by the lowest of mortals. It’s a real thing that can happen in real life, so that’s nice. (I am aware that this logic has no effect on the legality of the scenario, but to me, real life logic makes things make sense.)
3rd, once the permission to move is established, what makes you think you have ULTRA MEGA EXPLICIT PERMISSION to STOP moving after one time? The fact is “permission to move is not permission to move twice” is the exact same thing as saying “permission to move is not permission to move once”. Both of those statements are equally correct, because permission to move is only permission to move. You are adding extra words and your feelings into the rules when you say it’s limited to once. Moving twice is moving, just like moving once is moving, that’s how words work.
4th, the rule about not moving across other models or their bases is very general, and not even necessarily referring to friendly models. That’s also the rule that prevents a friendly unit moving through a different friendly unit. So this scenario doesn’t render it null.
5th, don’t micro-police your opponents. If they cheat, they suck. You don’t have to watch them move their whole unit to make sure no one is moving 1mm over their allowed distance.
So your answer is this interpretation allows for cheating but thats okay, if your opponents cheat they suck, you shouldn't have to check what your opponents doing.
That's the same idiotic logic that would support horde players claiming they need 2 hours out of a 3 hour game because they have more units.
Any interpretation that favours cheating is how you kill the game.
Ice_can wrote: So your answer is this interpretation allows for cheating but thats okay, if your opponents cheat they suck, you shouldn't have to check what your opponents doing.
That's the same idiotic logic that would support horde players claiming they need 2 hours out of a 3 hour game because they have more units.
Any interpretation that favours cheating is how you kill the game.
"Favors" or "allows" cheating is hilarious. Cheating is already against the rules; I cannot make it more against the rules than it already is, nor can I make it less. I came to participate in the game as a player, not as an umpire or an enforcer. There is a social contract in 40k that both players will abide by the rules, because there are myriad cases (indeed, far more than moving twice in the same movement phase with a model under its max move) where it is not fun to police every action taken by one's opponent.
In fact, I'd argue there are easier ways to cheat than wiggling all your models around inexplicably - I mean that looks fishy as hell from a distance. This is a nothingburger that you've somehow misidentified as a hill worth dying on.
Simply put their is no reason to need to do this shuffle shuffle, the rules don't give explicit permission and if you start it the only reason to do so would be to gain an unfair advantage/cheat.
Becuase you can bet the donkey gave that would start this nonsence qould insist that checking the move is legal is on your time not theirs. It's effectively the new way to slow play your opponent into loosing the game by clocking out.
Anyone who does it is a and should be given a sportsmanship warning atleast.
It's realy no different than the that move a model then move it back then move the same model and move it back then move it again and move it back that resulted in alot of people I know going to chess style you move the model that's the model moved no take backs no magical wandering BS.
(Usually highlighted when you are out of rapid fire at 12 but they magically after moving have an sub 6 inch charge.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put their is no reason to need to do this shuffle shuffle, the rules don't give explicit permission
Yes they do, as demonstrated.
Ice_can wrote: and if you start it the only reason to do so would be to gain an unfair advantage/cheat.
The OP gave an example of exactly this that is neither unfair nor cheating.
Ice_can wrote: Becuase you can bet the donkey gave that would start this nonsence qould insist that checking the move is legal is on your time not theirs. It's effectively the new way to slow play your opponent into loosing the game by clocking out.
I make a point of not playing donkey caves, so not my problem. Donkey caves can do far worse than move an extra couple inches.
Ice_can wrote: Anyone who does it is a and should be given a sportsmanship warning atleast.
Sure, just like any other form of fuckery.
Ice_can wrote: It's realy no different than the that move a model then move it back then move the same model and move it back then move it again and move it back that resulted in alot of people I know going to chess style you move the model that's the model moved no take backs no magical wandering BS.
There's nothing actually wrong with this if units are not exceeding their maximum move.
Ice_can wrote: (Usually highlighted when you are out of rapid fire at 12 but they magically after moving have an sub 6 inch charge.
This is just people being dickheads and will happen whether you let them move once, twice, or eighteen thousand times. The rules restrict them to their maximum movement value, an if they won't follow the rules, they're cheaters. No rules about number of moves allowed required.
My 2 cents is that while the rules for 8th Edition explicitly state a model cannot be moved more than once per Movement Phase, there is no such rule in 9th. Instead, it has notes that no unit can be moved more than once and that a unit must end it's move in Coherency or that move cannot be made.
It appears to me that GW is more concerned with the unit making a legal move and less with whether you adjust the movement of individual models during the process of moving the unit as a whole. And let's face facts, who hasn't moved a unit as a whole and then adjusted the models slightly at the end of the process to ensure coherency, LOS, range, and the like?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Okey dokey. 40k is now like chess, where once your hand leaves the model, it is there forever.
I eagerly await the time my opponent's knee sticks out from behind cover and he reaches back down to rotate it or scoot it back a millimeter or something and I can tell him "no, sorry, here is a thread on Dakkadakka, you took your hand off and now you can't move it anymore."
I look forwards even more to when that happens with a unit ending its move out of coherency and I can call my opponent a cheater. Sorry, mate, can't move any of those models to fix it. You just broke the rules. Victory by forfeit?
This seems a gross overreaction given that you couldn't move models more than once during the unit move in previous editions either.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Okey dokey. 40k is now like chess, where once your hand leaves the model, it is there forever.
So, this is what you think the creators intended when they say that no model can cross over another's base during movement:
"Marine number eight needs to get to the front, so, marine one moves .75" to the left, marine two moves 1.25" left, marine six moves 1" left and back, marine nine moves right .75 inches, marine seven... or was that five? moves right 1" right. Now, marine eight scuttles 4.5" up the gap. Now, marine one moves back .75", marine two moves back 1.25", marine six moves back 1", marine nine moves back .75', but forward 1" to move the tree. So, the unit wants to move forward. Marine one has 6.5" left, marine two has 4.5" remaining, marine six has 6" left, marine nine has 4.5"... no wait, 3.5" because of the tree... hunh. That screws up coherency so eight goes back 1"..."
Okay. Unit two..."
Seriously, you think that's what the writers were aiming for?
You forgot "Marine number six puts his right foot in. Marine number sixr takes his left foot out. Marine number two puts his right foot in and shakes it all about...Marine number four does the hokey pokey and turns himself around. That's what it's all about."
Unit1126PLL wrote: No, what he is saying is the rules DO give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
Yeah, this is the best explanation of it. You aren't moving a model twice. You're moving it once, as part of moving the unit. If you want to do that in several stages within the unit, that's fine, as long as you don't exceed the model's total movement characteristic. The rules are very clear that each unit must be moved in turn with no going back to a prior unit, but say nothing about each model within a unit having to be moved in turn with no going back.
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put their is no reason to need to do this shuffle shuffle, the rules don't give explicit permission and if you start it the only reason to do so would be to gain an unfair advantage/cheat.
Becuase you can bet the donkey gave that would start this nonsence qould insist that checking the move is legal is on your time not theirs. It's effectively the new way to slow play your opponent into loosing the game by clocking out.
Anyone who does it is a and should be given a sportsmanship warning atleast.
It's realy no different than the that move a model then move it back then move the same model and move it back then move it again and move it back that resulted in alot of people I know going to chess style you move the model that's the model moved no take backs no magical wandering BS.
(Usually highlighted when you are out of rapid fire at 12 but they magically after moving have an sub 6 inch charge.
The reason to do this is not “only to gain an unfair advantage/ cheat”. The entire game is based around getting an advantage over your opponent. Not by exploiting rules to break them, like you’re so insistent that every will do as soon as they find out. But by using the rules in your favor. A great example of this is moving a unit to get its weapons in range of an enemy unit.
But “gosh that’s just not how I wish it was worded” is not an argument. You have explicit permission to do this, and you are inserting new words and restrictions to make it not so.
rbacus wrote: \
You have explicit permission to do this
Citation needed.
Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The rules give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.
Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.
rbacus wrote: \
You have explicit permission to do this
Citation needed.
Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The rules give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
That's still not a citation giving explicit permission to move many times. Your argument is based on making an assumption that it allows movement of a model many times. Reading and understanding comments before making a snarky comment like your "reading threads before commenting" would be an even better idea. You apparently have no grasp on the word "explict".
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.
Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.
"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.
Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.
There's nothing to suggest that you can interrupt a models action to perform another action by another model. And I have no idea why all the sudden in 9th edition you need to do this to ensure coherency. Maybe just move the models in coherency in the first place, and if you can't shoot your lascannon at my rhino... its your own fault. Also the book states that the unit must finish its move in coherency.... and it says... IF YOU CANT DO THAT, you can't make the move. (<-- see page 206 it actually says that. What it does not say is re-interpret the rules, so you can shuffles models around and do what you want. Make a house rule if you like.
yukishiro1 wrote: And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.
Can you cite this?
yukishiro1 wrote: Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once.
They can travel in a single file. Note, coherency is checked at the end of the move, not during. If you can't END a move in coherency, such move cannot be made.
yukishiro1 wrote: I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.
yukishiro1 wrote: 9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.
Shuffling the models after you're done moving the models are done for correcting human errors, not because it's RAW or RAI to do so. It would be illegal for you to 'shuffle' your models beyond it's M value anyways, so it can only be done if you had any M leftover in the first place.
"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets
Sigh. Please read the thread before responding halfway through. We've already been over this multiple times. The rules give you permission to move each model in the unitl up to its movement characteristic when you move a unit. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this must be done in a single pick-up per model.
Are you really claiming that if you're moving a tank around a corner, and you set the tank down once to make it easier to measure the rotation of the hull, that you've then finished your move with the tank and can't make the rest of the move, because you took your hand off the model? What if the model slips out of your hand - boom, that's where it moved to, no picking it up again and removing it, unless where you dropped it is an illegal place, in which case it doesn't get to make a move at all that turn?
That's not how the rule is written. The rule says you move units, and that when you move a unit, you can move each model in that unit up to its movement distance. Once you're done moving the unit, you move to the next unit. It doesn't say that each model has to be moved in a single pick-up. You're the one reading things into the rules that aren't there.
yukishiro1 wrote: I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you are only allowed to pick up each model once as part of moving the unit, what happens when someone moves models in such a way that it isn't possible to be in coherency when the move for that unit is done? The rules clearly state a move CANNOT BE MADE if the unit doesn't end in coherency. If you can only pick up each model once while moving the unit, doesn't that mean you have to roll back the movement of the entire unit and pretend it didn't happen if you get to your last model and realize there's no way to stay in coherency at the end of the move based on how you've moved the other models? Because under your logic, you can't go back and readjust the ones you've already moved to make the move legal. So you have to undo the entire 30 man move and place them back where they were and forgo moving that unit this turn, don't you?
There's nothing to suggest that you can interrupt a models action to perform another action by another model. And I have no idea why all the sudden in 9th edition you need to do this to ensure coherency. Maybe just move the models in coherency in the first place, and if you can't shoot your lascannon at my rhino... its your own fault. Also the book states that the unit must finish its move in coherency.... and it says... IF YOU CANT DO THAT, you can't make the move. (<-- see page 206 it actually says that. What it does not say is re-interpret the rules, so you can shuffles models around and do what you want. Make a house rule if you like.
Moves happen by unit, not by model. It isn't "interrupting a model's action." There's no such thing as a model's action. Moving models is part of moving units. It isn't something independent of moving units.
If you have no idea why coherency is different in 9th than in prior editions, you might want to actually read the coherency rules, as it would quickly become clear how different the situation is from before. Having to draw coherency to two models and above all the explicit instruction that a unit cannot move at all if models would end out of coherency mean that if we read your "you can only pick up each model once" restriction into the rules, the result is that frequently someone will move 29 models, realize there is no legal way to move the 30th because of how they moved the first 29, and then, per the rules, have to undo the moves of the other 29 (which is impossible, obviously - nobody knows where those models were after they've been moved) and pretend as if the unit wasn't moved that turn.
yukishiro1 wrote: I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.
Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you are only allowed to pick up each model once as part of moving the unit, what happens when someone moves models in such a way that it isn't possible to be in coherency when the move for that unit is done? The rules clearly state a move CANNOT BE MADE if the unit doesn't end in coherency. If you can only pick up each model once while moving the unit, doesn't that mean you have to roll back the movement of the entire unit and pretend it didn't happen if you get to your last model and realize there's no way to stay in coherency at the end of the move?
No that's not what I'm arguing. The whole 'move model A here, then move model B there, then move model A back to where it was" idea is gamey at best and hinges on implication by omission.
The point I'm making once a move is initiated, you must make a honest effort to abide by the rules in whole. You can't purposely initiate a move you know is not going to be possible, then take back the move. The rule states you cannot make a move if such move cannot end in coherency. It doesn't say, 'if your proposed move ends up not working out (i.e. impossible to maintain coherency), take the unit back to where it was." It is your responsibility as a player to pre-measure to ensure your proposed move will be legal. Any take backs are house rules, not something that is explicitly written out as rule.
Personally, I've never come across where maintaining coherency at the end of the move was impossible, unless you purposely manufactured such situation by either removing models from the center of the conga line or made a 'wELL AktcHUWurlY' deployment.
FWIW, I would think GW would release a FAQ clarifying that you can move over models within its own unit.
Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?
"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets
Sigh. Please read the thread before responding halfway through.
Look again, I was commenting on page 1 of the thread. Please check the thread before making comments about when someone started responding.
And it's been pointed out every time that you were incorrect when making the statements multiple times.
yukishiro1 wrote: The rules give you permission to move each model in the unitl up to its movement characteristic when you move a unit. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this must be done in a single pick-up per model.
There's not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this may be done as multiple moves. Hence my recently asking for an explicit statement that you have permission to move a model multiple times, rather than you just making an assumption that you can move multiple times.
yukishiro1 wrote: Are you really claiming that if you're moving a tank around a corner, and you set the tank down once to make it easier to measure the rotation of the hull, that you've then finished your move with the tank and can't make the rest of the move, because you took your hand off the model? What if the model slips out of your hand - boom, that's where it moved to, no picking it up again and removing it, unless where you dropped it is an illegal place, in which case it doesn't get to make a move at all that turn?
Strawman argument, putting the model down once to measure the rotation of the hull, then continuing it's moviement would still be one move. It's not the same if you had a unit of 3 models, stopped the movement of the first model at the corner, decided to move 2 more models in the unit because you suddenly decided you wanted to rush them in front of the model you're moving, then move that first model for a second time. Or move fhe first vehicle in a squadron to the corner, move two other vehicles in the squadron then move the first model again. Stop trying to present a ridiculous counterargument. Presumably if you're oh so worried about having to set the tank down, tell you're opponent you're putting it down to measure the rotation but are continuing it's move after the measurement. Problem solved.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's not how the rule is written. The rule says you move units, and that when you move a unit, you can move each model in that unit up to its movement distance. Once you're done moving the unit, you move to the next unit. It doesn't say that each model has to be moved in a single pick-up. You're the one reading things into the rules that aren't there.
The fact is that the rule isn't written to allow for a model to move multiple times in one unit's move, and in a permissive ruleset you have to demonstrate the permission. Within the discussion about moving the unit there is talk about moving the models. there is no talk about moving the models more than one. You have not provided a citation for that, you are leaning on a "but the rules don'ts say I can't" argument for your position. And claiming that I'm reading things into the rules when my argument is based on the lack of rules being there to permit what you're claiming is laughable and disingenuous
Strawman argument, putting the model down once to measure the rotation of the hull, then continuing it's moviement would still be one move. That's
yukishiro1 wrote: Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?
You house rule it to count the last one as a casualty. You weren't supposed to move ANY MODELS if the UNIT CANNOT END IN COHERENCY.
There is no such thing as "trying out" a move. If you initiated a move, you must commit to it, and make any and all honest efforts in maintaining coherency. Sometimes this would mean that you must move your unit in less-than-optimal way in order to adhere to the coherency rules.
The rule says the MOVE CANNOT BE MADE, not MOVE MUST BE TAKEN BACK.
The moment you initiated the actual physical act of moving the models for a unit that cannot end in coherency, you have made an illegal move.
yukishiro1 wrote: Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?
You house rule it to count the last one as a casualty. You weren't supposed to move ANY MODELS if the UNIT CANNOT END IN COHERENCY.
There is no such thing as "trying out" a move. If you initiated a move, you must commit to it, and make any and all honest efforts in maintaining coherency. Sometimes this would mean that you must move your unit in less-than-optimal way in order to adhere to the coherency rules.
The rule says the MOVE CANNOT BE MADE, not MOVE MUST BE TAKEN BACK.
The moment you initiated the actual physical act of moving the models for a unit that cannot end in coherency, you have made an illegal move.
You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?
Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move? You do realize this comes up all the time in 9th because of the having to draw coherency to two models rule, right? This becomes extremely complex geometrically very quickly once you start introducing other units and terrain to the equation. It's inevitable that people will mess it up all the time.
Please just answer my question instead of answering things I didn't ask like how you would house rule it.
You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?
Flogging with a dreadsock.
yukishiro1 wrote: Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?
If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.
You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?
Flogging with a dreadsock.
yukishiro1 wrote: Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?
If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.
The rules say "the move cannot be made." That clearly refers to the move for the whole unit, not the individual model, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
So the rules tell you that if you get to the 20th model and realize there's no way to place it in coherency, the entire move cannot be made. If we accept your argument that each individual model can only be picked up once, the result would have to be that we roll the movement back for the entire unit, placing all 20 models back where they previously were and treating them as not having moved.
But this also means that the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit - otherwise the instruction that "the move cannot be made" doesn't mean anything. And that defeats the argument that the move of an individual model is complete and irrevocable after you set it down.
I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.
yukishiro1 wrote: You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?
First off, I respectfully request you to tone down - this is a discussion, and disagreements happen in discussions.
Second, clearly you haven't read my post in full - As I've stated, I'm split on the whole 'move model more than once in a single movement phase' stance because I find it gamey because it's an assumption from implication by omission.
yukishiro1 wrote: Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?
Yes, there are no provisions for resolving a situation where you 'broke the law' so to say - there are no penal system baked into the rules. The rules simply tell you what you can do, and expect you to abide by it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Please just answer my question instead of answering things I didn't ask like how you would house rule it.
You asked me "what do you do if...", not "what does the rulebook say if...". My response was completely valid as far as answering your question goes.
You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?
Flogging with a dreadsock.
yukishiro1 wrote: Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?
If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.
The rules say "the move cannot be made." That clearly refers to the move for the whole unit, not the individual model, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
So the rules tell you that if you get to the 20th model and realize there's no way to place it in coherency, the entire move cannot be made. So this means that the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit. If we accept your argument that each individual model can only be picked up once, the result would have to be that we roll the movement back for the entire unit, placing all 20 models back where they previously were and treating them as not having moved.
That's not what it says. "The move cannot be made" does not mean "the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit", it means "the move cannot be made". So what if it means placing all 20 models back where the previously were and treating them as not having moved? It's your fault for making an illegal move in the first place. It sounds like you're whining about having to follow the rules. You should realize before you start moving the last of the 20 models in the unit that you're not going to have them in coherency, when you're moving the last few models you should make sure to pay attention to having them end up in coherency. Besides, ou can still move the unit as they count as not having moved, just try to make it a legal move the next time they move. If your opponent wants to house rule that you can adjust a couple of models to have made the first move become a legal one that's okay, but realize that that is only a house rule, not RAW.
yukishiro1 wrote: But this simply isn't true in this circumstance. The rules very clearly state that if all models cannot end in coherency, the unit cannot move. Not that the last model cannot move.
You're not fully understanding me then.
I'm not saying that the last model cannot move. If all models in a unit cannot end move in coherency, then at the time of said unit being selected to move, the whole unit cannot make a Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back. It is your responsibility to 'secure the landing site' of your unit before committing to a move (by physically beginning to move the models).
Yes, the unit itself cannot move if all of its parts cannot make a legal move.
yukishiro1 wrote: There is no possible way to read "THE MOVE CANNOT BE MADE" as referring only to the move of one individual model.
No one (or at least I) said anything or that sort.
yukishiro1 wrote: It literally doesn't work with the coherency rules. The instruction has to refer to the entire unit. The only way you can make sense of this is to read what it says literally: the unit moves as a whole.
You're kind of losing coherency here. Please elaborate. (no pun intended)
yukishiro1 wrote: You only track the movement of individual models as it relates to the movement of the model as a whole. No model's movement is complete until the move of the entire unit is complete, because it's only at that point that you know whether the move can be made.
This is not true because pre-measuring is legal. You can actually 'map out' the results of your move with placeholders, before you actually move the models in the unit, if accuracy is of upmost importance. Not sure if you were around, but there was a time when pre-measuring was illegal, and there was this whole discussion on the fairness of the rule because some people have better sense of distance than others, thereby creating an unfair advantage.
I have as much permission to move once as I do to move twice - that is, I have permission to move.
In order for that permission to mean "only move once" it would have to say "only move once" or something like that. But it doesn't. The word "once" is never once (haha) applied to models, only to units.
Here is the sum total of things you have to worry about when moving a model: 1) Make sure that model's unit is selected to move, and you haven't selected another unit. 2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance.
That's it. Literally any other case (the model is on fire, the model's already moved a bit, the model's on the second floor, it's a Tuesday, the Soviet Union's reuinified, aliens have abducted the model, etc) is irrelevant.
And shockingly (*audience-gasps.wav*), moving more than once isn't on that list - how many times a model has moved (so long as its unit remains the only unit selected and it hasn't moved further than its maximum movement distance, i.e. those two conditions above are watched for) is just as irrelevant as the price of tea in China.
rbacus wrote: I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.
I totally disagree with a single model moving at two distinct times. Moving once, implies you have made a models move up to M". Moving that model again... show me a rule that gives you permission to do that? Because you have already made a normal move, or an advance or a fall back and satisfied the conditions of those rules. I get that you want... demand your maximum move, but nothing in the book guarantees that, and the book doesn't even hint that you can split your movement up. If it did.. I'm all for it.
And please cite your source... I'm looking at page 206 - 207.
And I just read the rules on coherency.. (for those who have a problem with this YukiShiro...)... ProTip: "move each model in coherency with a model that has already moved"... unless you are stretching your unit out as much as possible normally you'll never have a problem, but they did add that the head and tail of a unit must be within coherency of 2 other models of the same unit if it has more than 5 models... so... that fixes stretch issues 99% of the time.
Unit1126PLL your #2 Item is not correct.
"2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance."
What you should have written was Models move up to M". And once you reach that condition... end sequence, you move on.
yukishiro1 wrote: You only track the movement of individual models as it relates to the movement of the model as a whole. No model's movement is complete until the move of the entire unit is complete, because it's only at that point that you know whether the move can be made.
This is not true because pre-measuring is legal. You can actually 'map out' the results of your move with placeholders, before you actually move the models in the unit, if accuracy is of upmost importance. Not sure if you were around, but there was a time when pre-measuring was illegal, and there was this whole discussion on the fairness of the rule because some people have better sense of distance than others, thereby creating an unfair advantage.
That doesn't follow. The question isn't whether you can plan out your movement beforehand. You can plan as much as you want, but planning isn't making a move. You don't actually know if the move you're making is legal until you make the move. You can premeasure to your heart's content, but if when you actually move, by mistake you move one of your models 1mm too little or 1mm too much, such that the next model can't be in coherency due to the "draw to 2 models" rule, all that premeasuring did nothing: you still ended up moving an individual model in a way that would result in an illegal move, so the unit as a whole "cannot make the move." Note the rule does not say "check coherency, and if the move you made was illegal, undo it." It says the unit cannot make the move. This means the move isn't actually made until the coherency check is passed.
You want to read into the rule a sub-rule that each model makes its own individual move that is finalized as soon as you take your hand off it, but that isn't what the rule says. The rule says the unit moves, and that it doesn't actually move until you declare you're done moving individual models, at which point you then check coherency, and if you pass the coherency check, the move happens. If you don't pass the coherency check, the move doesn't happen.
Ergo no movement actually occurs until you declare you're done moving all the individual models.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have as much permission to move once as I do to move twice - that is, I have permission to move.
In order for that permission to mean "only move once" it would have to say "only move once" or something like that. But it doesn't. The word "once" is never once (haha) applied to models, only to units.
Here is the sum total of things you have to worry about when moving a model:
1) Make sure that model's unit is selected to move, and you haven't selected another unit.
2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance.
That's it. Literally any other case (the model is on fire, the model's already moved a bit, the model's on the second floor, it's a Tuesday, the Soviet Union's reuinified, aliens have abducted the model, etc) is irrelevant.
And shockingly (*audience-gasps.wav*), moving more than once isn't on that list - how many times a model has moved (so long as its unit remains the only unit selected and it hasn't moved further than its maximum movement distance, i.e. those two conditions above are watched for) is just as irrelevant as the price of tea in China.
This is exactly correct. And I’ll add that since “moving twice” IS moving, implying the word “move” means something different in this case than it normally does requires a citation.
It isn't even "moving twice" per the rules. It's just moving. No moves are actually finalized until you declare you're done moving the models in the unit and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down models as many times as you want, it's still only one movement.
Sazzlefrats wrote: What you should have written was Models move up to M". And once you reach that condition... end sequence, you move on.
I agree with you.
What happens if I move 3" with a 14" move model, and then take my hand off of it to, say, check line of sight or something? Have I reached M" yet? No? Good, then the sequence isn't over. I'll go back over to my side of the table, move it 10" forwards, then go look on the other side of the table, realize it's in LOS, and then come back and move 1" backwards to hide better.
Only then, after THREE WHOLE MOVES (!!!!!!!!!!), I've moved my model up to move M", reached its maximum movement allowance, and the sequence ends. At this point, I may end my movement phase or select another unit. At no time in the middle of that sequence of events is there cause for an opponent to tell me I have to stop moving, because I've neither:
1) Selected another unit to move nor 2) moved my maximum move allowance
rbacus wrote: I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.
I totally disagree with a single model moving at two distinct times. Moving once, implies you have made a models move up to M". Moving that model again... show me a rule that gives you permission to do that? Because you have already made a normal move, or an advance or a fall back and satisfied the conditions of those rules. I get that you want... demand your maximum move, but nothing in the book guarantees that, and the book doesn't even hint that you can split your movement up. If it did.. I'm all for it.
And please cite your source... I'm looking at page 206 - 207.
Moving at two distinct time is moving, just with more words attached. You haven’t satisfied the conditions of moving, because a normal move has only ended once the models maximum distance has been reached or another unit is selected. Limiting the definition of the word “move” to “move only once” requires us to add in what we think the writers meant. And that’s RAI, not RAW. I am looking at page 207, under Normal Move.
doctortom wrote: Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.
There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.
doctortom wrote: Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.
There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.
Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?
There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.
doctortom wrote: Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.
There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.
Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?
There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.
Rehashing discredited points doesn't make them true. Here's a summary for you of why you're wrong:
rbacus wrote: \ You have explicit permission to do this
Citation needed.
Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The rules give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when: 1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance 2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
In other words, just in case you're still confused: 1) The rules explicitly give permission for movement once I have selected a unit to move. 2) The rules only revoke that permission in two cases: a) I select another unit to move. b) I reach my maximum movement distance 3) If neither of those conditions is met, I continue to have permission to move. 4) Picking up a model, moving it a few inches short of its maximum move, and putting it back down again is a move. 5) Premise 4 does not meet either of the criteria in Premise 2. Therefore, by Premise 3, I retain permission to move, and may continue to pick up my model and move it until such time as either of the criteria in Premise 2 are met.
Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.
The rules don't state "movement is done once all models in the unit has moved, or not moved, and the coherency check is good." This is an assumption. Is this a RAI? maybe. RAW? definitely no.
Like I stated multiple times, what I'm calling you out on are your ensuing assumptions that you're bringing up in defense of your stance - it's not about whether a model can be moved more than once, or if there is even a concept of 'moving more than once'.
It's absolutely RAW. The rule literally says that after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit, you do a coherency check, and if it's not passed, you cannot make the move. Note the tense. The grammar of this means the move doesn't actually take place until you pass the coherency check. There is no other way to read it that makes grammatical sense. The move is not actually made until you pass the coherency check. All your noodling around before you declare you're done moving models is provisional.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's absolutely RAW. The rule literally says that after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit, you do a coherency check, and if it's not passed, you cannot make the move. Note the tense. The grammar of this means the move doesn't actually take place until you pass the coherency check. There is no other way to read it that makes grammatical sense. The move is not actually made until you pass the coherency check. All your noodling around before you declare you're done moving models is provisional.
But you've already made the move. When do you physically check for coherency? After the move has been made or before the move has been made?
You made it clear that you cannot possibly check to coherency without moving the models. So then, how can you 'not make a move' after having checked for coherency? How could you have an instance where the move hasn't actually been made if the coherency has been checked for, if you have never 'actually moved' because it comes after coherency check?
Here's your logic as presented:
1. A unit selected to move can move upto it's M value 2. Once you've finished moving all the models you want to move, check for coherency 3. If not in coherency, and it is impossible to bring the models back into coherency, then move the models back to where they started 4. No models have been moved because it would otherwise make an illegal move.
So when you physically moved the models, did you make a move, or did you not make a move?
It is one thing to move 3" forward then 3" back with M 6". It is something completely different when you move 6" forward then undo the move because it was actually illegal because the rules don't provide you provisions for 'undoing' a move.
Yukishiro, I understand where you're coming from (and I agree that you can physically relocate the model multiple times in a single move, obviously) but I think you're reading way too much into what amounts to really shoddy grammar.
If they'd rewritten that sentence and said "the move cannot have been made" instead of "the move cannot be made" then I think you've got much less ammunition, and that type of argument just reeks of GW being shoddy at rules rather than them intending you to read a major interpretation from it.
Moving a model twice within a unit's single move is fine without having to resort to measuring the whole move at the end.
Not for the purposes of the rules. Just like picking up a model, removing some fluff that got attached to it, and placing it back where it was is not a move for the purposes of the rules, even though you physically picked it up. And just like how if someone knocks a model over by mistake and places it back, the model hasn't moved for purposes of the rules, even though someone moved it from a physical standpoint.
I thought I was pretty clear before when I said any moves made were provisional until you declare you're done moving the unit and pass the coherency check.
If they'd rewritten that sentence and said "the move cannot have been made" instead of "the move cannot be made" then I think you've got much less ammunition, and that type of argument just reeks of GW being shoddy at rules rather than them intending you to read a major interpretation from it.
But we discuss RAW here. If they had said "the move cannot have been made" the rule would have been different. That's the whole point of discussing RAW.
It's possible that it isn't RAI that the move doesn't actually happen for rules purposes until you pass the coherency check (I personally think it is, but RAI is always speculation). But RAW that is what it says.
yukishiro1 wrote: I thought I was pretty clear before when I said any moves made were provisional until you declare you're done moving the unit and pass the coherency check.
And this is a huge assumption you're making that doesn't exist in the rulebook.
There is no such thing as a "provisional move". Move is a move. Moving multiple times in a single move is a move as long as the path of movement does not exceed its M. Moving the models in order to check coherency is a move. Moving back the models to where they came from because you made an illegal move is a move.
At any time a model is displaced from its original location is a move. Some times when a model did not have any displacement can be considered to have moved (unit has moved, model did not, if unit moved = model moved as per rulebook)
A move is a move. The move doesn't happen for rules purposes until the coherency check is passed, after you declare you're done moving all models. This is literally what the rule says. You haven't advocated any other way to read "the move cannot be made" being the result of a failed coherency check that makes grammatical sense. If the move has already happened, "the move cannot be made" doesn't make sense, and the rules are literally broken.
You can call the physical transportation of the models before you declare you're done moving the unit whatever you want. I chose to call it provisional movement, but the name doesn't matter. RAW no move actually occurs until you pass the coherency check.
I am happy to be proved wrong here BTW. I just don't see any way to read the fact that "the move cannot be made" doesn't happen until after the coherency check any other way. If the move already happened at that stage, the instruction that "the move cannot be made" is literally nonsensical. I don't like a reading of the rules that requires dismissing part of the rule as actual nonsense in the literal meaning of the word.
yukishiro1 wrote: You haven't advocated any other way to read "the move cannot be made" being the result of a failed coherency check that makes grammatical sense. If the move has already happened, "the move cannot be made" doesn't make sense, and the rules are literally broken.
It means you are restricted from creating such situation in the first place.
You are simply explicitly prohibited from creating a situation where distance btwn models in a unit > 2". You don't check for the fact afterwards. When models are placed as a result of moving them, they must follow all rules for maintaining coherency.
If you have a case where you thought for sure you had enough space but ends up you don't, then you will have to adjust your models' positions (while still being within its M) in order to create a legal situation.
If that's still impossible, then you need to invoke TMIR and house rule it because the rulebook doesn't tell you what to do when you did something illegal.
doctortom wrote: Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.
There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.
Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?
There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.
Rehashing discredited points doesn't make them true. Here's a summary for you of why you're wrong:
rbacus wrote: \
You have explicit permission to do this
Citation needed.
Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The rules give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
In other words, just in case you're still confused:
1) The rules explicitly give permission for movement once I have selected a unit to move.
2) The rules only revoke that permission in two cases: a) I select another unit to move. b) I reach my maximum movement distance
3) If neither of those conditions is met, I continue to have permission to move.
4) Picking up a model, moving it a few inches short of its maximum move, and putting it back down again is a move.
5) Premise 4 does not meet either of the criteria in Premise 2.
Therefore, by Premise 3, I retain permission to move, and may continue to pick up my model and move it until such time as either of the criteria in Premise 2 are met.
I'm not the one who is confused.
1. Yes, the rules give permission for movement once you have selected a unit to move. There is no explicit permission for anything to get to move twice. Once you have moved a model, the model has moved.
2. We're not dealing with a case of permission being revoked or not, we're dealing with a case of the permission to move a second time in the first place.
3. You are making an inference here that "move" means "move as many times as I want". You are inisiting that it's explicit permission. It isn't. It is an inference you are making.
4. Yes.
5. Premise 4 does not meet the requirement of having explicit permission to move the model a second time. Again, you are assuming you can. It does not state that you may move models more than once. Permission to move is not permission to move several times. You have permission to move models as per statements in the section about moving units. You do not have a statement saying you have permission to move multi-ple times. Assuming that you do is not RAW, it isn't even RAI as there is no indication that GW intends it to work that way. Making a guess and assuming it is not RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.
Rules citation please on the model not counting as having moved until you declare you're done moving all the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: It's absolutely RAW. The rule literally says that after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit, you do a coherency check, and if it's not passed, you cannot make the move. Note the tense. The grammar of this means the move doesn't actually take place until you pass the coherency check. There is no other way to read it that makes grammatical sense. The move is not actually made until you pass the coherency check. All your noodling around before you declare you're done moving models is provisional.
The rules stating you do a coherency check after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit is in no way the same as saying the models don't count as having moved until you declare all the models in the unit have moved. You have made an unwarranted assumption.
doctortom wrote: Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.
It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.
There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.
Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?
There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.
Rehashing discredited points doesn't make them true. Here's a summary for you of why you're wrong:
rbacus wrote: \ You have explicit permission to do this
Citation needed.
Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The rules give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when: 1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance 2) another unit is selected to move.
Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.
In other words, just in case you're still confused: 1) The rules explicitly give permission for movement once I have selected a unit to move. 2) The rules only revoke that permission in two cases: a) I select another unit to move. b) I reach my maximum movement distance 3) If neither of those conditions is met, I continue to have permission to move. 4) Picking up a model, moving it a few inches short of its maximum move, and putting it back down again is a move. 5) Premise 4 does not meet either of the criteria in Premise 2. Therefore, by Premise 3, I retain permission to move, and may continue to pick up my model and move it until such time as either of the criteria in Premise 2 are met.
I'm not the one who is confused.
1. Yes, the rules give permission for movement once you have selected a unit to move. There is no explicit permission for anything to get to move twice. Once you have moved a model, the model has moved. 2. We're not dealing with a case of permission being revoked or not, we're dealing with a case of the permission to move a second time in the first place. 3. You are making an inference here that "move" means "move as many times as I want". You are inisiting that it's explicit permission. It isn't. It is an inference you are making. 4. Yes. 5. Premise 4 does not meet the requirement of having explicit permission to move the model a second time. Again, you are assuming you can. It does not state that you may move models more than once. Permission to move is not permission to move several times. You have permission to move models as per statements in the section about moving units. You do not have a statement saying you have permission to move multi-ple times. Assuming that you do is not RAW, it isn't even RAI as there is no indication that GW intends it to work that way. Making a guess and assuming it is not RAW.
1) There is explicit permission to move. You don't need any further explicit permissions to move infinite times - being given permission to move is being given permission to move, and it is not taken away after a single move based on any rules I can see. 2) yes, we are. I have permission to move - I can demonstrate that, as you agreed for Premise 1. Can you show me on what rules grounds my permission to move is revoked after I've moved 3" with my 14" M-stat model? 3) You are making an inference that "move" means "move only once and no more". You're insisting that's what it means. It isn't. It's an inference you are making. Unless you can prove to me that it only means once? 5) You don't need explicit permission to move a second time - you still have explicit permission to move, period, whether it's the second time, first time, or twenty-eighth time. I don't need permission to "move multiple times." I just need the permission to move, and I continually have that permission until the rules take it away.
So, based on your agreement with Premise 1 (permission to move is granted to me) can you tell me via rules, without inference or rephrasing, why this permission to move has been revoked if I move 3" with a 14" M-stat model?
yukishiro1 wrote: Not for the purposes of the rules. Just like picking up a model, removing some fluff that got attached to it, and placing it back where it was is not a move for the purposes of the rules, even though you physically picked it up. And just like how if someone knocks a model over by mistake and places it back, the model hasn't moved for purposes of the rules, even though someone moved it from a physical standpoint.
As these aren't moves for the purposes of the rules, there's no reason to bring them up unless you're trying to make some strawman argument in order to distract. Removing some fluff or replacing a model knocked over is in no way the same as moving a model in the unit, moving some other models in the unit and then moving the first model in the unit again. Yet you seemed to have insisted that you must be able to move models more than once to cover these cases you listed here, as well as for making illegal moves. If you make an illegal move, you must start the move again with the models from their original spot unless your opponent house rules you can just adjust the positions of one or two models to make the move legal.
yukishiro1 wrote: I thought I was pretty clear before when I said any moves made were provisional until you declare you're done moving the unit and pass the coherency check.
You were clearly stating your opinion, and that you clearly believe it. That doesn't make it true, "Provisional" and "legal are two separate things.
Their is also a significant difference between my intention was to move the squad 5 inches forward and in coherency but this model is 3 mm out of possition.
Thats playing by intention and is a common house rule between two players.
Thats in a totally different leauge of rules bending than I'm going to break up this models movement characteristic into 4 individual moves to allow me to reorder my squad while not actually moving any model for an advantage when I could have quite easily just wheeled the unit through 90 degrees or moved the models into a suitable other configoration by each model making one legal individual move.
And the above will insist on wasting time on your clock untill you find a TO to tell hin to stop slow playing and being a
skchsan wrote: It means you are restricted from creating such situation in the first place.
You are simply explicitly prohibited from creating a situation where distance btwn models in a unit > 2". You don't check for the fact afterwards. When models are placed as a result of moving them, they must follow all rules for maintaining coherency.
If you have a case where you thought for sure you had enough space but ends up you don't, then you will have to adjust your models' positions (while still being within its M) in order to create a legal situation.
If that's still impossible, then you need to invoke TMIR and house rule it because the rulebook doesn't tell you what to do when you did something illegal.
But that's literally not what the rules say. The rules for coherency are NOT checked at the time you move each individual model, because that would literally be impossible - as soon as you moved the first model and ended it out of coherency, you'd be failing a coherency check. The rules say you DO check afterward, and if you fail, the move isn't made. That's what the rule says. What you've written is one way the rule could be structured, but it isn't how the rule actually is structured.
You are ignoring the text of the actual rule because you think it doesn't make sense, and coming up with something different you think makes more sense. Which is fine for playing the game generally. But not fine for answering the question of what the rule as written says.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's absolutely RAW. The rule literally says that after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit, you do a coherency check, and if it's not passed, you cannot make the move. Note the tense. The grammar of this means the move doesn't actually take place until you pass the coherency check. There is no other way to read it that makes grammatical sense. The move is not actually made until you pass the coherency check. All your noodling around before you declare you're done moving models is provisional.
The rules stating you do a coherency check after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit is in no way the same as saying the models don't count as having moved until you declare all the models in the unit have moved. You have made an unwarranted assumption.
It is the exact same thing. There's no other way to reconcile the tense of "the move cannot be made." If the move was already made, saying the move cannot be made is literal nonsense. You can say I'm wrong as many times as you want. You can say "it's not the same thing" as many times as you want. But that isn't demonstrating it, it's just saying it. If you can't explain why I'm wrong, you don't have a convincing argument.
In contrast, I have demonstrated why " if you fail X, the move cannot be made" necessarily means that the move has not yet been made at that point. That's inherent in the grammar of the sentence. If you disagree, you'll need to actually explain the disagreement, not just repeat that "it's different" and "you're wrong."
yukishiro1 wrote: It's absolutely RAW. The rule literally says that after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit, you do a coherency check, and if it's not passed, you cannot make the move. Note the tense. The grammar of this means the move doesn't actually take place until you pass the coherency check. There is no other way to read it that makes grammatical sense. The move is not actually made until you pass the coherency check. All your noodling around before you declare you're done moving models is provisional.
The rules stating you do a coherency check after you declare you're done moving all your individual models within the unit is in no way the same as saying the models don't count as having moved until you declare all the models in the unit have moved. You have made an unwarranted assumption.
It is the exact same thing. There's no other way to reconcile the tense of "the move cannot be made." If the move was already made, saying the move cannot be made is literal nonsense. You can say I'm wrong as many times as you want. You can say "it's not the same thing" as many times as you want. But that isn't demonstrating it, it's just saying it. If you can't explain why I'm wrong, you don't have a convincing argument.
In contrast, I have demonstrated why " if you fail X, the move cannot be made" necessarily means that the move has not yet been made at that point. That's inherent in the grammar of the sentence. If you disagree, you'll need to actually explain the disagreement, not just repeat that "it's different" and "you're wrong."
No, it's not the exact same thing (might as well add to the number of times I've said it by one, since it's true). A move being invalidated when you make a coherency check is not the same as the model's "move" being provisional, and has nothing to do with how many times the model itself can move before the coherency check. Your move can be found illegal and invalidated, but that only means that you can't make that move. There's no provision for you to adjust the models to make the move legal, which is what you are assuming. A friendly opponent might house rule that you can leave most the unit alone and adjust only a couple of models, but that is not in the rules. The move being invalidated means you start from square one again, since you can't make that move they have to be back where they started, not having moved. There's nothing written for any jiggery pokery about moving models again to make a move legal, so by the rules the status must be restored to where they started and then getting to make a legal move.
Sazzlefrats wrote: What you should have written was Models move up to M". And once you reach that condition... end sequence, you move on.
I agree with you.
What happens if I move 3" with a 14" move model, and then take my hand off of it to, say, check line of sight or something? Have I reached M" yet? No? Good, then the sequence isn't over. I'll go back over to my side of the table, move it 10" forwards, then go look on the other side of the table, realize it's in LOS, and then come back and move 1" backwards to hide better.
Only then, after THREE WHOLE MOVES (!!!!!!!!!!), I've moved my model up to move M", reached its maximum movement allowance, and the sequence ends. At this point, I may end my movement phase or select another unit. At no time in the middle of that sequence of events is there cause for an opponent to tell me I have to stop moving, because I've neither:
1) Selected another unit to move
nor
2) moved my maximum move allowance
Are you serious? Its a single model. Don't do Ad Homin arguements that's lame, and you are off topic. OP wanted to know if he can have two moves. What you are describing is a single move, albeit wasting a lot of time. Now... if you move it 5" and then move another model, you have completed the first models move.
Sazzlefrats wrote: Are you serious? Its a single model. Don't do Ad Homin arguements that's lame, and you are off topic. OP wanted to know if he can have two moves. What you are describing is a single move, albeit wasting a lot of time. Now... if you move it 5" and then move another model, you have completed the first models move.
The rules say nothing that supports this - it only says units, not models. You move units one at a time, but the restriction does not apply to models. You could conceivably move one model (with a 14" move) in those three segments, then move another model (say, with a 12" move) in between any one or all of those three segments, and as long as they are in the same unit, you're still legal.
Unless you can find in the rules where it shows you can only move one model at a time? It explicitly says so for units. I'm sure it can't be that hard to find for models.
Sazzlefrats wrote: Are you serious? Its a single model. Don't do Ad Homin arguements that's lame, and you are off topic. OP wanted to know if he can have two moves. What you are describing is a single move, albeit wasting a lot of time. Now... if you move it 5" and then move another model, you have completed the first models move.
The rules say nothing that supports this - it only says units, not models. You move units one at a time, but the restriction does not apply to models. You could conceivably move one model (with a 14" move) in those three segments, then move another model (say, with a 12" move) in between any one or all of those three segments, and as long as they are in the same unit, you're still legal.
Unless you can find in the rules where it shows you can only move one model at a time? It explicitly says so for units. I'm sure it can't be that hard to find for models.
Its implied that you move a model in a unit one at a time. But you can't imply that you can interrupt movement of 1 model to move a 2nd. But please Cite away, in fact... go to GW's demo games of 9th and show me where this is some sneaky maneuver of theirs. You won't find it. So Fake News.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Please provide rules quotes in YMDC or clearly state when something is HIWPI.
The same applies to you. You have given inferences and assumptions, but not an explicit rules citation giving explicit permission for models to move multiple times when a unit makes its move. What you've quoted yourself saying earlier in the thread is not a rules citation proving the statement.
doctortom wrote: A move being invalidated when you make a coherency check is not the same as the model's "move" being provisional, and has nothing to do with how many times the model itself can move before the coherency check. Your move can be found illegal and invalidated, but that only means that you can't make that move. There's no provision for you to adjust the models to make the move legal, which is what you are assuming. A friendly opponent might house rule that you can leave most the unit alone and adjust only a couple of models, but that is not in the rules. The move being invalidated means you start from square one again, since you can't make that move they have to be back where they started, not having moved. There's nothing written for any jiggery pokery about moving models again to make a move legal, so by the rules the status must be restored to where they started and then getting to make a legal move.
You're absolutely right: it's not the same thing. That's the whole point. The rule doesn't say "if you fail the coherency check the move is illegal and invalidated," it says "if you fail the coherency check, the move CANNOT BE MADE." Ergo, as you yourself stated in the bolded sentence, the move has not yet been made at the point you take the coherency check, because the coherency check is what determines whether the move can be made; until that check is passed, the move is not made.
You are also right about what you wrote afterward. IF you declare you're done moving all your models, and then you fail the coherency check, you do have to undo the move. You can't then go back and rearrange models; your chance to do that ended when you declared you were done.
Where you've gone wrong is in the in-between part. You can't rejigger your models AFTER you declare "I'm done moving models in this unit," but you can do it BEFORE you declare that - because at no point in that whole process of physically moving individual models have any moves actually conclusively been made. You've just placed some models where you'd like them to move - they haven't actually moved there yet. That doesn't happen until the coherency check is passed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Please provide rules quotes in YMDC or clearly state when something is HIWPI.
The same applies to you. You have given inferences and assumptions, but not an explicit rules citation giving explicit permission for models to move multiple times when a unit makes its move. What you've quoted yourself saying earlier in the thread is not a rules citation proving the statement.
He has provided a rules quote, but I will will also do so.
The following quote shows permission to move. This permission is not removed unless the model moves equal to the Move (M) characteristic.
Please answer this one question for me, can you tell me via rules, why the permission to move that I have shown via rules, is revoked if I move 3" with a 14" M-stat model, and then move a different model in the same unit?
"When you move a unit, you can move any of its models (you can also choose not to move some of the models in that unit if you wish) Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s base (or hull) can be moved across the bases... of other models, nor can any part of that model... cross the edge of the battlefield You can also rotate any movable part of the model... when it is moved The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path... Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency... If this is impossible, then that move cannot be made No unit can be selected to move more than once in each Movement phase."
And the Normal move section "When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"
P. 10 9th Ed rules available here:
doctortom wrote: A move being invalidated when you make a coherency check is not the same as the model's "move" being provisional, and has nothing to do with how many times the model itself can move before the coherency check. Your move can be found illegal and invalidated, but that only means that you can't make that move. There's no provision for you to adjust the models to make the move legal, which is what you are assuming. A friendly opponent might house rule that you can leave most the unit alone and adjust only a couple of models, but that is not in the rules. The move being invalidated means you start from square one again, since you can't make that move they have to be back where they started, not having moved. There's nothing written for any jiggery pokery about moving models again to make a move legal, so by the rules the status must be restored to where they started and then getting to make a legal move.
You're absolutely right: it's not the same thing. That's the whole point. The rule doesn't say "if you fail the coherency check the move is illegal and invalidated," it says "if you fail the coherency check, the move CANNOT BE MADE." Ergo, as you yourself stated in the bolded sentence, the move has not yet been made at the point you take the coherency check, because the coherency check is what determines whether the move can be made; until that check is passed, the move is not made.
You are also right about what you wrote afterward. IF you declare you're done moving all your models, and then you fail the coherency check, you do have to undo the move. You can't then go back and rearrange models; your chance to do that ended when you declared you were done.
Where you've gone wrong is in the in-between part. You can't rejigger your models AFTER you declare "I'm done moving models in this unit," but you can do it BEFORE you declare that - because at no point in that whole process of physically moving individual models have any moves actually conclusively been made. You've just placed some models where you'd like them to move - they haven't actually moved there yet. That doesn't happen until the coherency check is passed.
Please provide the rules citation stating you can jigger the models before declaring the unit has moved. The only thing said is that the move can't be made. That doesn't mean you have permission to move just a few models to make it legal. The only instruction we're given is there isn't coherency the move can not be made. Assuming you move a few figures to make it legal is an assumption on your part, not to mention is completely different from what the OP was asking about.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Please provide rules quotes in YMDC or clearly state when something is HIWPI.
The same applies to you. You have given inferences and assumptions, but not an explicit rules citation giving explicit permission for models to move multiple times when a unit makes its move. What you've quoted yourself saying earlier in the thread is not a rules citation proving the statement.
He has provided a rules quote, but I will will also do so.
The following quote shows permission to move. This permission is not removed unless the model moves equal to the Move (M) characteristic.
Please answer this one question for me, can you tell me via rules, why the permission to move that I have shown via rules, is revoked if I move 3" with a 14" M-stat model, and then move a different model in the same unit?
"When you move a unit, you can move any of its models (you can also choose not to move some of the models in that unit if you wish) Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s base (or hull) can be moved across the bases... of other models, nor can any part of that model... cross the edge of the battlefield You can also rotate any movable part of the model... when it is moved The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path... Remember that a unit must finish any type of move in unit coherency... If this is impossible, then that move cannot be made No unit can be selected to move more than once in each Movement phase."
And the Normal move section "When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"
P. 10 9th Ed rules available here:
Already addressed multiple times. Permission to move is not permission to move again. There is no stated permission to be able to move models more than once. You are assuming permissions that are not stated.
doctortom wrote: Already addressed multiple times. Permission to move is not permission to move again. There is no stated permission to be able to move models more than once. You are assuming permissions that are not stated.
Citation needed for this bit.
I am not assuming permissions, I have it in black and white that there is permission to move a model up to its M stat. This is not debatable.
The rules give you blanket permission to move.
Where does it restrict that movement to only once?
Show me in the rules where it restricts the permission given.
I have permission to move, which is all I am asserting when I reach over and pick up my model (in the unit I have still selected) to move it a second time.
The onus is now on the other side to prove that having permission to move is exactly equal to having permission to move once using a rules quote.
The unit hasn't moved until you declare you're done relocating models and pass the coherency check. As long as you haven't declared you're done, the rule clearly states you can pick up and place models in the positions you want them to move to once you declare you're done positioning and ready to take the coherency check which, if passed, results in the move actually happening.
Here is the rule which states you can move models while moving the unit:
When you move a unit, you can move any of its models (you can
also choose not to move some of the models in that unit if you wish).
Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its
position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s
base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models,
nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the
battlefield. You can also rotate any movable part of the model (such as
turrets and sponsons) when it is moved. The distance a model moves
is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves
furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).
It doesn't say anything about only being able to pick up and place each model once. It just says you can move models (or not move them), subject to the general movement rules. Please provide any rules citation for the idea that you can only pick up and relocate each model in the unit once while positioning the models in the way you would like them to move once you declare you are done? You're the one advocating for a limitation here, it's on you to provide the citation that supports the limitation.
Literally nowhere in the rules does it ever say that a model can only be picked up and put down once per movement phase. Nowhere. Literally nowhere in the rules does it say when moving models from a unit you must do them sequentially and that once you have gone on to the next model you can't go back to an earlier model. It says this for units, but not for models.
You're reading something into the rules that simply isn't there.
You guys are trying to twist your way out of another rule. Which is "Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its
position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s
base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, "
Specifically : "but no part of the model’s
base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models"
Because if you could split a models movement, you are essentially moving through the bases of your own unit. There's nothing to quote for splitting movement.
We have a position, and you have a position. Our position is that its the same as it was in 8th, this is the default move anyhow. WE don't have much burden of proof, but... you are attempting a whole different type of move, you have to have something.. a prescedent, a rules quote, a comment by GW, a demo game put on by GW. ANYTHING AT ALL that says splitting movement is okay in 9th. BUT all you have is a twisted definition of MOVE = MOVES. Get a major tournament organzer to agree, get... any of the top 10 40k players to agree. Do anything thats on that list, and you may swing me to the other side of the fence. As it stands, you have Zero proof.
"And the Normal move section "When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 4)"
P. 10 9th Ed rules available here:"
Says you can move up to M".... says nothing else, and once you move to the next model... you HAVE satisfied that condition for that MODEL in the UNIT And you do this for each MODEL until the UNIT is done.
UNTIL you have anything new to present... the conversation is circular.
That rule is a red herring because:
1) it could be intended for models not in the same unit (or even enemy models) so it would have to exist even if you could split models movement within the same unit
And
2) there's nothing in that rule from splitting the movement of models within a single unit's move.
Until you have rules to present to actually prove point 2, then you're wrong. Though watching the parade of fallacies is fun, including "appeal to authority" and "appeal to popularity" in the same post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fundamentally, we have permission to move models in the unit.
The burden now is proving that that permission goes away for a specific model in the unit when we take our hand off to move a different model in the same unit.
doctortom wrote: Already addressed multiple times. Permission to move is not permission to move again. There is no stated permission to be able to move models more than once. You are assuming permissions that are not stated.
Citation needed for this bit.
I am not assuming permissions, I have it in black and white that there is permission to move a model up to its M stat. This is not debatable.
The rules give you blanket permission to move.
Where does it restrict that movement to only once?
Show me in the rules where it restricts the permission given.
Show an example where a model can move move than once. Again, permission to move is not the same as permission to move multiple times. You have a problem understanding that, and that what you are claiming isn't what is said in the rules.
Your side is relying on "the rules don't say I can't" as a blanket permission. Sazzlefrats is correct in his last post summing up the situation.
doctortom wrote: Show an example where a model can move move than once. Again, permission to move is not the same as permission to move multiple times. You have a problem understanding that, and that what you are claiming isn't what is said in the rules.
Your side is relying on "the rules don't say I can't" as a blanket permission. Sazzlefrats is correct in his last post summing up the situation.
You are asking for more proof than is necessary. We can cite permission to move. There is no indication that this permission is revoked after moving once. Since we still retain permission after moving once, we can move again. There is no need to cite an example when we have already cited a rules quote, since the rules do not have examples covering every possible situation this would be an unreasonable standard in any debate (and certainly not required for debate in YMDC).
The burden is now on you to show that we do not, in fact, retain that permission after moving once. We've provided a rules quote for why we have permission to move a model.
So, for the 20th time, now that we have permission (a fact you agreed with no less), so why that permission is restricted to only once, or revoked after only a single move must be proven. I'll keep waiting, and keep posting the same thing over and over again. Continuing to dodge the question of proof by asking us for FURTHER proof is the very definition of a bad faith argument.
Do you have proof that our permission to move a model is restricted or revoked after a single move of that model, or not?
EDIT: To be clear, we're not relying on THE RULES DON'T SAY I CAN'T. The rules, do, in fact, say we can. We have permission to move, until either the model has reached its maximum movement or we have selected another unit. That's explicit permission to move until either of those cases is reached. To repeat, we have blanket permission to move. In case you missed it, we have permission to move cited by the rules. To rephrase, permission to move the model is provided and proven. To reiterate, we can move the model.
Sazzlefrats wrote: You guys are trying to twist your way out of another rule. Which is "Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its
position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s
base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, "
Specifically : "but no part of the model’s
base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models"
Because if you could split a models movement, you are essentially moving through the bases of your own unit. There's nothing to quote for splitting movement.
This is just wrong. That isn't "essentially moving through the bases of your own unit." It's specifically not doing so, by carefully taking turns with your models to ensure that doesn't happen.
What you've quoted has no relevance to the discussion one way or the other.
The rule says you can move as many or as few models in a unit as you want, that "whenever" you move a model you can do certain things, and that the total unit move doesn't occur until after you've declared you're done moving models and taken a coherency check. That's all it says. It says nothing about only being able to pick up and reposition each model one time. You've just made up a limitation that simply isn't there. As such, the burden is on you to point to where that limitation comes from.
I think we're just going to have to accept that no definitive solution will be arrived at between the participants in this thread. Send it into GW for an FAQ if it's worth this much text and hopefully it'll get addressed.
out of their opponents and move each model 3 times
