Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

skyth wrote:I love how all the anti-measuring responses just go off bullying the other side and calling them names.

This is NOT a case of rules-lawyering. The rules are perfectly clear in the matter.

The fact is, if you refuse to measure, YOU are the one being unsportsmanlike.

OTT stream of bile and hyperbole removed.

Guitardian wrote:
Another possible perspective is to think that range gets measured before every shot, from every single lasgun in the Guard horde. That'd be fun wouldn't it?

And yet, those are the rules...

Regwon wrote:

Guitardian wrote:
Another possible perspective is to think that range gets measured before every shot, from every single lasgun in the Guard horde. That'd be fun wouldn't it?

And yet, those are the rules...

and if someone measured every single las gun instead of just being an intelligent human being and measuring the ones furthest away and then saying yep the rest are in range. id say you were stalling and being TFG

Guitardian wrote:that makes YOU the douchebag for forcing the little rule, not me the douche for calling you on it.

What makes you the douchebag is the passive aggressive gak that you're pulling in response to being asked to make a single measurement.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Guitardian wrote:that makes YOU the douchebag for forcing the little rule, not me the douche for calling you on it.

What makes you the douchebag is the passive aggressive gak that you're pulling in response to being asked to make a single measurement.

And then we get back to the "intent" argument.

If I recall correctly, the OP said he was at an event. At an event, no matter how much fun it is, you are there to play and to play well. You will (or at least should) try to use every advantage you can if you’re trying to do well. Including asking someone to measure something that is obviously in range. To echo Redbeard, as long as it is in the rules, and not a stretch of them, your opponent shouldn’t be bothered by it because he has access to the exact same tools you do. If you really think it’s that big of a deal, you should call over the TO or whoever is in charge and ask. But even if the TO rules against measuring range for something within obvious range, you are both denied that tool and therefore you have both lost that advantage. The rule is not unlike a double edged sword.

Also, Frazzeled is right:

Frazzled wrote:
Further any carpenter or old school IG player can guess within an inch. I used to throw dice on the floor, guess the distances and use a tape measure to confirm just like I'd practice putting.

Back when I did play WHFB, I did a lot of guessing with cannons and got darn good it. After playing for long enough, or doing the same thing over and over again with a specified distance, yes, you start to be able to very accurately judge distances. It doesn’t mean the experienced players are cheating for being able to guess to the smallest increments the distance between units. And so it doesn’t make it cheating to be able to get a good look at a distance when you’re opponent is already (supposed to be) measuring.

To say that the guy who asked you to measure while you were at an event is TFG is silly. You and him are both there to compete whilst having fun. He’s not breaking the rules, let alone bending them, and he’s not being a jerk about it. If someone refuses to measure after being asked to measure, even something as silly as a broadside firing at a target 12’’ away, they should be the one looking at themselves.

Now outside of an event, you and your opponent can work it out, because that’s purely for your own enjoyment, but that’s not what this is about. Etiquette is about being polite. If your opponent asks something of you that’s part of the rules, you should do it. And they should return the favor when the situation has changed.

Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so. I would think that etiquette is primarily concerned with good sportsmanship, no? And good sportsmanship is concerned with fair play? How can you possibly expect a fair match when you're inventing your own rules as you go along and masquerading them as "etiquette"?

Does asking your opponent to measure range from his Broadsides convey an advantage to you? Of course. And good on you for being an intelligent player and figuring out how to best use the rules of the game to satisfy the victory conditions of said game.

This might be news to some, but this is a game of abstract rules and those who best understand the rules have the best shot at winning the game. Why are TH/SS Assault Terminators so awesome? Because their rules, what they can do and how much they cost to do it, are fantastic relative to other units. Many people recognize this and therefore you see lots of these models being fielded. Is taking advantage of their rules poor etiquette as well? Such a claim sounds ridiculous because it is exactly that.

It's a game of rules. Being good at the game is being good at using the rules to your advantage. This goes for every single game in existence. Playing by the rules is not poor etiquette.

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

puma713 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

Why should we, other than you want us to so as to validate your argument? If there's no disagreement on how to play the game, then there's no need to bring up RAW. If there is disagreement, then bring up RAW. If someone wants to argue that DoM doesn't get warp field and we disagree, then I'm going to call over the TO to see what they have to say on it. If they want to call over the TO on measurement, they're free to do so.

puma713 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

*cough* or my favorite... 5 piranha strong squad all with flech...*cough*

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

Why should we, other than you want us to so as to validate your argument? If there's no disagreement on how to play the game, then there's no need to bring up RAW. If there is disagreement, then bring up RAW. If someone wants to argue that DoM doesn't get warp field and we disagree, then I'm going to call over the TO to see what they have to say on it. If they want to call over the TO on measurement, they're free to do so.

Then that is the double standard. You're choosing which RAW you like and which one you don't. That's not the RAW purity that Danny Internets was referring to (at least as I understood it). That's pushing RAW to whatever advantage you can and then, when someone else does the same thing, you call over the TO because now you don't agree with the RAW. Why is your RAW better than my RAW? Remember, it's the same thing. Now, we get into interpretation again. RAW is supposed to be devoid of interpretation, but Rules As Written.

puma713 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

Why should we, other than you want us to so as to validate your argument? If there's no disagreement on how to play the game, then there's no need to bring up RAW. If there is disagreement, then bring up RAW. If someone wants to argue that DoM doesn't get warp field and we disagree, then I'm going to call over the TO to see what they have to say on it. If they want to call over the TO on measurement, they're free to do so.

Then that is the double standard. You're choosing which RAW you like and which one you don't. That's not the RAW purity that Danny Internets was referring to (at least as I understood it). That's pushing RAW to whatever advantage you can and then, when someone else does the same thing, you call over the TO because now you don't agree with the RAW. Why is your RAW better than my RAW? Remember, it's the same thing. Now, we get into interpretation again. RAW is supposed to be devoid of interpretation, but Rules As Written.

Ah, you're arguing against something that I'm not advocating. The intent of the measuring RAW in this instance is clear. The intent of the Warp Field RAW is not clear if it does not explicitly refer to DoM, or if DoM does not explicitly have that option, but it is implicit. Further, wanting to make use of one rule does not mean that you want to make use of them all.

On the other hand, if my opponent brings it up I won't bitch and whine like a little child; I'll either quit the game because they're not worth playing against or I'll call over the TO and have them rule on it or I'll keep playing because it doesn't bother me to play that way.

And what I don't agree with is their interpretation of RAW, not the RAW itself.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Do people really not understand that strict RAW adherence is the only way to ensure a fair game? This goes to the heart of good sportsmanship. Redbeard put it succinctly when he commented that an honest game (a level playing field) is one where everyone plays by the same rules, the rules as they are written, rather than some new rules that you invented and insist on enforcing despite having no legitimate claim to do so.

So, why do people insist on playing by the RAW that they see is sufficient enough for them? Do those same players play by all the rules in the RAW FUN thread? Because if they don't, they're picking and choosing which RAW they like to play by. If they're going to fight tooth and nail about the measuring RAW, then they sure as hell better fight tooth and nail that the Doom of Malantai they're fielding isn't a Zoanthrope and therefore has no Warp Field, as it refers to Zoanthropes.

Why should we, other than you want us to so as to validate your argument? If there's no disagreement on how to play the game, then there's no need to bring up RAW. If there is disagreement, then bring up RAW. If someone wants to argue that DoM doesn't get warp field and we disagree, then I'm going to call over the TO to see what they have to say on it. If they want to call over the TO on measurement, they're free to do so.

Then that is the double standard. You're choosing which RAW you like and which one you don't. That's not the RAW purity that Danny Internets was referring to (at least as I understood it). That's pushing RAW to whatever advantage you can and then, when someone else does the same thing, you call over the TO because now you don't agree with the RAW. Why is your RAW better than my RAW? Remember, it's the same thing. Now, we get into interpretation again. RAW is supposed to be devoid of interpretation, but Rules As Written.

Ah, you're arguing against something that I'm not advocating. The intent of the measuring RAW in this instance is clear. The intent of the Warp Field RAW is not clear if it does not explicitly refer to DoM, or if DoM does not explicitly have that option, but it is implicit. Further, wanting to make use of one rule does not mean that you want to make use of them all.

But you don't get one and not get them all. You can't pick and choose which rules you like and which ones you don't. And there are no "implicits" in RAW, remember? That's the whole purity of it. If the rules say something, the rules say it and there's no other way to take it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:And what I don't agree with is their interpretation of RAW, not the RAW itself.

Again, there are no "interpretations" of RAW. My Tyranid codex doesn't say that the Doom of Malantai is a zoanthrope. Neither does yours. There's nothing to interpret. If you're getting into interpretations, you're getting into RAI and that's where we start talking about intent. Like, the intention to measure something illegally while using a legal rule to do it.

Again, interpretation, and when someone shows me the rules that say I have to show you my measurement, rather than the assumption we all play by, I would be happy to do so. Until then my assumption of obvious range is just as legit as my opponent's assumption that he can see my measurement.

puma713 wrote:But you don't get one and not get them all. You can't pick and choose which rules you like and which ones you don't.

But we can pick and choose which rules we agree on and which rules we don't.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:And what I don't agree with is their interpretation of RAW, not the RAW itself.

Again, there are no "interpretations" of RAW. My Tyranid codex doesn't say that the Doom of Malantai is a zoanthrope. Neither does yours. There's nothing to interpret. If you're getting into interpretations, you're getting into RAI and that's where we start talking about intent. Like, the intention to measure something illegally while using a legal rule to do it.

No. What I mean here is things like "The rules don't say that I have to show you my measurement." It's implied that if you measure something, both players know what the measurement is, but there is a literal interpretation available which says that this isn't true.

Guitardian wrote:Again, interpretation, and when someone shows me the rules that say I have to show you my measurement, rather than the assumption we all play by, I would be happy to do so. Until then my assumption of obvious range is just as legit as my opponent's assumption that he can see my measurement.

Your assumption of obvious range has nothing to substantiate it under RAW. EDIT: In fact, it's contradicted. Your opponent's assumption that he can see your measurement is common-sense and implied by the context of the rule (that it's in a wargame with no third party to arbitrate).

How do people resolve the dichotomy that showing both players the precise result of a measurement allows player two to pre-measure, which is specifically against the rules?

Kilkrazy wrote:How do people resolve the dichotomy that showing both players the precise result of a measurement allows player two to pre-measure, which is specifically against the rules?

By defining pre-measurement. If I'm good at judging distances, I can pre-measure whatever I like without the use of a ruler, and this is allowed by the rules of the game. But using a legal measurement to supplement that judgement is illegal?

That's insane, and it means that a better definition of pre-measurement is needed.

But even if we ignore this completely, showing both players the precise result of the measurement allows both players to know what can be gained from the measurement, rather than just player one, who has exactly the same ability to pre-measure that player two does.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How do people resolve the dichotomy that showing both players the precise result of a measurement allows player two to pre-measure, which is specifically against the rules?

By defining pre-measurement. If I'm good at judging distances, I can pre-measure whatever I like without the use of a ruler, and this is allowed by the rules of the game. But using a legal measurement to supplement that judgement is illegal?

That's insane, and it means that a better definition of pre-measurement is needed.

CatPeeler wrote:In actual play, precise measurement for movement and/or range typically only comes up when at the hard limit (i.e., is that unit 6" away, or 6-1/16" away? Is that rhino 47" away from my ML, or 49" away?). What I see the vast majority of the time is this:

1) Player extends tape measure to the limit of the unit's move or weapon range.
2a) If moving, player either moves the unit to the end of the tape or places a finger at the end of the tape before moving the unit to that spot.
2b) If shooting, player extends the tape towards the target unit. If the end of the tape reaches the unit, dice hit the table.

As outlined above, the moving/shooting player doesn't typically determine the range to an exact degree (other than the hard limit of the end of the tape measure). As an example, when shooting an assault cannon at a land speeder, I don't take the time to find out that it is 21-3/8" away; I just make a quick check to see if it's as close or closer to me than the end of the tape.

As I mentioned in the actual batrep thread, the correct/legal way for dash to do what he did would be:

1) Extend the tape 24", rotate it around the raider to determine it's movement range
2) Estimate that the enemy unit was about 19" away.
3) Deduce the amount of his own movement needed to avoid an assault

Part 2 is the whole key to the issue, as far as I'm concerned. By taking the time to determine the exact distance between the raider and the BW, Dash took a measurement that was unrelated to his own movement. Obviously, there are any number of situations where making one measurement will also give you some information about another measurement. To a degree, this is unavoidable. So long as you restrict yourself to estimation and deduction--you are in the clear. On the other hand, if you take unnecessarily precise measurements for reasons unrelated to what you are ostensibly measuring, then you are breaking the rules.

This, I believe, is RAW. The rules say you are allowed to premeasure X. INTENTIONALLY measuring X+Y, regardless of the manner in which you do it, is not in keeping with the rules.

CatPeeler wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:(3) If I know that by measuring my shooting/movement to you, it is 24", then I also know that it is 24" from your unit to mine. I have thus gleaned obvious information, in a legal manner.

That depends on the manner in which you measure.

Say you are shooting an assault cannon. You extend the tape 24", put the spool of the tape at the end of the weapon, and see if the target is as close or closer than the end of the tape.

Perfectly legal, and whether the target is in range or not can be determined in... oh... a tenth of a second.

On the other hand, if you lay the tape between target and firer and then take a second or two to determine that the exact range between the two is 11-7/8"--which, 'coincidentally' tells you whether or not the target is within melta range for your 2nd, adjacent firing unit--I would argue that you are clearly taking a measurement which you are not entitled to take.

Is pre-measuring actually against the rules, or is it not permitted by the rules?

And there is no Dichotomy. You can't measure something unless you are allowed to by the rules. Shooting at something requires you to measure to it. It is an increadibly bad show of sportsmanship to not measure to something you are firing at when asked, I don't care what the range is.

puma713 wrote:-snip-

You are required to measure the distance between X and Y when shooting at Y from X. If you don't know the distance between X and Y, you didn't measure the distance between them. If you did measure the distance between them, then you can extrapolate from that without having to have the tape measure there.

You haven't stopped pre-measurement with that. You also haven't solved the problem of the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:-snip-

You are required to measure the distance between X and Y when shooting at Y from X. If you don't know the distance between X and Y, you didn't measure the distance between them. If you did measure the distance between them, then you can extrapolate from that without having to have the tape measure there.

You haven't stopped pre-measurement with that. You also haven't solved the problem of the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances.

Those quotes were talking about movement, not shooting. And more power to the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances. That's what players are supposed to be doing - judging distances. Not laying down tape measures and taking down information that they're not supposed to be taking down, like an opponent's movement and charge range.

puma713 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:-snip-

You are required to measure the distance between X and Y when shooting at Y from X. If you don't know the distance between X and Y, you didn't measure the distance between them. If you did measure the distance between them, then you can extrapolate from that without having to have the tape measure there.

You haven't stopped pre-measurement with that. You also haven't solved the problem of the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances.

Those quotes were talking about movement, not shooting.

"Say you are shooting an assault cannon."

And more power to the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances. That's what players are supposed to be doing - judging distances. Not laying down tape measures and taking down information that they're not supposed to be taking down, like an opponent's movement and charge range.

Here's the thing: the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, you can't actually tell whether or not that's going on.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:-snip-

You are required to measure the distance between X and Y when shooting at Y from X. If you don't know the distance between X and Y, you didn't measure the distance between them. If you did measure the distance between them, then you can extrapolate from that without having to have the tape measure there.

You haven't stopped pre-measurement with that. You also haven't solved the problem of the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances.

Those quotes were talking about movement, not shooting.

"Say you are shooting an assault cannon."

Ah yeah, there was that hypothetical. The quotes were in reference to the movement pre-measurement thread though, just like this thread.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

puma713 wrote:And more power to the guy who's really good at being able to judge distances. That's what players are supposed to be doing - judging distances. Not laying down tape measures and taking down information that they're not supposed to be taking down, like an opponent's movement and charge range.

Here's the thing: the vast, vast, vast majority of the time, you can't actually tell whether or not that's going on.

However, in the case that all these threads are talking about, Dash made it abundantly clear.

When you fire weapons, you don't 'judge' the distance, you outright measure the distance to the target.

skyth wrote:Is pre-measuring actually against the rules, or is it not permitted by the rules?

Yes, it's against the rules when shooting or charging

skyth wrote:And there is no Dichotomy. You can't measure something unless you are allowed to by the rules. Shooting at something requires you to measure to it. It is an increadibly bad show of sportsmanship to not measure to something you are firing at when asked, I don't care what the range is.

The rules allow you to measure anything you like except when deciding whether to shoot or charge.

Is it an incredible show of bad sportsmanship to require someone to measure the distance when it clearly isn't necessary, and you are only doing it to find out if your unit will be in charge range, which you are forbidden to pre-measure?

I say yes. I assume you would say no, so I think we shall just have to politely disagree.

If people think this is a major issue at tournaments I would suggest they take it up with the TO before the competition starts.

I think some people are losing sight of the point that the rules are not an end in themselves. They are a means to the end of having an enjoyable game. We don't play the game simply to follow the rules, at least I don't.

skyth wrote:When you fire weapons, you don't 'judge' the distance, you outright measure the distance to the target.

Really? You don't guess that a unit is 48" away when you say you're firing a lascannon at it and then measure and find it's 49" away? I'd say that's judging distance, wouldn't you?

skyth wrote:When you fire weapons, you don't 'judge' the distance, you outright measure the distance to the target.

I don't waste the time when it clearly isn't necessary.

puma713 wrote:Ah yeah, there was that hypothetical. The quotes were in reference to the movement pre-measurement thread though, just like this thread.

If you want to play that way because it makes the game go quicker and your opponent has no issue with it, great!

But if your opponent has an issue with it, and the rulebook disagrees with it, and the TO has an issue with it, then too bad.

puma713 wrote:However, in the case that all these threads are talking about, Dash made it abundantly clear.

And yet you wouldn't have a problem with it if he hadn't said anything, because you would be unable to judge whether or not it actually happened.

So what you would be doing by making this illegal is to punish stupid people who don't realise that they're breaking a rule, and ignoring people who are intent on cheating.

Seems ass-backwards to me.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it an incredible show of bad sportsmanship to require someone to measure the distance when it clearly isn't necessary, and you are only doing it to find out if your unit will be in charge range, which you are forbidden to pre-measure?

The rules for shooting allow (actually require) the distance to be measured. It is not pre-measuring. If it gives you more information, there is nothing wrong with that.

I say yes. I assume you would say no, so I think we shall just have to politely disagree.

If someone refused to measure a shot in a friendly game, I would just pack up.

I think some people are losing sight of the point that the rules are not an end in themselves. They are a means to the end of having an enjoyable game. We don't play the game simply to follow the rules, at least I don't.

Refusing to follow such a clear rule makes the game not fun for me. Especially with the implication that I'm a bad person for asking.

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Is it an incredible show of bad sportsmanship to require someone to measure the distance when it clearly isn't necessary, and you are only doing it to find out if your unit will be in charge range, which you are forbidden to pre-measure?

The rules for shooting allow (actually require) the distance to be measured. It is not pre-measuring. If it gives you more information, there is nothing wrong with that.

I say yes. I assume you would say no, so I think we shall just have to politely disagree.

If someone refused to measure a shot in a friendly game, I would just pack up.