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.

Over the Top or not, my point is still this:
We are told by one department that the appropriate department has been informed of the problem.
Anything else the first department says on the matter is irreverent, as they are not the authorized 'errata guys'


So why not let us wait till the Authors have told us how to proceed?
I am quite confident 'stationary double fire' will win out.

Because their job is to respond and make people feel listened to, and pass it on (whether it is then heeded or not). I know you meant 'irrelevant' but the social team does specialise in 'irreverent' ;-)

They also *did* put their personal opinion in this time. And their opinion is that not moving counts.

 JinxDragon wrote:
If the Facebook team are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use their Facebook posts as Errrata?

You mean this from the tenets?

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

You'll notice it says nothing about Facebook. That's because that post is from 2009 and predates the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page by several years.

Also, the following is posted in the 'About' section on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

...did this discussion really happen?

m = movement (in)
s = shot multiplier
x = max movement (in)
x =! 0

if m <= x÷2, then s = 2.
if m > x÷2, then s= 1
m = 0
then x÷2 is and always greater than 0

 JohnnyHell wrote:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

To be totally fair to people that have said the other side (despite me thinking that they're crazy for arguing it that way), I don't think the question was whether or not 0 was less than half, but that the rule required some kind of movement, and movement is a non-zero amount (even if it would be "I move 1 nanometer."), and any movement would mean that while the turret weapon would shoot twice normally, other weapons on the vehicle would shoot at -1 to hit. It's crazy, to me, because I think the rule is supposed to mean "if you move less than half your movement speed, or don't move, you may fire the turret weapon twice". However, these things come up when you're not careful with your words, as a lot of words in the rulebook have their own meanings. "Move" is a very important word in the rulebook, and "if you moved" means some movement has occurred. Again, this is just playing Devil's Advocate, but there's a good reason here to issue an FAQ on this.

As I've often stated, until GW gives access to their rules for free, they will not be able to publish a comprehensive ruleset with the legal-document explanations of all the game's mechanics and concepts.

 Yarium wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/182408645

So much delicious shade being thrown at the concept that zero is not less than half. It's actually going to be in the FAQ, hahaha, and the writer's faces were apparently a picture when the question was passed on by Nick.

To be totally fair to people that have said the other side (despite me thinking that they're crazy for arguing it that way), I don't think the question was whether or not 0 was less than half, but that the rule required some kind of movement, and movement is a non-zero amount (even if it would be "I move 1 nanometer."), and any movement would mean that while the turret weapon would shoot twice normally, other weapons on the vehicle would shoot at -1 to hit. It's crazy, to me, because I think the rule is supposed to mean "if you move less than half your movement speed, or don't move, you may fire the turret weapon twice". However, these things come up when you're not careful with your words, as a lot of words in the rulebook have their own meanings. "Move" is a very important word in the rulebook, and "if you moved" means some movement has occurred. Again, this is just playing Devil's Advocate, but there's a good reason here to issue an FAQ on this.

As I've often stated, until GW gives access to their rules for free, they will not be able to publish a comprehensive ruleset with the legal-document explanations of all the game's mechanics and concepts.

The rule never said "if you move" , it always said "if you move less than half". Taking that requirement apart results in a wrong interpretation. That's what happened, nothing else. At least that's settled now - or, for the special cases - once the FAQ is online.

Huh. When I saw this rule, I just assumed it didn't work if you were standing still. Glad to see that's not how it's supposed to be.

We have a FAQ now. It says:

Page 86 – Grinding Advance
Change the second sentence to read:
‘If this model remains stationary or moves under half
speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in
inches less than half of its current Move characteristic)
it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following
Shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same
unit both times).’

So, confirmed and discussion closed :-)

Hallelujah.

It also indicates that we can probably expect a FAQ update to Craftworlds for the Fire Prism since in their preview it had similar wording about firing twice when moving less than half.

 doctortom wrote:
It also indicates that we can probably expect a FAQ update to Craftworlds for the Fire Prism since in their preview it had similar wording about firing twice when moving less than half.

Probably for similar abilities in every Codex coming out soon... I'd imagine all were sent to print before this FAQ was prepared!

They also added the troll statement of i.e. what the rule originally said. Like the two statements are identical in meaning. GW's history of answering silly questions with sass remains consistent.

 Arkaine wrote:
They also added the troll statement of i.e. what the rule originally said. Like the two statements are identical in meaning. GW's history of answering silly questions with sass remains consistent.

You think this is silly just because you happened to guess the intent correctly before GW clarified? Because I didn't, and I don't think I'm alone. I happen to know of at least one game where moving 0" and not moving are distinctly different, and I hadn't seen any indication as to how 40k treated this before they addressed this.

I'm glad they fixed it.

 Cream Tea wrote:
You think this is silly just because you happened to guess the intent correctly before GW clarified?

Not at all but I can see where you might have judged that to be the case. Don't worry, you're not the only person on these boards I've seen be quick on the draw.

I referred to GW seeing it as silly. Not me, I don't attach personal sentiment to fact-finding discussions and logical arguments. They answered it with sass, they have a history of doing so for questions they think are blatantly obvious, and the WarhammerTV stream where the question was asked directly to designers left us with a shot of their reactions to the question. It was rather apparent from their expressions what they were emoting.

 Arkaine wrote:

Not at all but I can see where you might have judged that to be the case. Don't worry, you're not the only person on these boards I've seen be quick on the draw.

I referred to GW seeing it as silly. Not me, I don't attach personal sentiment to fact-finding discussions and logical arguments. They answered it with sass, they have a history of doing so for questions they think are blatantly obvious, and the WarhammerTV stream where the question was asked directly to designers left us with a shot of their reactions to the question. It was rather apparent from their expressions what they were emoting.

If your feeling is correct that speaks a lot of of how serious GW are about rules writing. I guess I'm not surprised.

What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Dude , we had that one earlier - so its only going to work after you advanced, and then you can't shoot at all, right?

 Aenarian wrote:

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

Yes, Turtle Soup would also have been better than grinding advance. The word advance suggests movement, but no movement is required. Also when you advance you cannot fire heavy weapons. Even more confusion. Avoiding the word advance in that rule would have been better.

p5freak wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

p5freak wrote:
What is silly is calling the rule grinding advance and using the words advance on the foe, when the tank doesn't have to move to be able to fire twice. Calling it something like fire reload fire and not using the word advance would have been much more clear and cause much less confusion.

Why would the name of the rule have any relevance to what it's meaning, apart from making it somewhat easily identifiable? You could have called it Turtle Soup and it would still be the same rule.

Yes, Turtle Soup would also have been better than grinding advance. The word advance suggests movement, but no movement is required. Also when you advance you cannot fire heavy weapons. Even more confusion. Avoiding the word advance in that rule would have been better.

Do you also take issue with Assault Cannons being heavy weapons?
What about Strafing Run - you don't have to move for that one at all - is that a problem, too?
A Hellhound tank is not a daemon and it's also not a monster, even though it's name contains hell and hound.
I'm pretty sure I could find a ton more examples.

If you have the mental capacity to play a tabletop, you should also have the mental capacity to understand that an Assault Cannon with a type of "Heavy 6" is not an Assault weapon, because the rules tell us so. Names mean nothing, rules-wise.