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.

I think i understand Puma, Primarch, and Monster_Rain a little better after giving this some more thought:

Part of 40k is supposed to be a guessing game (as in, you can't measure assault ranges until after you declare. If you were wrong, oops, sucks to be you)

They and many other players wish to play hard and capitalize on their opponents' mistakes (we all make them). This tactic of movement-measurement to prevent any mistakes on 'how far should i move to avoid this' statement removes one of the guesswork facets of 40k.

While i understand this mindset, I have to say in this particular instance it is still legal to do what Dash did. It sucks that the ork player did not get to jump on an error caused by a miscalculation in guesswork, but i feel he still could have won regardless.

Has anybody mentioned that now knowing the DE vehicle was exactly 31" away there would be no reason for the MANz to disembark, there wouldn't be charge range, thus the information could have equally aided BOTH players? Just a thought.

Wow, what a thread.

This whole situation is why I will never be interested in tournaments, the attitudes of the competative players are polar opposite to me. BUT I respect the tournament scene, and understand that you can have differences in how you play.

To the question in hand, having read both sides fully, I do think it was shadey. But I can see it is also legal. I believe Dash used a rule to his advantage, but I do not believe he was wrong to do so. I also believe he did not anticipate the problem it caused, and if he did would not have done it.

If you're moving past it you're not measuring farther than you intend to move, are you?

Again, it's not about measuring your movement, it's about intentionally measuring in such as way as to note the exact distance between models.

Monster Rain wrote:If you're moving past it you're not measuring farther than you intend to move, are you?

Again, it's not about measuring your movement, it's about intentionally measuring in such as way as to note the exact distance between models.

Which is perfectly fine and permitted by the rules.

All of this has me thinking a few things:

Would the two people playing a game of 40k like for a 3rd party that isn't playing to make all the measurements for the players while they go out and smoke or something so that no information can be gleaned in such a manner?

Are there any blind people that play 40k? I would be quite impressed if there are any and would be in awe of them. I wonder what their take on this would be.

Gwar! wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:If you're moving past it you're not measuring farther than you intend to move, are you?

Again, it's not about measuring your movement, it's about intentionally measuring in such as way as to note the exact distance between models.

Which is perfectly fine and permitted by the rules.

Not really. But I'm not wasting any more time on a circular argument. See the above posts for my position on the subject.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:All of this has me thinking a few things:

Would the two people playing a game of 40k like for a 3rd party that isn't playing to make all the measurements for the players while they go out and smoke or something so that no information can be gleaned in such a manner?

No.

Frazzled wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:All of this has me thinking a few things:

Would the two people playing a game of 40k like for a 3rd party that isn't playing to make all the measurements for the players while they go out and smoke or something so that no information can be gleaned in such a manner?

No.

I agree with Frazzled.

For clarity. I am not mad because I lost, not in the slightest. It wasn't the first time he beat me in a tournament. I don't think you can go back through his batt reps and find the other report to have caused so much of a problem.

I questioned the move when it happened, and was happy to let it go afterward. He brought it up for rules debate and I joined in. I really don't know how that makes me any of the names Ive been called.

Back on topic.

I don't think the rules allow you to measure your opponents movement. Can anyone refute this point with a rules quote?

I don't think you can really police this as a group or TO. Does anyone even want to refute this?

With regards to the actual measuring rules, I don't see that this issue is quite as clear as some make it out to be. Thoughts?



Clay

Came back, without stating any more points since my argument in this is done an over.
Look at the poll.

95% = legal
5% = illegal

(Currently)

Primarch wrote:For clarity. I am not mad because I lost, not in the slightest. It wasn't the first time he beat me in a tournament. I don't think you can go back through his batt reps and find the other report to have caused so much of a problem.

I questioned the move when it happened, and was happy to let it go afterward. He brought it up for rules debate and I joined in. I really don't know how that makes me any of the names Ive been called.

Back on topic.

I don't think the rules allow you to measure your opponents movement. Can anyone refute this point with a rules quote?

Not with a rules quote, however he is measuring his movement, and, good for him, finding out the distance between you and him.

I don't think you can really police this as a group or TO. Does anyone even want to refute this?

No

With regards to the actual measuring rules, I don't see that this issue is quite as clear as some make it out to be. Thoughts?

I agree with you 100% about this.



Clay

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.

Primarch wrote:
Back on topic.

I don't think the rules allow you to measure your opponents movement. Can anyone refute this point with a rules quote?

I don't think you can really police this as a group or TO. Does anyone even want to refute this?

With regards to the actual measuring rules, I don't see that this issue is quite as clear as some make it out to be. Thoughts?



Clay

I agree with your first point, but I think that at the very least you and I have a different way of interpreting what that means. I take it to mean that in my movement phase it would be illegal for me to take a tape measure to your unit/vehicle/whatever and measure out from that unit its maximum movement bubble. That would be me measuring my opponent's movement. I do take it as it allows me to measure from my own unit the maximum distance that my unit is allowed to move. If other units, yours, mine, terrain are in that bubble of my own unit's movement and I happen to see that while measuring, then so be it.

As to your second point, I also agree, this is something that needs to be addressed with the players before you start a game, as it seems there can be different interpretations of the measuring rules.

Edit:

3rd part got cut off for some reason, but yes I agree it is not as clear cut as I think anyone thought it was.

Primarch wrote:
I don't think the rules allow you to measure your opponents movement. Can anyone refute this point with a rules quote?

I don't think you can really police this as a group or TO. Does anyone even want to refute this?

With regards to the actual measuring rules, I don't see that this issue is quite as clear as some make it out to be. Thoughts?


Clay

(1) The rules allow you to measure distances for your own movement (which he did), which can also give you how far away your opponent is (which is legal). The fact that he said it may have caused confusion (which it did.), so next time he can just not say it and avoid the issue (which I suggest.)

(2) Why refute it? It is legal.

(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. He is legally allowed to measure his movement (which he did.) It is *very* clear.

syanticraven wrote:Came back, without stating any more points since my argument in this is done an over.
Look at the poll.

95% = legal
5% = illegal

(Currently)

True, but almost half of the "legal" crowd also thinks it breaks the spirit of the rules. Relevant? Not sure, but it's telling.



Clay

Primarch wrote:

syanticraven wrote:Came back, without stating any more points since my argument in this is done an over.
Look at the poll.

95% = legal
5% = illegal

(Currently)

True, but almost half of the "legal" crowd also thinks it breaks the spirit of the rules. Relevant? Not sure, but it's telling.



Clay

I don't think most of the arguments are about whether or not it's legal. They seem to be more about whether or not it's a lame thing to do.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

Primarch wrote:

syanticraven wrote:Came back, without stating any more points since my argument in this is done an over.
Look at the poll.

95% = legal
5% = illegal

(Currently)

True, but almost half of the "legal" crowd also thinks it breaks the spirit of the rules. Relevant? Not sure, but it's telling.



Clay

I don't think most of the arguments are about whether or not it's legal. They seem to be more about whether or not it's a lame thing to do.

Your lame may be my first place at a tournament and using the rules will not cheapen it one bit as we all stand on a level playing field in the regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Please explain how it is illegal to measure more precisely in some cases than in others. Sometimes the extra numbers matter, and other times you skip gathering that info. They are both equally legal.

Monster Rain wrote:Please explain how it is illegal to measure more precisely in some cases than in others. Sometimes the extra numbers matter, and other times you skip gathering that info. They are both equally legal.

If the rules allow you to measure X, and you intentionally measure X + Y, you are doing more than what the rules allow you to do.

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.

There is no time limit on how long I can hold my tape measure/rod/reel to measure. None.

Che-Vito wrote:There is no time limit on how long I can hold my tape measure/rod/reel to measure. None.

Sure. There is, however, a limit on what you are allowed to measure.

Ultimately, you have to answer to yourself. I can certainly limit the information gleaned from my tape to what the rules allow me to measure. I can also certainly measure more than that without making it obvious.

In the second case, though, *I* would know that I had broken the rules.

Primarch wrote:

syanticraven wrote:Came back, without stating any more points since my argument in this is done an over.
Look at the poll.

95% = legal
5% = illegal

(Currently)

True, but almost half of the "legal" crowd also thinks it breaks the spirit of the rules. Relevant? Not sure, but it's telling.



Clay

Which is why I made this thread. Its quite clearly legal, but the fact that a significant portion of people find it unsporting means this is something I wouldn't add to my regular repetoire of tactical advantages.

Clay, that was my point - not to argue whether you or I was right - but to acknowledge that you made a claim that I hadn't considered before, and I wanted to get a wide reaction to that claim. Lots of folks agree with your viewpoint (not of its illegality, but that it isn't the spirit of the rules), so I find your views valid and acceptable.

I'm not the WAAC player you think I am.

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.

Actually, the shooting rules tell you to measure the distance between the firing model and the target model, not simply check that the distance is less than the maximum range.

And honestly, the argument verges on the absurd for two reasons:
1) Rules interpretations that rely on thoughtcrime render the game immediately unplayable, as you'll never be able to be sure that the other guy isn't intending to cheat. Why did he deploy that unit in that spot? Is it because it provides him a known baseline distance to perform basic geometry and deduce ranges? What about objective placement - he knows that those objectives are 12" apart, and 12" off the board edge, which can be used for all kinds of devious non-measurements.

2) Most of the time, accuracy to within 1" is adequate for "pre-measuring" purposes, and that's information that is gleaned almost instantly even when measuring as you propose.

Technically legal but so against the spirit of the rules as to name it illegal.

Seriously, if you want a chess match-esque wargame go play MechWarrior where they let (and openly encourage) you to waste time measuring all over creation. If you want a more narrative driven, chancy, and skill based game play 40k by the spirit of the thing.

@Janthkin: Again, it's a matter of self-policing. Obviously, there are times when one measurement will unavoidably tell you more than you need. There are also times when how you measure may tell you a lot more than what you need. Ultimately, it's on you.

While I think an obvious abuser of... let's call it "multi-measurement"... would be fairly easy to spot (inordinately long measurement times for distances that clearly aren't relevant, etc), it would, admittedly, be problematic to enforce at a tournament. You can certainly raise the issue with your opponent, however, and/or bring it to the attention of the judge. If nothing else, it would put them under some scrutiny.

My suggestions regarding the manner of measurement were offered as a way to measure distances while also avoiding the appearance of any impropriety. It goes right along with picking up failed dice rather than successes, or declaring everything you are rolling for before doing so. Avoiding behavior that would arouse suspicion--whether warranted or not--is a good practice in general.

Janthkin wrote:And honestly, the argument verges on the absurd for two reasons:
1) Rules interpretations that rely on thoughtcrime render the game immediately unplayable, as you'll never be able to be sure that the other guy isn't intending to cheat.

Sorry, but this is still completely missing the point of the intent argument... which was simply that intending to cheat is what makes it cheating, whether or not your opponent knows that you're cheating. Nobody is trying to claim that rules should be enforced based on player intention.


I should point out that before going further that I'm not accusing Dash of being a cheat. He (IMO) broke the rules of the game... but he appears to have done so because of the way he expected the rules to work, not through an intention to break those rules.

Here's how this issue breaks down for me:

40K has a ruleset that disallows measurement in all situations except where the rules specifically tell you that you can measure.

Where movement is concerned, the rules allow you to measure where you want a unit to move, and then change your mind and go in a different direction instead. Note that this is not quite the same as simply being able to measure a 6" circle around the miniature... the process that is (admittedly not well) described in the movement section is to measure where you want to go, not to measure everywhere the miniature could possibly go. A small distinction, and one that is admittedly at least in part an extrapolation... I'm sure that some will disagree that it's RAW, but I'm trying to explain how the rules are seen by some, rather than how the strict RAW works, in an effort to make clear why some people feel this is shady.

SO, measurement is explicitly allowed when moving, in order to determine how far the miniature can go. Obviously, then, if you are considering moving your unit up alongside an enemy unit, you need to measure the distance to where you want to go.

But the 'where you want to go' is the key here. Remember, you're given permission to measure to where you want to move the unit, not to any point on the board where the unit could conceivably move to.

Now, with that explanation in mind and before reading any further, go back and read the first post again.


What Dash was trying to do was not measure the distance to somewhere he wanted his unit to move. He dressed it up as a part of the movement process, in that the distance he was measuring was within the unit's movement distance... but there was no intention of moving to that point. He was not 'measuring a unit's move in one direction, then changing his mind and deciding to move it somewhere else' ... He was measuring to the enemy unit for the sole purpose of determining how far away it was, so that he could move far enough in the other direction to be out of charge range.

So what he was doing was using a perceived allowance to measure a specific distance, to measure something that he was not supposed to be measuring at that point. Yes, that's often unavoidable... measuring a shooting range, for example, tells both players how far apart two units are for anything else that affects those two units. But that's a situation where the rules explicitly tell you to measure the distance between those units. Where you're told to measure a distance that only involves one single unit, that measurement should not, wherever possible, have anything to do with any other unit.

And measuring something completely unrelated to that specifically allowed measurement, in a game that only allows measurement under specifically allowed circumstances, should be right out.

After reading 7 pages of this I have come to the conclusion that this is something that I will continue to not do but I would find it hard to make a hard argument to stop my opponent from doing the same. Honestly if an opponent of mine did it I would probably do it for that game as well.

Just one of those rules with alot of people on both sides of the fence. I feel one way but can't quit make a solid enough argument to pull people over the fence to my side.

Like you orky bastages and your magical deathrollas...grumble..grumble...

insaniak wrote:

Janthkin wrote:And honestly, the argument verges on the absurd for two reasons:
1) Rules interpretations that rely on thoughtcrime render the game immediately unplayable, as you'll never be able to be sure that the other guy isn't intending to cheat.

Sorry, but this is still completely missing the point of the intent argument... which was simply that intending to cheat is what makes it cheating, whether or not your opponent knows that you're cheating. Nobody is trying to claim that rules should be enforced based on player intention.


I should point out that before going further that I'm not accusing Dash of being a cheat. He (IMO) broke the rules of the game... but he appears to have done so because of the way he expected the rules to work, not through an intention to break those rules.

Here's how this issue breaks down for me:

40K has a ruleset that disallows measurement in all situations except where the rules specifically tell you that you can measure.

Where movement is concerned, the rules allow you to measure where you want a unit to move, and then change your mind and go in a different direction instead. Note that this is not quite the same as simply being able to measure a 6" circle around the miniature... the process that is (admittedly not well) described in the movement section is to measure where you want to go, not to measure everywhere the miniature could possibly go. A small distinction, and one that is admittedly at least in part an extrapolation... I'm sure that some will disagree that it's RAW, but I'm trying to explain how the rules are seen by some, rather than how the strict RAW works, in an effort to make clear why some people feel this is shady.

SO, measurement is explicitly allowed when moving, in order to determine how far the miniature can go. Obviously, then, if you are considering moving your unit up alongside an enemy unit, you need to measure the distance to where you want to go.

But the 'where you want to go' is the key here. Remember, you're given permission to measure to where you want to move the unit, not to any point on the board where the unit could conceivably move to.

Now, with that explanation in mind and before reading any further, go back and read the first post again.


What Dash was trying to do was not measure the distance to somewhere he wanted his unit to move. He dressed it up as a part of the movement process, in that the distance he was measuring was within the unit's movement distance... but there was no intention of moving to that point. He was not 'measuring a unit's move in one direction, then changing his mind and deciding to move it somewhere else' ... He was measuring to the enemy unit for the sole purpose of determining how far away it was, so that he could move far enough in the other direction to be out of charge range.

So what he was doing was using a perceived allowance to measure a specific distance, to measure something that he was not supposed to be measuring at that point. Yes, that's often unavoidable... measuring a shooting range, for example, tells both players how far apart two units are for anything else that affects those two units. But that's a situation where the rules explicitly tell you to measure the distance between those units. Where you're told to measure a distance that only involves one single unit, that measurement should not, wherever possible, have anything to do with any other unit.

And measuring something completely unrelated to that specifically allowed measurement, in a game that only allows measurement under specifically allowed circumstances, should be right out.

Well said. Probably the best summation of this argument yet.

Agreed.

Agreed, and what I have been trying to say. Sadly for me, he says it a LOT better than me.




Clay