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.

So basically you are saying Thoughtcrime is illegal under 40k rules.

Lovely.

This is only an issue because Dash had declared his intention. Had he not, he could have done this perfectly fine, and he could have honestly wanted to move the unit that way, then changed his mind, AS WELL AS extrapolating distances, and it is perfectly within the rules.

I voted technically legal but going against the spirit of the rules.

The reason for measuring wasn't movement... it was to avoid a charge.

Well said Insaniak. I personally don't have any problem with it after reading all of this and thinking it thru more. I did vote that I felt it broke the spirit and still feel that way but at the same time I don't think I'd even be mildly upset about it anymore. I'd just play the same way.

Gwar! wrote:So basically you are saying Thoughtcrime is illegal under 40k rules.

No, Gwar, I'm not. Nor is anyone else. So you can stop repeating it now.

So if I take my Land Speeder, move it 24", extrapolate that my Long Fangs are oor of your tank from it, then decide to change my mind and move it in a different direction, is that breaking the rules, despite me never stating my "intent" and for all you know I honestly did change my mind for a completely unrelated matter?

Seriously, Gwar, if you're still not getting the point, that's fine. Play it however you see fit.

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'm not missing the point of the intent argument - I'm simply raising a concern about trying to apply such an argument. In MY opinion, if a rule interpretation cannot be objectively applied, but instead requires subjective knowledge of a player's intent, it's not a valid interpretation. Any other rule violation can be objectively proved - misremembered weapon skill, misread dice, forgotten special rules, etc. But here, determining whether a rule has been violated requires knowledge of what's going on in the other guy's head, which you ain't going to have (most of the time).

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.

Granted.

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.

You've constructed a strawman here. The rules permit you to "measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else." There is no "where you want to go" requirement.

So why can't you change your mind about where you want your unit to be, and decide to move far enough to be out of assault range?

Here's my problem with the "subjective intent" argument, reduced to example format. Which of the following scenarios should be "right out"?

Baseline assumption: Player A's Raider is 19" from Player B's Battlewagon.
1) During the preceding shooting phase, Player B's Big Shoota (18" range) was about an inch out of range of the Raider. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
2) Player A knows exactly how far onto the board his Raider is, as well as the distance to a second Raider/objective/piece of terrain with a known position. He does the mental math required to determine that the Battlewagon is about 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
3) Player A knows that the Battlewagon deployed at the front of Player B's 12" deployment zone (or that it drove on during Dawn of War), how far it moved last turn, and where his Raider deployed & moved. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
4) Player A considers moving his Raider up to block the Battlewagon's movement, and measures accordingly around the battlewagon, to determine his options for landing spots. Then he decides to change plans. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
5) Player A is indecisive about his options, and swings his 24" measurement out around his Raider, to get a look at his options. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
6) Player A legitimately considers moving his Raider to every point within it's range, and measures 24" in every direction, changing his mind each time his tape measure moves. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
7) Player A is an IG player of the Old School, and estimates ranges to 1/4" accuracy. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
8) Player A measures towards the Battlewagon, and sees that it is 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

If Player A "cheating" in any of 1-7? How can an objective observer tell item #8 from 2-6?

While I can understand the desire to "punish" a player for some sort of malign intent, I cannot condone it here. The rules permit a player to measure his model's movement options. At times, those movement options WILL intersect with an opponent's movement options. Knowledge of the distances between units is gained thereby; there is no way to prevent that. Assuming knowledge of the available movement rates available to the opponent, then the potential threat radius of opposing units becomes obvious; there is no way to prevent that, either.

Janthkin wrote:

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'm not missing the point of the intent argument - I'm simply raising a concern about trying to apply such an argument. In MY opinion, if a rule interpretation cannot be objectively applied, but instead requires subjective knowledge of a player's intent, it's not a valid interpretation. Any other rule violation can be objectively proved - misremembered weapon skill, misread dice, forgotten special rules, etc. But here, determining whether a rule has been violated requires knowledge of what's going on in the other guy's head, which you ain't going to have (most of the time).

How can you say that something like a "misremembered weapon skill" or "forgotten special rules" can be measured objectively, especially if the special rule is to the player's detriment? "Oops, sorry. I really did forget that a Tervigon's death kills gaunts within 6" range. Honest." You're sure that can be objectively measured?

Janthkin wrote:

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.

You've constructed a strawman here. The rules permit you to "measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else." There is no "where you want to go" requirement.

So why can't you change your mind about where you want your unit to be, and decide to move far enough to be out of assault range?

Here's my problem with the "subjective intent" argument, reduced to example format. Which of the following scenarios should be "right out"?

Baseline assumption: Player A's Raider is 19" from Player B's Battlewagon.
1) During the preceding shooting phase, Player B's Big Shoota (18" range) was about an inch out of range of the Raider. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

This is a guessed measurement. You said that the Big Shoota was "about" an inch out of range of the Raider. Dash wasn't concerned with "abouts". He measured the exact movement from the battlewagon to his unit and made his movement accordingly.

Janthkin wrote:2) Player A knows exactly how far onto the board his Raider is, as well as the distance to a second Raider/objective/piece of terrain with a known position. He does the mental math required to determine that the Battlewagon is about 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

You keep using "abouts" as if there was anything arbitrary in Dash's example. There wasn't. There was no guesswork. It was a blatant measuring of his opponent's movement and charge range.

Janthkin wrote:[3) Player A knows that the Battlewagon deployed at the front of Player B's 12" deployment zone (or that it drove on during Dawn of War), how far it moved last turn, and where his Raider deployed & moved. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.
4) Player A considers moving his Raider up to block the Battlewagon's movement, and measures accordingly around the battlewagon, to determine his options for landing spots. Then he decides to change plans. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

Fine.

Janthkin wrote:5) Player A is indecisive about his options, and swings his 24" measurement out around his Raider, to get a look at his options. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

As Insaniak pointed out, this isn't really what you're supposed to be doing. You're supposed to measuring where you're thinking of moving and if you change your mind, re-measure accordingly. You're not supposed to be measuring everything that you can touch and then deciding to move there. But then we're getting into intent again, and you don't want to go there.

Janthkin wrote:6) Player A legitimately considers moving his Raider to every point within it's range, and measures 24" in every direction, changing his mind each time his tape measure moves. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

This is a hypothetical to counter the above argument. No one does this. It would take all day.

Janthkin wrote:7) Player A is an IG player of the Old School, and estimates ranges to 1/4" accuracy. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

That is great. That's what almost all players do - gauge something by eyesight and not placing your tape down and measuring it first, then saying, "Oh great, you're out of range."

Janthkin wrote:8) Player A measures towards the Battlewagon, and sees that it is 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

Not if his intent was to move forward 19". It wasn't. He was measuring from the Battlewagon to measure opponent's movement and charge range and did so under the guise of movement, which has been pointed out ad nauseum.

Janthkin wrote:If Player A "cheating" in any of 1-7? How can an objective observer tell item #8 from 2-6?

See above comments.

Janthkin wrote:While I can understand the desire to "punish" a player for some sort of malign intent, I cannot condone it here. The rules permit a player to measure his model's movement options. At times, those movement options WILL intersect with an opponent's movement options. Knowledge of the distances between units is gained thereby; there is no way to prevent that. Assuming knowledge of the available movement rates available to the opponent, then the potential threat radius of opposing units becomes obvious; there is no way to prevent that, either.

Insaniak covered this quite well in his post above.

I always thought measuring in 40k was defined as measuring *from* a unit *to* a unit.

So if you measure *from* your unit *to* another unit, you have *not* measured, as far as 40k is concerned, the distance from the enemy to yourself - you can obviously deduce this, but that isnt the point - from those saying there is a rules argument against allowing it.

Edit: its late and im 400 miles from my rulebook, please dont shoot me if I'm wrong!

I just read all 8 pages.. can i get a t-shirt?

It's a shady as hell tactic that is not expressly forbidden by the rules but is clearly not the intent of the rule or its wording. It is at worst cheating and at best incredibly unsportsmanlike. I never like to use the "c" word.

Janthkin wrote:If Player A "cheating" in any of 1-7? How can an objective observer tell item #8 from 2-6?

And this, I think, is the crux of the disagreement going on here over intent.

The point is, it shouldn't be up to an objective observer to force a player to play by the rules. If your intent affects whether or not a given action is legal or breaking the rules, then that's up to you to police your own behaviour.

If you break the rules, the rules are broken... regardless of whether or not your opponent is aware you are doing it.

insaniak wrote:If you break the rules, the rules are broken... regardless of whether or not your opponent is aware you are doing it.

Exactly.

Enforcement, possible or no, is an entirely different conversation.

insaniak wrote:

Janthkin wrote:If Player A "cheating" in any of 1-7? How can an objective observer tell item #8 from 2-6?

And this, I think, is the crux of the disagreement going on here over intent.

The point is, it shouldn't be up to an objective observer to force a player to play by the rules. If your intent affects whether or not a given action is legal or breaking the rules, then that's up to you to police your own behaviour.

If you break the rules, the rules are broken... regardless of whether or not your opponent is aware you are doing it.

We'll have to disagree, then. Your interpretation allows the same action to both follow the rules AND break the rules, depending solely on what's going on in your opponent's head. I have a fundamental disagreement with that, in something as controlled as a game.

puma713 wrote:How can you say that something like a "misremembered weapon skill" or "forgotten special rules" can be measured objectively, especially if the special rule is to the player's detriment? "Oops, sorry. I really did forget that a Tervigon's death kills gaunts within 6" range. Honest." You're sure that can be objectively measured?

Simple - in my example, it doesn't MATTER whether it was "honestly" or "conveniently" forgotten. That it was not applied results in breaking the rules.

Here, under your interpretation, the exact same action can either be completely legal or completely illegal, based solely on the thoughts in your opponent's head.

This is why 40k rules don't hold up to intense scrutiny that the RAW camp dictates.

You can pre-measure your movement and change your mind, but you can't measure anything else. If you start dropping your measuring tape all over the board in a radius from your model trying to decide where to move, and then you also note distances to and from other things, then you are clearly breaking the rules.

The question is, can you satisfy one rule (pre-measuring your movement) without breaking the other (not measuring anything else), and it's hard to say.

It has nothing to do with "intent" or "what the other person is thinking" more so than it has to do with it being impossible to follow both rules and break neither.

puma713 wrote:

Janthkin wrote:8) Player A measures towards the Battlewagon, and sees that it is 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

Not if his intent was to move forward 19". It wasn't. He was measuring from the Battlewagon to measure opponent's movement and charge range and did so under the guise of movement, which has been pointed out ad nauseum.

Puma, despite being pointed out ad naseum, you're still missing what was pointed out ad naseum.

I didn't measure 19" out to the battlewagon from my raider. Although legally I could do so just fine, but no longer tank shock. Which I couldn't do with a raider anyway. I measured FROM my raider 24" out, past the battlewagon, several inches to the side precisely. I laid the tape measure down on the table, counted backwards, and noted out loud that the battlewagon was 19" away from me along that 24" line.

Then I moved 12" backwards.

Measuring the battlewagon's movement or charge range would mean putting the tape measure on the battlewagon and measuring out TO the raider or from the battlewagon to other points. That's not what happened.

Dashofpepper wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Janthkin wrote:8) Player A measures towards the Battlewagon, and sees that it is 19" away. Player A moves his Raider 13" backwards.

Not if his intent was to move forward 19". It wasn't. He was measuring from the Battlewagon to measure opponent's movement and charge range and did so under the guise of movement, which has been pointed out ad nauseum.

Puma, despite being pointed out ad naseum, you're still missing what was pointed out ad naseum.

I didn't measure 19" out to the battlewagon from my raider. Although legally I could do so just fine, but no longer tank shock. Which I couldn't do with a raider anyway. I measured FROM my raider 24" out, past the battlewagon, several inches to the side precisely. I laid the tape measure down on the table, counted backwards, and noted out loud that the battlewagon was 19" away from me along that 24" line.

Then I moved 12" backwards.

Measuring the battlewagon's movement or charge range would mean putting the tape measure on the battlewagon and measuring out TO the raider or from the battlewagon to other points. That's not what happened.

I think you are arguing semantics here. Your intent when you laid the tape measure down, was to measure how far away from your Raider my Battlewagon was. No matter how you dress that up, you were in fact measuring my move/charge range to your vehicle.


Clay

Dash you measured your opponent's assault range and moved to avoid being charged. However you rationalize it to yourself, it's what you did.

How is Puma incorrect?

Monster Rain wrote:Dash you measured your opponent's assault range and moved to avoid being charged. However you rationalize it to yourself, it's what you did.

How is Puma incorrect?

Because he didn't. He measured his Raiders movement, extrapolated that he was 19" away, and then legally changed his mind as to where to move.

Double post.

Agreeing with Gwar!. The fact that, after Dash measured the possible range of his Raider, he then was also in posession of information concerning the possible movement/charge range of the battlewagon is secondary. He did not measure this; this is the product of calculations in his brain based on knowledge of the Ork codex.

It might not be a move for your beer-drinking casual friday evening fun game with the cool fluff you wrote. But in a tournament situation I would have no problem with my opponent doing this and might do it myself (never went to a tourney till now).



PS: One further thing...about the "intent" problem. Driving a vehicle right up to an enemy vehicle might have a myriad of viable tactical uses. Dash may have not intended to do this in this special situation; however, by generally condemning measuring from one vehicle to another, you basically reduce the tactical possibilties a player might have greatly - tank shock only being one of them. This whole "it's not okay of the intent was really.." argumentation strikes me as rather unfitting for 40k rules and rules in general.

Primarch wrote:


I think you are arguing semantics here. Your intent when you laid the tape measure down, was to measure how far away from your Raider my Battlewagon was. No matter how you dress that up, you were in fact measuring my move/charge range to your vehicle.


Clay

Yes, I know that. I announced it quite openly.

You said that was wrong, and I said "Why?" You said that it violated the spirit of the rules, and I said that I disagreed. Full circle, here we are again.

There exists a framework for garnering tactical information about distances on the table by using your potential movement to determine the distance to any object inside your movement radius. Using the rules to gain tactical insight into the battlefield isn't illegal - that's readily recognized by....93% of people voting in this poll. Whether doing so is cheesy, snarky, against the spirit of the rules, lame, beardy, or whatever other word might be used *IS* the discussion.

Dashofpepper wrote:There exists a framework for garnering tactical information about distances on the table by using your potential movement to determine the distance to any object inside your movement radius.

That's the issue that I mentioned before, about what that measurement is for. You see it as a free measurement bubble. Others see it as an opportunity to measure a specific thing; that specific thing being potential places that you are considering moving to.

Under the latter interpretation, measuring to anything that is not a place you are actually considering moving to is shady at best, and breaking the 'no measurement' rule at worst. It's unenforcible, as discussed before... but that doesn't mean it isn't the 'right' way to play. 40K was never intended to be a competitive ruleset... relying on both players to do the right thing is a part of that.

insaniak wrote: 40K was never intended to be a competitive ruleset... relying on both players to do the right thing is a part of that.

Yes but now we are on the 5th edition of the rulebook which is meant for competitive play and has 4 editions to gear it.

syanticraven wrote:Yes but now we are on the 5th edition of the rulebook which is meant for competitive play and has 4 editions to gear it.

GW run tournaments because people ask for them. That's not the same thing as writing the ruleset for competitive play.

insaniak wrote:
40K was never intended to be a competitive ruleset.

There we go. That's the problem right there.

I agree perfectly with Janthkin; in a properly designed game, an action should be either legal or illegal, intent having nothing to do with the matter. The problem is that 40k is not terrifically well-designed.

The problem with syanticraven's statement is that GW expressly does not WANT to write a "competitive" ruleset, and refuses to do so. As a consequence, their ruleset DOES include intent in its framework, and the same action CAN be both legal and illegal depending on intent. In short, yes, thoughtcrime is illegal in 40k. How thematically appropriate.

That said, I voted A. There are legitimate RAW arguments both in favor of and against what Dash did, but it's the way I and all my friends play and I feel it is both fair and appropriate, particularly as since both players are allowed to do it, it confers no unfair advantages to any one player.

Is it legal? Sure but sadly its used more so as a way to premeasure not just the vehicle but in quite a few cases the moving player leaves their tape measure extended while they decide to move and their hand moves over other squads basically premeasuring ranges. The current rules that we play under allowing the full measuring of the DIAMETER of the POTENTIAL move is rather abusive as it no longer becomes a checking of movement range as to guage other factors.

Personally I would like to see a rule adapted to where the owner of the vehicle states the speed they wish to travel and direction then measure from there. Thus if combat speed is called and direction then the move could be any where from 1" to 6". Sadly what we see now is bikes or skimmers ( or any vehicle ) premeasuring their flat out distance, basically a premeasure for range weapons or possible assaults by either side, then only moving combat speed. The shooting phase works very much like the proposed sdapted rule where you call the target and then measure rather then premeasure the weapons max range then decide on the target. Unfortunately this is just poor game design on GW's part.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Primarch wrote:


I think you are arguing semantics here. Your intent when you laid the tape measure down, was to measure how far away from your Raider my Battlewagon was. No matter how you dress that up, you were in fact measuring my move/charge range to your vehicle.


Clay

Yes, I know that. I announced it quite openly.

You said that was wrong, and I said "Why?" You said that it violated the spirit of the rules, and I said that I disagreed. Full circle, here we are again.

There exists a framework for garnering tactical information about distances on the table by using your potential movement to determine the distance to any object inside your movement radius. Using the rules to gain tactical insight into the battlefield isn't illegal - that's readily recognized by....93% of people voting in this poll. Whether doing so is cheesy, snarky, against the spirit of the rules, lame, beardy, or whatever other word might be used *IS* the discussion.

You do know there is a rule prohibiting you from measuring MY stuff right?


Clay

Actually, the one part where the 19" was measured to the opponents battlewagon WAS indeed illegal.

Yes, measuring out 24" is fine. Yes, making an estimate as to roughly how far the BW is away is fine. No, actually measuring the distance to the bw at 19" isnt allowed in the rules.


We can measure the movement range of our models, but during movement we cannot measure distance to other models.

Perhaps thats why the measuring sticks included in the game are of a convenient length, but not clearly marked for shorter distances? Those red sticks that come so we can measure a maximum movement range but not so easily "accidently" cheat and determine that the opponent is 19 (or 11.5, or whatever) distance away?


Ideally by raw we should measure with a plain string cut to the distance that our unit can move. A 6", 12", 18" and 24" string set would work perfectly fine for raw movement measures.


Practically, most of the time people will use tapes. But yes, any direct measurements taken of other models during this phase is simply not allowed in the rules. So proclaiming the distance to an opponents model at this time is just an admission of wrong doing....


Using skill to estimate distances has long been a part of 40k and fantasy warhammer. Breaking the rules to gain aditional measurements however is not. We can measure what we are told to measure...anything else we need to use our eye to extapolate further distances.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:


Ideally by raw we should measure with a plain string cut to the distance that our unit can move. A 6", 12", 18" and 24" string set would work perfectly fine for raw movement measures.

You don't get cover saves for turbo-boosting unless you move 18-24". So having the 18" portion marked on the 24" string would be important. The 12" piece too unless you expect us to carry around 6 pieces of string to use for a variety of measurements.

And if I lay my 24" string out, and notice that the front piece of a battlewagon is about 1" past the 18" mark on the 24" string.....we're in the same place, just using string instead of a tape measure.

Or if the string doesn't have markings.....if I lay out my 24" string past the battlewagon and see that there is about 4-5" of extra string past the front of the battlewagon, we're still int he same place.

Dashofpepper wrote:[And if I lay my 24" string out, and notice that the front piece of a battlewagon is about 1" past the 18" mark on the 24" string.....we're in the same place, just using string instead of a tape measure.

Or if the string doesn't have markings.....if I lay out my 24" string past the battlewagon and see that there is about 4-5" of extra string past the front of the battlewagon, we're still int he same place.

And that place is illegal, because the rulebook says you're not allowed to measure that.