"declarative moving" in the movement phase

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.

**Tri**

Jidmah wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
If I am midway through moving a unit - and then realise that said move was actually quite a stupid idea - am I allowed to move back to where I was, and re-move?

Yup, that's what the rules say. You should have a way to find the original position though.

... er the rules don't say that ... they say you can measure as much as you like and even go else where or not at all.

**Monster Rain**

Jidmah wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Wait. The fact that determining cover should be done in the shooting phase is an argument that cover shouldn't be determined in the shooting phase?

Think about that again, Jidmah.

So, putting words in my mouth now? I was arguing based on your posts so far. Do you want me to quote them all?

Yes, please do. I said that I would reply "we'll see in the shooting phase."

How would that mean that we wouldn't determine cover in the shooting phase?

**Cottonjaw**

I do this.

You move the model the spot you're moving it for a reason. You probably have enough movement to ensure your opponent will not get a cover save.

Communicating this with your opponent avoids the arguement in the shooting phase, and the "well if I knew you were going to say that, I would have done this' conversation.

Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

**Foo**

ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.

If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Cottonjaw wrote:I do this.

You move the model the spot you're moving it for a reason. You probably have enough movement to ensure your opponent will not get a cover save.

Communicating this with your opponent avoids the arguement in the shooting phase, and the "well if I knew you were going to say that, I would have done this' conversation.

Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

Thank you for putting into words that which I could not, especially the bolded part.

**Prophaniti**

1. The argument seems to be suffering from two different camps consisting of competitive play, and social play. It appears to me that the majority of the people fighting against allocating cover in the movement phase (me included) are referring to competitive play and not friendly pick-up games. You guys are comparing apples and oranges in your arguments..

In a friendly game, we have all let people go back and use that psychic power they forgot to do, that charge they forgot to declare, etc etc...but in competitive play, the rules are more strictly adhered to and people are supposed to bring their "A" game. This I feel is what the OP was talking about though I may be wrong. Lets face it, if I go to a GT I have shelled out damn near a grand to do so and i expect to play an opponent that follows the rules to the letter..As i mentioned in another post, if i personally were looking for camaraderie, there are far less expensive ways to do so. Loser buys the first round..

2. Nos, your demands for a rules quote as to disallowing your opponent to speak to you, ask you questions and such are baffling. The OP never said that you couldn't speak to your opponent, exchange recipes, or make out. He simply stated that it was not your opponents job to help you place models in the best possible way. You can ask me all day long if you have cover during the movement phase, and it is my prerogative to politely answer with "we shall see in the shooting phase".

3. I also do not see at all how this "speeds things up" in the least. If I tell you "we shall see in the shooting phase" in response to your movement phase cover query, you will make a decision on your own and when the shooting phase comes around we address whether it is or it isn't. We either debate it during the shooting phase or during the movement phase..If we debate it in the movement phase the argument is actually longer because you are going to keep moving until you get the answer you want to hear.

4. To the poster (i forget who it was) who said "it's not an advantage if you both do it, i say this; proper placement IS TACTICS...I don't need or want my opponent to guide me..being able to line up that perfect shot, charge etc, is a huge part of competitive play.

Again..i think we can all agree that in friendly games we are not even remotely discussing this situation..it is in competitive play!!!!!...for that reason it seems like half of the posters aren't understanding what people are trying to say and in what context

**nosferatu1001**

1. Then yu havent read the originating post, which was a competitive game, or the numerous references to tournament play.

2. The OP stated it was *illegal* to ask these questions. When asked to actually back that bald assertion up, they failed. Many, many times. Again, this suggsts you havent really read all the thread.

3. Have you ever played in an envronment with 5 tables in a long line? I am perfectly allowed to move around the table as I wish when I move, and if you wont help confirm something from your side then I WILLmove around, past the 13 bags, 8 hot gamers, numerous chairs, etc - and back again - for every model.

This is the "social contract" part youre missing. Again, this point has been raised NUMEROUS times, so again suggesting you have failed to do everyone the courtesy of reading the full thread.

Your final point sums up just how much you have missed in this thread.

**Prophaniti**

Nos, you aren't making any sense...you are agreeing with me in a way...

1. Yes, as i said..it happened in a competitive game...I am talking about the multitude of posters who say it's wrong because it's not the "friendly" or "nice" way to play the game. So, yes..I did read it..

2. again, i think you are missing his point entirely

3. Where in my post did I say that you couldn't do that if you wanted in a tourney?...did I miss some extra paragraph on my part that my cat typed when i wasn't looking. You can jog for all I care..it's just not my job to move your models or confirm things out of phase.

/shakes head

**ChrisCP**

Foo wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.
If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey,

you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*

You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

**Monster Rain**

Cottonjaw wrote:Communication is key to effective, efficient, and enjoyable play.

I totally agree.

I'm just going to go ahead and point at the elephant in the room and say that if someone that I'm playing against is clearly doing something of questionable ethics to gain an advantage in a tournament game I am well within my rights to deny them that advantage.

In 99.9% of the games that I play I will not be the guy who doesn't go far out of his way to be agreeable.

**Brother Ramses**

ChrisCP wrote:
Foo wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.
If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*

You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Why is it that the most damning possible scenarios always needs to be brought up as an attempted tool for an argument? By all means please show me the dice rolls that creates the situation above for DE.

Outrageous claims of possible scenarios do not make an argument. Creation of a modest, REALISTIC scenario is far more convincing of an argument.

"And the the guns sprouted min-guns with targeters that were mounted on hellfire missile pods that shot snakes with poisonous fangs out of each miniature skull shaped warhead. Oh and everything was on FIRE!!!"

**Foo**

ChrisCP wrote:
Foo wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.
If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*

You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Look, dude, stop telling me I don't understand. Just because I disagree and don't care, doesn't mean I don't comprehend. I ended with a joke because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Also: nobody but you is talking about having your opponent guide every single move you make for maximum effect. Your examples are all overblown and ridiculous. I'm talking about clarifying ahead of time when something might be contentious (i.e., the difference between 45 and 50% in cover), not having the opponent confirm that every move being made is in range with LoS and cover, because 90% of the time it's obvious when something's got cover and LoS.

**NuggzTheNinja**

forget it

**ChrisCP**

Foo wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:
Foo wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:Again, they do. The point you are missing is - Who ever is the defending player is at a disadvantage because the offensive player can move his forces in response to a yay/nay of cover.
If both players do the same thing, there is no advantage.

My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *move model*

Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be in cover. Would you agree?"
"Yeah, looks good to me."
"Word. I enjoy playing with you as you are laid back and cool."
"Let's get married."
"Yes, let's."

No one gains anything except a beautiful relationship.

To reiterate: My belief is that the game should be won on tactics and rolls of the dice, not arguments which can drastically change the tactical situation from what one thought it was based on whether something is 45% in cover or 50%.

It's just confirming expectations to avoid a nasty surprise and argument.

You seem to be concentrating on the argument side of things instead of the impact it has on the game, clearly you do not have any understanding of the implications of your actions and you're misunderstanding the situation.

The scenario goes like this:
My Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be be a clear shot at unit XXX. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka* Three extra guys die because they don't have 4+ cover
Your Turn:
"I'm moving this here because I consider this to be a clear shot at YYY. Would you agree?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves model*
*Pew Pew Pew....* No dakka because I was able to kill three extra guys, the three with missile launchers in fact, on my turn.

Again, I can accept that you don't play games at a level where you would appreciate the impact of these actions - That’s clear from your ending your argument with a 'joke' instead of addressing the issue.
So another scenario for you, wish I had a picture it would save a lot of words.

My Turn:
"I'm moving unit XXX here But I'm not sure if it's a clear shot. What do you think?"
"No, not really. Maybe half an inch to the left."
"Okay, cool." *moves unit*
^Hmm as they don't have cover I won't neeed to shoot extra shots at them, lets move YYY over there then^
"I'm going to drive my ZYX transport down there, I has clear LoS to your Tank right?"
"Ummm, yeah I guess..."
"Awesome" *moves unit*
^excellent as XXX has a clear shot it's almost certain to force him to GTG or lose the squad, and my ZYX is going to at least shake his rhino so I won't have to worry about that, Hmmm...^
"Hey if I move my next squad there they can see that Metal Box right?"
"...yeah....."
*Rinse repeat until every unit is in optimal position*
"Pew Pew Pew, Dakka-Dakka-Dakka"
Your Turn:
"Oh, I had to GTG so I can't fire or move with that squad or that one, and all my transports are shaken/stunned and I lost weapons off everything but my skimmer"
"That's pretty unlucky, maybe if you had more 4+ cover saves. Things would have been different"
"Hey, you buddy"
*You pick up your remaining models on the second turn because you know nothings going to move and nothing has any cover*

You might this this situation is unrealistic or excessive, but it's not - it pretty damn close to how DE will pick an army apart turn one if allowed to, positioning positioning positioning. And naturally they player who is going first has the biggest advantage, their forces haven't been depleted they can bring their full power, by the time your turns come around and you try to gain an advantage by 'confirming cover' you've lost far more troops than if the player had to be set in their movement and as a result granted your units some cover. Sticking your head in the sand and saying 'but there's no advantage is a brilliant display of wilful ignorance.

Look, dude, stop telling me I don't understand. Just because I disagree and don't care, doesn't mean I don't comprehend. I ended with a joke because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Also: nobody but you is talking about having your opponent guide every single move you make for maximum effect. Your examples are all overblown and ridiculous. I'm talking about clarifying ahead of time when something might be contentious (i.e., the difference between 45 and 50% in cover), not having the opponent confirm that every move being made is in range with LoS and cover, because 90% of the time it's obvious when something's got cover and LoS.

So, you disagree that determining if a unit is in cover or not during the movement phase provides and advantage to the attacking player... when I've shown clear evidence.

olympia wrote:

Do you know WHY I always announce my intention for shooting during movement? How many times did I say "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" Its to avoid any issues that might arise when it comes around to shooting. You should practice the same

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370116.page
A few questions arise. If the opponent in the above situation says, "No it's not a clear shot," I wonder if the player in question keeps adjusting his movement and saying, "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" until the opponent agrees. Certainly if someone tried this on me I would say, "Make your move and we'll sort out Line Of Sight in the shooting phase." Flames of War is, as far as I know, the only mainstream system that allows for declaration of intentions in the movement phase.

That's actually the exact topic of the thread, announcing one's intention for the shooting phase in hope of one's opponent correcting one of you errors.

And no, my examples are exactly how it goes down, if I deal six un-saveable wounds and have denied your 4+ cover extra guys are going to die, meaning you won't be able to fire back. When I have clear shots on 50% of your army, and ensure by checking that any other shots which are contentious are actually clear during the movement phase, I can distribute my forces better. With someone playing to win and people asking to settle on cover in the movement phase, as you say, you disagree, you can't conceive of how this subtle breaking of the rules confers a significant advantage to the attacking player and I think that it is taking quite a short-sighted view to say that there's no advantage in this breaking of the rules.

**nosferatu1001**

Prophaniti wrote:Nos, you aren't making any sense...you are agreeing with me in a way...

1. Yes, as i said..it happened in a competitive game...I am talking about the multitude of posters who say it's wrong because it's not the "friendly" or "nice" way to play the game. So, yes..I did read it..

Yet there isnt that split - and even in a tournament courtesy and an appreciation that the game is STILL a social contract is important.

Prophaniti wrote:2. again, i think you are missing his point entirely

No, I am asking someone who states, baldly, that something is "against the rules" aka "this is illegal" to actually support their statement with rules, as required by the tenets of this forum. His point is badly mde and not supported by the rules in the rulebook.

Prophaniti wrote:3. Where in my post did I say that you couldn't do that if you wanted in a tourney?...did I miss some extra paragraph on my part that my cat typed when i wasn't looking. You can jog for all I care..it's just not my job to move your models or confirm things out of phase.

Sigh. Read your first words. Your claikm is that you cannot see how it speeds games up. I gave you a real world situation where it DOES speed up the game. Something that has been brought up many times. For you to claim you cannot see how it speeds games up implies that you have either not read / ignored these examples, or believe they dont occur. Given the latter isnt true...well guess that means you didnt read the thread very closely.

Also: you are answering a point I did not make. I did not say it was your "job", I was pointing out how something could speed up the game, despite your insistence that this wouldnt happen.

Prophaniti wrote:/shakes head

Useful reaction.

**Kilkrazy**

This argument seems to have gone as far as it can. I don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing.