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.

Yes, we are still in the same place...except it becomes slightly more difficult to obtain precise illicit measurements of other objects/ features in the game.

It is the measuring of other objects and features on the table that are the problem, and any method that allows correct measurement of a models movement and makes more difficult outside measurements is closer to the ideal raw situation. The ideal being able to measure movement exactly while gaining no other measurements.

There is no method that would really work for tourney play, but anything that lets us make the moves while limiting other measurements is an improvement. A set of measurement devices of exactly 6, 12, 18 and 24" would work tho, yes? Laying the 18 and 24" ones together would give us a rather nice bubble in which to consider turboboosting.


And it would certainly make it just a tiny bit more difficult to circumvent the rules and obtain illegal measurements.

Anything that forces a person to rely on his own estimating ability would seem to be more in line with the rules...and there seems to be nothing in the rules telling us that we can or need to measure any exact movement distances other than the 6" increments for some special rules.


Sliggoth

Oh we're not allowed to measure where we want to move again are we? Doubling so for Battlewagons they can Ram, so yeah if I want to see how far behind your tank I could wind up I'll measure over your vehicle, if I want to just glance the tank with the shock across the side facing then I'll measure just past the front.

... But I'm still allowed to change my mind.

In a ram situation, is that how it works as well? I thought it was something like, declare ram, direction, move model. Not, measure to see if you are in range to ram, then all the other stuff. I could certainly be wrong.

One of my problems with this, is that it really makes Seer council type armies much harder to deal with.



Clay

Eh no dont think so with a Ram or tankshock you have to declare it point your tank in the direction and state how many inchs you are going to move.

I am sure once you have declared a ram or tank shock that you cannot* change your mind.

* = or at least not after measurement.

Dashofpepper wrote:

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.

whitedragon wrote:

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.

Dash, let me actually lay out the way I see it (and others may as well) and it may give you a little more insight as to why I (and maybe others) think this is wrong:

You have a unit of jump troops 17" away from my terminators. I measure out 18" from my terminators to check your move + charge range. I then move 2" backwards. Was what I just did illegal? I would say so.

You did the same thing, however the unit you did it with just happened to have movement long enough to check the same thing and overlap the offending Battlewagon. Then, you dressed up the action as a legal movement measurement, which it is.

They are one in the same. One is more offensive because I don't have adequate movement measure to cover it up, but they're the same offense.


And while you're defending your position and the way you chose to do things, why have you said that you won't be using the tactic again? If you feel that you were (and are) in the right, why bow to the RAI followers and say that it's not something that you will be keeping in your repertoire?

puma713 wrote:
You have a unit of jump troops 17" away from my terminators. I measure out 18" from my terminators to check your move + charge range. I then move 2" backwards. Was what I just did illegal? I would say so.

You did the same thing, however the unit you did it with just happened to have movement long enough to check the same thing and overlap the offending Battlewagon. Then, you dressed up the action as a legal movement measurement, which it is.

They are one in the same. One is more offensive because I don't have adequate movement measure to cover it up, but they're the same offense.

Wrong. Your example is illegal according to the rules and his is legal. It's not even close to the same thing since your example is not allowed in the rules. Your letting your personal view color the actual rules and seeing them as the same thing. Which they aren't.

Hulksmash wrote:

puma713 wrote:
You have a unit of jump troops 17" away from my terminators. I measure out 18" from my terminators to check your move + charge range. I then move 2" backwards. Was what I just did illegal? I would say so.

You did the same thing, however the unit you did it with just happened to have movement long enough to check the same thing and overlap the offending Battlewagon. Then, you dressed up the action as a legal movement measurement, which it is.

They are one in the same. One is more offensive because I don't have adequate movement measure to cover it up, but they're the same offense.

Wrong. Your example is illegal according to the rules and his is legal. It's not even close to the same thing since your example is not allowed in the rules. Your letting your personal view color the actual rules and seeing them as the same thing. Which they aren't.

That's exactly my point. He used a legal move to cover up an illegal action. The only difference between my action and his is I don't have the legal action to measure my movement, hence covering my secondary illegal action. He still committed the secondary illegal action, but had a legal action which made it possible. It still doesn't take away the fact that his secondary action was illegal.

Edit: Also, Hulksmash, you're focusing on the wrong part. You're focusing on the fact that I didn't have the movement to measure. You forget that Dash wasn't measuring movement either. He was measuring his opponent's charge range + movement (but using his movement to do it). He made this clear to Clay and to the forums. What I was pointing out was that it is illegal to measure the movement and charge range from my unit to the enemy. It had nothing to do with actual movement distance. Either way, it's illegal because you're not allowed to measure your opponent's movement or charge distance. He just had a way to cover it up (a fast skimmer) and my example doesn't (terminators).

Oh, and as for the reason he's not going to do it my guess is because he's willing to go with the flow and majority opinion. Like most RaW players actually.

Hulksmash wrote:Oh, and as for the reason he's not going to do it my guess is because he's willing to go with the flow and majority opinion. Like most RaW players actually.

And he made that post about not using the tactic when the poll was favoring Option A.

We have this fight occasionally in my gaming group. Normally we play that it is fine, but the problem that comes up spirit wise is when someone does something like:

Declares a units move

Measures every which way, noting distances (obviously or not) and then decides to move.

Sometimes people measure in directions or to places that they could never possibly actually go (because of obstacles or enemies in the way). This is where it gets a little shady. In your example, measuring to the battlewagon is mildly shady because, well, you can't land on top of the battlewagon, or even within an inch of it. You also probably quite obviously had no intention of moving there. Measuring places you can't really go, or wouldn't go...that is shady to some people.

But it is all perfectly legal! Use any opportunity to measure that you can!

@puma

It was never heavily favoring it. What it pretty much showed at it's heaviest Option A was about 55% to 35-40% for Option B. Plus it might have something to do with some people he respects telling him it can come off as a little douchey.

Hulksmash wrote:@puma

It was never heavily favoring it. What it pretty much showed at it's heaviest Option A was about 55% to 35-40% for Option B. Plus it might have something to do with some people he respects telling him it can come off as a little douchey.

Fair enough.

Im just jumping in here after reading all of the posts. While I don't think you should advertise that what you are gleaning from the information legally obtained from measuring distances on the table, I don't necessarily think gleaning said information is wrong.

In the example given above, with the move range of 24", I would have seen that it is within 5" or so of my max movement, and acted accordingly.

You can argue all day long, but the game is setup to use a measurement device. If you don't make estimates on the stuff around the table based on those known measurements, I don't really know how to take that. If one turn I shoot with my long fangs and I measure range to my target, that range is then known to both players. They can feel free to extrapolate distances to their hearts content based on that known range. It is part of good generalship in this game.

I personally would have known that the battlewagon is within 18-20" anyway ( I have the rare talent of judging the ranges of 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches to within about an 1/8th of an inch, over that I start increasing my avg error) so I wouldn't have had a problem with him saying " whoa, about 19 inches, I better get back."

Anyway, enough rambling, i voted with the raw interpretation, ie option 1. (I think, I browse on my phone, hence grammar/spelling errors and the inability to scroll up.)

On tank-shock, onec one is declared one has to state bearing and distance, but one can make any measurements prior to that normally. Ramming just means onemust move at top speed and one doesn't stop when being within one inch of enemy vehicles.

ChrisCP wrote:On tank-shock, onec one is declared one has to state bearing and distance, but one can make any measurements prior to that normally. Ramming just means onemust move at top speed and one doesn't stop when being within one inch of enemy vehicles.

I don't know about that, ChrisCP. Although it may be a discussion for another thread. Tank Shock says "instead of moving normally". A part of "moving normally" is being able to measure as you move. If you're doing something that replaces "normal movement", then you replace the rules of normal movement. The rules for Tank Shock movement are that you "guess" the range to your target and then you move.

But I could measure to the left measure to the right and then after not doing any maths in my head decide to go through and declare the tank-shock

I think in all honesty think GW wrote this one correctly. The reason for the "instead of moving normally" is to stop people who ravage the rule book, saying it doesn't replace normal movement so obviously this is an action I can do in addition to my normal move. You know someone would try it

Hmm, might need another thread indeed~!

If you measure the 24" movement, and it happens to go over the Battlewagon, can someone please explain how you cannot use this to estimate the distance?

Once this question is answered, there can be a conclusion to the argument. If there is, as I suspect, no answer to this, then this thread will go on. Forever.

UltraPrime wrote:If you measure the 24" movement, and it happens to go over the Battlewagon, can someone please explain how you cannot use this to estimate the distance?

You can. The problem, and the reason that the thread keeps going around in circles is because that's not actually what people are objecting to. The two sides of the discussion are arguing completely different points.

The people saying what Dash did is fine are saying that it's acceptable because you're allowed to measure movement in any direction.
The people arguing against are saying it's not acceptable because he wasn't actually measuring the vehicle's movement. He was measuring how far away the other vehicle was, and just pretending to measure a movement distance in order to make that measurement.


That's really all there is to it. But given how many times this has been around now without any real resolution, I think it's time to give it a rest.