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.

Here's why this debate is particularly interesting to me:

Piranha - fusion, array 70

It can move 24". Can I measure 24" towards an enemy unit, and if the unit happens to be within 24", change my mind about moving it 24", and instead move it 12" towards the unit, knowing the fusion is now in range? And on the flip side, if the enemy unit does not happen to be within 24", can I change my mind about the direction and move it elsewhere?

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

It's become rather apparent that there's nothing cut-and-dry in the RAW to cover this sort of situation... everyone has their own take on it.

Maybe we should start trying to create a general rule all Dakkites would agree on that they can then try to encourage other players to follow... eventually spreading whatever method we decide on to as many players as possible.

Personally, between my roommate and I, we first declare that a unit/vehicle is moving. Even if we don't actually end up moving it, it still counts as having moved. We then measure up to 6" (we both kinda suck, so we allow you to measure, then decide which direction to move in) for infantry. With vehicles we decide whether the vehicle will move 6", 12", or more, then proceed to measure up to the maximum decided. Even if we don't end up moving the vehicle it still counts as having moved whatever it was declared as moving.

As far as our tape measures go, we only extend them to 1" farther than the maximum chosen (it can be hard to position the measure accurately if the rule is locked directly on the 6) and no more. Since all we're playing is friendly games we don't really worry too much about cheating on movement or anything.

As far as we're concerned, nothing else can be pre-measured.

What methods does everyone else use? It'd be beneficial for all of us to come up with a cionsensus on the fiarest way to measure movement, etc.

Things I dont' allow at the game table.

1. Measuring how far the table edge is for deepstriking units.

2. Measuring to see if you are in assault range during the shooting phase. This is also shady because someone can measure and then say I'm only shooting my assault weapons and pistols. "You should have said that before you measured."

-------------------------------------------------
Shady Tactics

1. Firing with a unit farther away first so you can see how far your closer units are to a target.
ie. Well if I'm 18 inches away and my close unit is 13 inches from me I can get a charge off.

2. Pulling your tape measure out way longer for a measurement. ie Moving 6 inches but 24 inches are showing.

3. I've seen this one before. Range of gun is 48 and the person stands with the tap measure out 48 inches over the board. Then points at the unit they want to fire at. "Of course you have range when you do that."

------------------------------------------------
Grey Area

1. Rolling FoF during the movement phase and then not moving at all.

2. Having a model that can move 24 inches and then swing the tape measure around it's possible directions. "Hey you have a unit next to your landspeeder with 24 inch range."

3. Measuring distance to shot at a target and then saying you are not shooting so you can assault instead.

There are others.

Ahoj!
1 - I measure my deployment zone, and distance from nearest enemy unit(s) if appropriate for scenario.
2 - I measure my movement distances
3 - I measure distance to units I declared I am shooting at (and I don' measure 60 inches from Bolt Pistol armed unit to enemy unit in oposiite corner of the table)
4 - I declare charges and check for range
5 - I measure Consolidation/ Run away! Run away! distances
6 - I also measure if I can rally

Hmm - what's more to measure?

ADDED LATER, AFTER READING ONE OF THE PREVIOUS POSTS:
7 -  I sometimes check coherency, if it looks off

Borys

Hi Boris,

The question is whether you should do all your measurement after declaring actions and take consequences if your estimated distances turn out to be wrong.

That is, follow the precedent of the Shooting phase for the other phases of the game. So you would declare some movement (towards a building, perhaps) and then measure the distance. If your troops cannot reach, they must stop outside the building.

In my opinion there is nothing inherently wrong with pre-measuring at any time. Clearly, thought, lots of players consider it an important part of gameplay not to pre-measure. As such, an agreed set of rules, even if they are only Dakka house rules, would be better than the current confused situation. I am not fussed about pre-measuring or not pre-measuring so much as being able to agree on the rules to be used.

Ahoj!
"So you would declare some movement (towards a building, perhaps) and then measure the distance. If your troops cannot reach, they must stop outside the building."

Isn't that covered by Difficult Terrain Rules?
I declare intention, roll, and I'm stuck with the rolled distance, even though the rules allow me to go somehere else.

Borys

What I meant is you estimate its six inches to cover, but your eye was wrong and it's actually seven. So your troops have to stop an inch short of the cover.

Posted By RussWakelin on 03/29/2006 12:27 PM

"The main rulebook does not address this at all that I can see. The only argument I've seen on the issue is "the rules don't say you can, so you can't", but I'm not convinced of that yet." - Ed

Ed, I'm shocked that you have fallen in with the "it doesn't say I can't" line of reasoning.  This is a classic flawed argument.

The rules also don't say I can't pick your model up and move it where I'd like on the table. So why can't I?

I can't becase the rules state what I CAN do, not what I can not do. 

For shame dude, for shame.

I don't think it's quite as clear as that, Russ. The rulebook is pretty quiet about movement - Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

The "maximum movement distance" for a model is nicely defined, depending on type. But it doesn't provide any sort of procedure for translating that ink-on-paper number into distance-on-battlefield. Presumably, we should all be using the (not accurately sized) whippy sticks included in the boxed set. If you didn't buy the boxed set, you don't get to move, as the stand-alone book doesn't have whippy sticks.

Given that we're told to move a unit up to its maximum allowable distance, there must, of necessity, be some measurement of distance involved. I don't see how the rules discriminate against measuring SOLELY in a single direction, vs. measuring in several directions.

Let's leave ethics and slipperly-slope arguments out of this.

Given that we're told to move a unit up to its maximum allowable distance, there must, of necessity, be some measurement of distance involved. I don't see how the rules discriminate against measuring SOLELY in a single direction, vs. measuring in several directions.

Exactly. There are no substantial rules to support the "premeasuring movement" IS illegal or unethical. You can't move until you measure, you get to decide where you want to move therefore you can measure where you want to move no matter which direction you are going in.

Maybe it would be better to implement a BloodBowl style grid board to warhammer 40k? That way you never have to "measure or premeasure" a thing!

I think its neat how this whole debate really supports the recent WD315 article that everyone is excited about. RaW can't even be used to determine how to measure movement!!!

Now, if you folks would allow common sense and intent into the equation, then this is a very simple thing to solve:

1) Clearly, the INTENT is that shooting and assault ranges should be guessed, never pre-measured.

2) Common sense dictates that a good sport would never do anything to give him extra insight into #1

3) Therefore, measure your movement however you like, as long as it is clear to your opponent that you are not attempting to violate #1 or #2 above.

Since common sense and intent is not available to you RaW purists, then I'll let you hash out how you get blood from a stone.

Russ this has nothing to do with RAW being inadequate. This is a bona-fide gray area in the rules and thus appropriate for interpretation.

The rules just say you move six inches, but they do not provide any form of mechanism to determine whether or not you've moved six inches. So our options are:
1) Never measure. Obviously a nonstarter.
2) Pre-measure your move. I actually think this is the best way to do it and it's how my group plays - we just extend a ruler six or seven inches, put the 6" mark over the edge of a base and put the end where we want to go. We might wiggle the ruler around some, but that's no big deal. A refinement is to nominate a general direction to move, but with the vagaries of movement (having to go around terrain) it isn't usually possible to be 100% precise.
3) Move and measure. Problem here is that nothing prevents me from putting my model right on top of yours, obviously out of six inch range, and then measuring to it. "What do you know that's actually twenty one inches, I'll just scoot my guy back..."

Russ this has nothing to do with RAW being inadequate. This is a bona-fide gray area in the rules and thus appropriate for interpretation.

The above statement can't be true.

1) Adequate RaW means no need for debate
2) We are debating

THEREFORE: RaW is inadequate.

Russ I think you're conflating three things.

1) The Rules as Written as taken literally - e.g. the rules as they appear on the page.
2) The Rules as Written in the YMDC sense, where all we care about is understanding exactly what the rules really say. This doesn't mean that you have to play that way, but when someone posts on YMDC the default assumption is that this is what we're looking for. For the most part going by RAW clears up most gray areas; the answer may not be immediately obvious but eventually it becomes clear. Occasionally it does leave some gray areas behind (including this measuring thing). Where RaW clashes with nebulous concepts like "intent" or "posts on the Eot" (for instance, the turbo-boosting bikers thing) the RAW win, period, end of story. When there is a genuine gray area (e.g. one that RAW cannot resolve, such as this measuring thing) then it can be useful to consider things like intent - but only then.
3) The Rules as Written as a play philosophy which means that your default mode of play is to follow the rules as written (within the confines of #1; the gray areas need to be decided upon ahead of time - e.g. discussed with your opponent

So which one are you saying is inadequate? I only see this measuring thing demontsrating that RAW is inadequate only when taken in the #1 sense, in which case you're right - but it's also a facile conclusion; there's not a serious player of 40k who will try to tell you with a straight face that there are absolutely no parts of the game that the rules simply do not cover.

My contention is that without interjecting either common sense and attempting to infer intent neither 1, 2, nor 3 are truly possible.<?

In any complex situation, even simple rules can break down.  And common sense must be applied.  Not common sense in a "what would happen in the real world" but "what is the fairest way to resolve this."

The problem comes when people can't understand that the same language can be read differently. 

Example:

A) No where do the RaW state that you may place your tape measure on a vehicle and rotate it to see all possilbe movement options.  Since this is not SPECIFICALLY stated as something you can do, my personal take on the RaW is that you may NOT do this.

B) Others argue, that basically because the RaW states you get to move, and doesn't state you can't sweep an arc with your tape measure, you can.

Both A and B are reading the same rules.  Both A and B are trying to follow RaW. 

You can't get to the real solution without common sense.  This goes beyond war gaming and editing and writing.  There are whole philosophical theories on the topic.  Ever read any Asimov?  3 VERY simple rules can be interpreted many different ways, depending on the complexity of the situation.

My argument is we all apply common sense and intent when we try to use RaW, just some refuse to admit it.  Effective communication is not possible without common sense on both sides of the communication stream.

 

I think its neat how this whole debate really supports the recent WD315 article that everyone is excited about. RaW can't even be used to determine how to measure movement!!!

Now, if you folks would allow common sense and intent into the equation, then this is a very simple thing to solve:

1) Clearly, the INTENT is that shooting and assault ranges should be guessed, never pre-measured.

2) Common sense dictates that a good sport would never do anything to give him extra insight into #1

3) Therefore, measure your movement however you like, as long as it is clear to your opponent that you are not attempting to violate #1 or #2 above.

Since common sense and intent is not available to you RaW purists, then I'll let you hash out how you get blood from a stone.

Russ? Trolling?!?

#1 is pretty clear, even in the text - barring wargear (hello, I.G. Targeters), you don't measure before declaring a shooting target.

#2...#2 is a bit over-broad, don't you think? My normal movement, provided I actually MEASURE the 6" move I'm entitled to, is going to give me extra insight into #1. So does basic geometry (Pythagorous did not live in vain). So does simple experience - I'm good for 1-2 inch accuracy out to about 6 feet, owing to too much time with actual "guess" range weaponry.

But what I distill from your post is not that you object to measuring multiple directions to determine allowable movement, but to the abuse of measuring movement, as a cover for shooting/assault pre-measuring. Correct summary?

This is classic mauleed! He comes in here. Stirs up the hornet's nest. Then leaves to make up an aternate FOC tournament in another section!

I like Russ's argument about not being able to do anything to gain measuring advantage during shooting, but I can't help but to go back to my beloved Storm Troopers. They've got to be the worst unit when it comes to rules anomalies. Is it unethical to use their targetter to meaure range to multiple units? I don't think so. In fact, I think that is what the rules mean for us to do. But, where do we draw the line? Is this any different than measuring multiple routes models can move through? The rules on the subject are pretty scant in this area, but the search continues.

Edit: Wow! Jantkin beat me to the Storm Trooper thing.  Figure the odds on two people using them in a thread at the same time.

But what I distill from your post is not that you object to measuring multiple directions to determine allowable movement, but to the abuse of measuring movement, as a cover for shooting/assault pre-measuring. Correct summary?

I don't care to see my opponent zip out his tape measure to 24" put it over his land speeder, sweep and arc, then pop it back saying something like "just checking where I can move."

'Taint cool man, 'taint cool.

We had a VERY simple house rule at Dakka for many years:

"You measure, you move."

But since we weren't RaW purests, we didn't have to write an 8 page disertation, we just worked out what the intent was, used common sense, and came up with a fair method.

A) No where do the RaW state that you may place your tape measure on a vehicle and rotate it to see all possilbe movement options. Since this is not SPECIFICALLY stated as something you can do, my personal take on the RaW is that you may NOT do this.

B) Others argue, that basically because the RaW states you get to move, and doesn't state you can't sweep an arc with your tape measure, you can.

Both A and B are reading the same rules. Both A and B are trying to follow RaW.

You can't get to the real solution without common sense. This goes beyond war gaming and editing and writing.

Hence, this is a gray area. All Ed asked for was whether the text, on its face, was specific to one perspective or the other.

When playing this silly game, I hold to the "least advantage" principle - I self-interpret bad rules to the meaning that gives least advantage to me. I also apply the "intended effect" ideal from legal interpretation - a rule (or law) is intended to have its apparent effect, and interpretations that prevent that are absurd on their face.

But I don't see either applying here. Movement of a unit, as defined in the rules, involves knowing how far the unit can move. If you don't know how far the unit can move, then you cannot move. So, I don't care if someone swings their tape measure in an arc - I already know the distances to within a fair degree of both precision and accuracy.

But since we weren't RaW purests, we didn't have to write an 8 page disertation, we just worked out what the intent was, used common sense, and came up with a fair method.

I don't think ANYONE is that pure in application of RaW, when they actually game among friends. But you can't be - the rules DO NOT HOLD UP to RaW scrutiny in every situation.

The purpose to RaW is, was, and will be - what do the rules actually say? I never played at Dakka (and now I never can). I've never played at a lot of stores, or with most of the people who post here. If ever I DO play with them, the ONLY common ground we have to play from is the rules as they are written. With most people, we can add a veneer of sportsmanship to that.

But I played against a number of people this past weekend who were absolutely certain that a) a Leman Russ could not shoot over the back of a Chimera; and b) a Space Marine biker could move between two tanks 1.5" apart, to assault a squad on the other side. What was GW's intent with those rules? Couldn't care less - the written rules cover both situations well enough to play.

(Oh, and yes, I still firmly believe that decent editing and proper word selection would prevent nearly every single one of these discussions. I, too, am a lawyer; specifically, I write patents. Every word I use in an application may be subject to scrutiny that would make Ed wince, so I have to be extremely selective with my word choice. And that's why I get paid what I do.

GW gets paid for writing rules. They could do a better job, granted with a corresponding increase in effort required. They've chosen not to. If even reasonable people can disagree over what a rule means, it's not a good rule.)

When playing this silly game, I hold to the "least advantage" principle - I self-interpret bad rules to the meaning that gives least advantage to me. I also apply the "intended effect" ideal from legal interpretation - a rule (or law) is intended to have its apparent effect, and interpretations that prevent that are absurd on their face.

<?

Janthkin, you and I are on the same page with this, I do exactly the same.  I'm kind of bringing debates from other threads into this one, like the WD315 issue.  I think the pure RaW concept doesn't really allow for the 'least advantage' principle, because that is common sense and is applying more to the equation than RaW.  My whole argument is simply that you must have SOME additional guiding principal beyond RaW for rules interpretation to work.

I really am surprised so many dedicated, serious 40k gamers think pre-measuring movement is cool.  Oh, sure, sweeping a 6" arc may not seem like a big deal, but you got to look at the big picture.

Examples:

• Do you declare your vehicle is moving over 6" (thus loosing fire power) before you measure, or do you measure your various movement options, then decide how fast it will go?
• Can you measure how far your bikes will move before deciding if you will turbo boost?
• Are you cool with skimmers and other fast vehicles sweeping a 24" arc with a ruler (half the table width) just to check movement options?

This is the problem with RaW.  Analysis of isolated bits of text in an attempt to allow something without thought to overall game mechanics.  Without looking at the big picture, without common sense, with out a principle like 'least advantage' (which is very similar to the ethics issues implied in the WD315 article) pure RaW is not possible.

To be honest, I find the whole no pre-measuring rule very frustrating, precisely because it is very open to exploitation.  To me, games that allow measuring at any time are MUCH more enjoyable, as it eliminates so many issues like these.  This isn't just a 40k issue, WM has the same problem, where it is permissible to pre-measure some things and not others. 

I call to game designers everywhere: ALLOW PRE-MEASUREING.  Reduce GEEK stress! 

 

I agree Janthkin. Well said. Capt K

As Janthkin clearly explains, the RAW could be a lot better written, and it would vastly reduce the number of arguments.

But a claim (as Russ made) that the existence of disagreement over a rule means it is an unclear rule is clearly false. On several occasions I have had opponents argue to me that they could do something that the rules clearly and explicitly forbade. And I have (to my chagrin) been on the wrong side of the same situation more than once.

IMO premeasuring movement is against both the spirit and letter of the rules. Against the spirit because allowing it makes the rules which prevent premeasuring shooting and assault meaningless in many, many circumstances. Especially when Fast vehicles are involved.

P1: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P2: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P3: The rulebook does not state that I may make multiple measurements for a single move, for example, in multiple directions.
C1: I am allowed to measure my move distance.
C2: I may not make multiple measurements in different directions. Once I measure a given direction and distance I am committed.

But a claim (as Russ made) that the existence of disagreement over a rule means it is an unclear rule is clearly false. On several occasions I have had opponents argue to me that they could do something that the rules clearly and explicitly forbade. And I have (to my chagrin) been on the wrong side of the same situation more than once.

This is a fair point Ragnar.  I may have over simplified my point.  I wasn't trying to claim that if anyone ever has a debate, a rule is unclear. 

What I was trying to state was that if two people (or a bunch on a web site) can crack open a book, read it togeather, and NOT come to an easy conclusion, THEN the RaW are not enough.

But I completly agree with your point: 2 gamers at a table disagree, they both grab a book, both read, both come quickly to the conclusion that A is correct and B is incorrect, then it is indeed a victory for RaW.

(sorry for so many posts today folks, I'm just feel'n feisty)

Russ, you don't need to apologize. It's your forum.

But he does, because he'd like to make clear that he's a benevolent dictator.

As GW has often noted, the RAW is sometimes not enough. But just because there's disagreement in an online discussion betreen multiple people still doesn't mean it's an unclear rule. I'll be happy to link you to some of CaptAnderton's greatest hits if you like. Or you can go browse the Eye of Terror.

It took me some time to realize that the way the Dakka league played Piling In in 3rd edition was wrong, as I had pointed out to me in my fourth game at the 2001 Baltimore GT. I had to look at the book and read it multiple times to get what my opponent was explaining to me, which was that the way I had learned to play the rule with the league was wrong. Often times people are blinded by custom and their internal assumptions even when the rule is clear.  But I did get it after a few minutes, and we proceeded on with the game, playing it correctly.  And I learned from the experience, brought back what I had learned to the league, and we all played it correctly from then on.

Mannahnin, you've come to the same conclusion that I did earlier in this thread.

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

Posted By onlainari on 03/30/2006 9:33 PM
Mannahnin, you've come to the same conclusion that I did earlier in this thread.

I'm having a lot of trouble finding anywhere that says I can use a tape measure to measure the allowed distance a model can move.

The following seems to imply that a tape measure is used: Page 15 BGB: "In his turn, a player may move all or some of his units up to their maximum movement distance".

There's nothing that seems to imply that you can change your mind.

So I'm going to say the rules don't support pre-measuring.

Measuring counts as moving the model, you must move your models in the premeasured direction by the premeasured the distance, where the premeasured distance is not allowed to be greater than the maximum movement distance.

Except...

P.15, last sentence of the paragraph after Movement Phase Summary box. "Once you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

In other words, you clearly are permitted by the rules to decide a move, measure it out, do it, then change your mind, go back and do a different move which would also require measuring.

That surely is the RAW no matter how unsatisfactory it may be.

rules used for chess

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces
4.1

Each move must be made with one hand only.
4.2

Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "j`adoube" or "I adjust"), the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.
4.3

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard

1.

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved, or
2.

one or more of his opponent`s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched, which can be captured, or
3.

one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent`s piece with his piece or, if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. If it is unclear, whether the player`s own piece or his opponent`s was touched first, the player`s own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent`s.

4.4

1.

If a player deliberately touches his king and rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to do so.
2.

If a player deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3(a).
3.

If a player, intending to castle, touches the king or king and rook at the same time, but castling on that side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king which may include castling on the other side. If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.
4.

If a player promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.

4.5

If none of the pieces touched can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move.
4.6

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled.

1.

in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
2.

in the case of castling, when the player`s hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal;
3.

in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player`s hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.

4.7

A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent`s violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4, once he deliberately touches a piece.



Rules for Warhammer

1. Choose a unit to move
2. Move any or all of the models in the unit up to their maximum distance
3. Repeat the above until all movement is complete.



We see the difference between the 2 sets of rules and all the detail of the chess rules about moving something. Just rewrite the warhammer rules like that and then we can settle this issue

P.15, last sentence of the paragraph after Movement Phase Summary box. "Once you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

This seems to imply you can change your mind, I change my stance and say premeasuring is supported by the rules.