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.

How did you measure that movement, to confirm it was within 6 inches, though?
If your going to go back to measured between A-B, then B-C, then C-D before adding them together I am going to once more request a Rule allowing us to add measurements together....

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I highlighted the problem with that, or are you not reading my posts?

Being told to 'go around' is meaningless without specific instructions telling us how to go around.

No, it's not. Are you looking for the definition of the word "a"?

It is this lack of instruction which is the core of this thread, and simply pointing to the two words 'go around' doesn't suddenly create these instructions. Without specific permission to do something differently to normal, we must obey the default set of instructions as they where presented to us.

You of course mean to move 6" and not move through things, right? I mean, that's a contrary position to where you've been (6" bubble of flying) but I'd be okay with you switching.

In this situation it is still possible to 'go around' using the default Rules for measurement... just a little useless as it would take two or three movement phases to achieve.

No it wouldn't. At all.

So do me a favour, quote the Rule which allows us to add these series of smaller measurements together?

The one where I'm allowed to move a unit as much as I want, in any direction that I want. The limit is that I can only move 6". There is no rule stopping my movement if I move 3" and then measure a different direction - but I may not move more than 6".

That's the issue. Can you cite any rule allowing you to move 3", stop, face a different direction and move 3" more? I don't believe that permission is in the core rules. It allows you to measure, change your mind and then measure in a different direction. It doesn't appear to give permission to move a little in one direction and then a little more in another directions.

Mathematically speaking, any combination of straight + pivot moves will have have a total positional change from the starting point of less than 6", unless that combination was a single straight move of 6", in which case the distance moved was 6". There doesn't need to be a description of something that is mathematically impossible to accomplish. Hence, there is simply a clarification that the movement cannot end more than 6" away from the starting position, and this is an AND statement, not an OR statement.

JinxDragon wrote:
How did you measure that movement, to confirm it was within 6 inches, though?
If your going to go back to measured between A-B, then B-C, then C-D before adding them together I am going to once more request a Rule allowing us to add measurements together....

So yes, you're looking for the definition of the word "a" then.
I can't help you and refuse to address your ramblings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
That's the issue. Can you cite any rule allowing you to move 3", stop, face a different direction and move 3" more? I don't believe that permission is in the core rules. It allows you to measure, change your mind and then measure in a different direction. It doesn't appear to give permission to move a little in one direction and then a little more in another directions.

I have allowance to move. Agreed?
I have allowance to measure a move. Agreed?
I have allowance to move 6". Agreed?
I have allowance to move my 6" anywhere as long as my entire base is within 6" of my start point. Agreed?

Once we have this down we can move onto what that means, but if we can't agree on this there's no point in continuing.

I see that as nothing more then refusal to provide any Rule granting permission to add several different measurements together.

JinxDragon wrote:
I see that as nothing more then refusal to provide permission to add measurements together.

See it as what you want, you're being extremely obtuse when it comes to "measuring"

How do you measure the length of a piece of string?

Really Jinx?

"Up to 6" is a mathematical term. It means 6, or any number less than that. This is not commonly held belief, this is mathematical fact now.

So, a move in a curve of 3, pivot, then 3, is up to 6. We have, for the convenience of breaking down for you how a movement can occur, called it this. In fact, it is a single move of 6 inches, performed in a curved manner. We do not need to have specific rules to describe how to do something that is permitted. You are permitted to move 6". That's the permission. How you determine how the 6" are moved is up to you. But physically moving the model is the only way to move the model. That movement is tracked. So long as the total movement was equal to or less than 6 inches, it was a legal move.

"straight-pivot-straight" is just a mathematically provable way of moving a model along a curved path that results in a movement of equal to or less than a maximum movement within a circular radius. This is math, not rules. It is a means of pre-measuring your move in a method that the rules do not define so that you end your move legally when you move along a curved path.


Honestly, the way you're going, I'm surprised you haven't picked out that there is no rule in the game telling you to start the game.

Rigeld2,
Indefinitely, the more accurate the method of measurement the longer the piece of string... always loved that strange fact.

However:
If we where informed to measure the length of the string using Warhammer's Rules for measurement it would depend entirely on how the string was positioned on the board. Being that the default requires us to measure only two points, the closest two points unless they have been defined by a secondary Rule, I would have to conclude a straight line between those two points is the way to go. It won't matter how the string is bent or twisted, I lack permission to measure to the first bend, then to the second bend, then to the third... before adding them all together to get the total length of string.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Indefinitely, the more accurate the method of measurement the longer the piece of string... always loved that strange fact.

However:
If we where informed to measure the length of the string using Warhammer's Rules for measurement it would depend entirely on how the string was positioned on the board. Being that the default requires us to measure only two points, the closest two points unless they have been defined by a secondary Rule, I would have to conclude a straight line between those two points is the way to go. It won't matter how the string is bent or twisted, I lack permission to measure to the first bend, then to the second bend, then to the third... before adding them all together to get the total length of string.

And yet you're forbidden from moving through an impassable piece of terrain, as you've claimed is possible.

Yarum,
The problem isn't the distance being measured, but how it is being measured!

Thanks to the entry in the General Principal section, which informs us to measure between the two closest points, we have a 'default method' that we must obey unless instructed otherwise. This default method does not account for a) measuring to the same base, or baseless objects, and b) objects that might stop and change direction in the middle of a manoeuvre. It only grants us permission to measure two points, so we can not use multiple points along the path. Even if we somehow conclude that little 'mini-measurements' are still between two points and not violating anything, nothing is informing us that we add these measurements together in order to find out a total. So measuring A-B, then B-C, then C-D just gives you a bunch of measurements, with nothing informing you what to do with them other then non-Rule-as-Written common-sense answers.

Also, there is a Start of Game... it isn't very well defined though, happening some-time during Deployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld2,
The problem was the reverse, actually...
If a Model ends it's movement on the other side of Impassable Terrain, how can we prove it 'went around' in order to be legal?
Direct measurement between starting and ending points would conclude the Model went through the terrain, illegally, but it is the default method of measurement unless you can quote an exception for movement!

My buddy Pythagoras would like to have a word with you then.


The statement of adding together is mathematically factual that it will not exceed 6" total move AND not exceed 6" circular radius. Since these are true, how it is being measured is no longer an issue, since this method of measurement assures 100% compliance with the rules of move up to 6" and stay within 6".

Now, if you're asking how you measure, as in the actual device used to measure - then you're right, the rules don't explicitly tell you what to use to measure an inch. But that's another issue (and not really an issue, since again, that's a scientific real-life thing and not actually important as far as the game's rules are concerned).

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
The problem was the reverse, actually...
If a Model ends it's movement on the other side of Impassable Terrain, how can we prove it 'went around' in order to be legal?
Direct measurement between starting and ending points would conclude the Model went through the terrain, illegally, but it is the default method of measurement unless you can quote an exception for movement!

By. Measuring. The. Movement.

Seriously. You're literally asking for a rule defining how to measure. That's exactly like asking for a rule to define the word "a". It cannot be done, and asking for it is ludicrous.
It is *not* the "default" method of measurement - you literally made that up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:
Now, if you're asking how you measure, as in the actual device used to measure - then you're right, the rules don't explicitly tell you what to use to measure an inch. But that's another issue (and not really an issue, since again, that's a scientific real-life thing and not actually important as far as the game's rules are concerned).

Actually, they do.

In games of Warhammer 40,000, distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick.

JinxDragon wrote:
So measuring A-B, then B-C, then C-D just gives you a bunch of measurements, with nothing informing you what to do with them other then non-Rule-as-Written common-sense answers.

Indeed. The rules also don't tell you how to roll dice, what form of recording device to use to generate your army list, or how to speak English in order to ask a potential opponent if they want to play.

This is a non-issue.