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.

Yeah - it's a pretty [MOD EDIT - Please do NOT use workarounds for the expletive filter - Alpharius] reason for arguing. Of course the LR can fire twice after staying still. Sorry if you're playing a Guard Army in a fortnight....

I understand JinxDragon's argument, because the rule quite plainly qualifies what it means by "moves under half speed" with the explanation "moves a distance..."

Remaining stationary or "moving 0 inches" is not moving any distance, so is not moving a distance, or even moving at all.

That said, the intent is obvious. It was redundant to use the "moves under half speed" wording, and they should simply just have said, "remains stationary or moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic".

I do think a few people need to remember that this is You Make Da Call and not "40K for Friendship and Pleasure".

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I understand JinxDragon's argument, because the rule quite plainly qualifies what it means by "moves under half speed" with the explanation "moves a distance..."

Remaining stationary or "moving 0 inches" is not moving any distance, so is not moving a distance, or even moving at all.

That said, the intent is obvious. It was redundant to use the "moves under half speed" wording, and they should simply just have said, "remains stationary or moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic".

I do think a few people need to remember that this is You Make Da Call and not "40K for Friendship and Pleasure".

That's a fair point, even if arguments like this exist for there own sake.

I'll just say that '0' or zero is actually a value in maths, so it is actually possible to move '0'.

p5freak wrote:
The rule is called grinding advance. An advance is movement. And it says "if this model moves". If you move 0", you remain stationary, thats not moving. So, you must move to be able to fire twice. And because you moved your sponson weapons are -1 to hit.

I found the perfect solution. The rule is called grinding advance, so you clearly have to ADVANCE to benefit from it. When advancing you may only fire assault weapons, and a LR only has access to heavy weapons. So you can't fire the turrets, but you could fire any main turret ASSAULT weapon at -1 tohit twice. Am I doing this right?

Christ on a bike. Do GW have to write the rules so absolute dummies can read them?

The rules Translate to a slow moving or stationary Russ. What possible reason would be for a tank to move in order to fire twice when it's easier and more accurate to stay still?

The salt at the guard on this site is telling.

Technically, in 8th, distance moved is only the distance measured between start and end points.

Nobody plays it that way, especially with a clear intent that you actually count the inches along the path(terrain features and models "blocking a path"); but the RAW only accounts for final position.

How is this relevent? If you are moving 0", you are still moving for other heavy weapons. You are basically just declaring movement.

It seems like you do have to move for Grinding Advance(even moving 0", where yours sponsons and hull gun are taking the -1 to hit); but that is not likely to be the intent of the rule, we are fairly sure to have an FAQ on this.

It's probably going to be clarified but so far, if you want your russ to be able to fire twice because it moved 0', you'll have to fire all your heavy weapons at -1 penalty because they have moved 0'.

 Lance845 wrote:
Jesus feth this is dumb.

You have to be pulling some real dumb gak to read that rule as the tank needing to move to fire twice.

Agreed.

I'd love for GW to do a Comprehensive Rules Set that takes incredible care with their language, like Magic does. Their basic rules are 7 pages long, including lots of images and lots of dead space, and there's a 3 page glossary. Their Comprehensive Rules are 226 pages long. BUT Wizards doesn't make any money off their rules set, and GW does. GW can't do a comprehensive rules set so long as they're committed to selling their rulebooks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the topic; I understand why people are saying this. The term "move" has very specific wording in the rulebook for what it means, and whether something has or has not moved is important for many things. Therefore, it wasn't a great idea for them to use the term "moved less", because it implies at least some movement.

BUT COME ON!

If something doesn't move, then it has used LESS of its movement. If I sit in a chair all day and don't move, then I have "moved less" than someone who walks around. That's common parlance.

I suppose one easy way to kill that argument would be to use the grav chute insertion wording: "if it does not move more than half its movement".

But in contemporary english (and indeed, even in programming) those statements are nearly identical, with the only real difference being what happens at exactly half. That's what "or equal to" is for.

Here's the rule explained in C.

float d=distance_moved;
float m=max_movement;
int H_penalty=0;

If d<m/2
{
fire_twice();
}
If d>0
{
H_penalty=-1;
Else
{
H_penalty=0;
}}
return 0;

 ross-128 wrote:
I suppose one easy way to kill that argument would be to use the grav chute insertion wording: "if it does not move more than half its movement".

But in contemporary english (and indeed, even in programming) those statements are nearly identical, with the only real difference being what happens at exactly half. That's what "or equal to" is for.

Here's the rule explained in C.

float d=distance_moved;
float m=max_movement;
int H_penalty=0;

If d<m/2
{
fire_twice();
}
If d>0
{
H_penalty=-1;
Else
{
H_penalty=0;
}}
return 0;

Your brackets don't balance correctly... but on a more serious note you're assuming you understood the design spec correctly, where as it can easily (and just as correctly) be interpreted as:

float d=distance_moved; float m=max_movement; int H_penalty=0; If ( d > 0 ) { H_penalty=-1; If ( d < (m/2) ) { fire_twice(); } } Else { H_penalty=0; } return 0;

This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

Wow. I had to see it to believe it.

Its a shame these guys can't write up clear set of rules for things like this.

So, again: You will gain the benefit of Grinding Advance while remaining stationary, as, again, "not moving at all" satisfies the conditional.

The rule is written clearly enough. Keep arguing if you like, but if you'd like to be done arguing, I will point out (again) that I know what I'm talking about.

Or you can just stop going back and forth and look for other rules examples where something moves and not moves at the same time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Your logic is so bad I don't even know where to begin...

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Seems strange that you have conflicting notions between this and Supersonic.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740493.page#9621650

Supersonic:

Each time this model moves, first pivot it on the spot up to 90 degrees...

If you pivot 0 degrees, did you follow the instructIons to pivot? About as much as if you move 0", you have moved less than half your Move.

Scenario:

"How far did your LR move?"
"Zero inches."
"Is zero less than 5?"
"Think so, yeah."

Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

The rule is not written to say "If the model moves, AND moves less than half... yadda yadda..." - it simply states "If the model moves less than half."

Condition: Movement = <50% Move Characteristic

Moving 0" (not moving) satisfies this. The rule isn't written with any form of pause between "If this model moves" and "under half speed..." so to interpret as though there was is, in my opinion, incorrect.

Some of the reaching going on is... spectacular. Somewhere in Nottingham Phil Kelly is laughing at the stuff people seem to think needs clarifying, and pushing the SoB release date back each time someone is particularly dense.

p5freak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This discussion makes me cry.

Do you seriously think if GW was trying to force Leman Russ tanks to move using the rule they wrote, they'd write it that way?

I don't even play Leman Russ tanks, and even I can see this argument is spurious.

The rule is called grinding advance, not LR firing twice while standing still. No advance, no firing twice.

Absolutely! But you stopped too early - its Advance, not move! So you have to advance to trigger the rule, clearly!

BTW: I'm so glad I can use my Twin Assault Cannons while advancing, since they're obviously Assault weapons, it says so right there in the name.

Jacksmiles wrote:


Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

People who would complain, dont really care about the moving, they care about the -1 for sponson heavy weapons that moving causes. So if you indulge them by moving a few millimeter, they get what they want.

Malachon wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:


Honestly, I suspect how people would actually play it and how they're arguing on here is different, but if not, and I encountered someone who wouldn't let up that I move my tank, I would do that light tapping thing on the side of it just to kinda hit it over a few millimeters.

People who would complain, dont really care about the moving, they care about the -1 for sponson heavy weapons that moving causes. So if you indulge them by moving a few millimeter, they get what they want.

Good call, I keep glossing over the word "turret" in my mind when reading the rule. I'd stand my ground then.

If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

Consistency

But I still don't need to move my LR at all, and you still don't need to pivot at all.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

And you'd be wrong, but at this point It's fair to say you don't argue in good faith.

p5freak wrote:
If we ever play I will pivot my flyer 0.0000000000001 degrees before moving. I'm fine if you also move your LR 0.00000001 inches, but your sponsons will be -1 to hit.

Well if you are ever in or around Aachen, feel free to not call me up for a game.

It is a tiny bit more complicated, but I am glad the conversation continued and the point I was making is understood by many....
'What does the Game recognize as Movement?'
As Nekooni pointed out, it entirely comes down to how you parse that sentence and what mindset you are in when you read any other Rule that references Movement.

I, for one, would have no problem if the Authors errata' the Rule (before it was even released) to allow all weapons on this Russ to ignore the Movement Penalty in question. That way, even if you encounter someone that demanded movement to use this fire-twice Rule, we can easily use the answer of 0.0000001 inch movement as a righteous middle finger. Still, no matter what I think about the wording used in this Rule, I have accepted that there is grounds for confusion. Referring to movement colloquially within any Rule is a mistake that the Authors should fix, because it can lead to this sort of confusion and abuse. Thus it would be right for the Authors to weigh on the issue at this time, it is their experimental Rule in the first place so they can clarify this issue.

With the fact the issue is now clearly understood by many I will simply bow out. The reason why I weighed in so heavily was a knee-jerk reaction to the Opening Poster being told things like 'You are over thinking it' and 'it works like this, promise.' My very first game involved an Opponent and one of their friends observing, both using similar arguments as to why my perfectly legitimate tactic did not function as intended. That interaction, before I even invested into the franchise, almost lead to me walking away entirely because this sort of 'argue my opponent out of a tactic' mentality was sadly common place in the places I was looking. Although, it did also lead me to finding this very site and I found an entirely new game I can play with these Rulebooks!

To have a thread here devolve into the lines of 'no, the problem doesn't even exist, these are 100% clear cut rules... you are just reading it wrong....'

The OP asked a question.
The first three replies gave the correct answer.
The OP refused consensus.

How did you expect things to go?

I don't know... maybe:
Instead of insulting the Opening Poster when he kept explaining why he still had an issue with your reasoning, one could have thought about it from his interpretation for more then just two seconds. Afterwards they could approach the opening poster with some more sympathy, starting by stating you understand where the confusion is coming from. You could then take a moment to laugh at how Game Workshop writes terrible rules and then proceed to explain that they simply used the colloquial use of the word 'move' and are not referring to the action known as Movement. This would cause the Poster to respond less defensively and more likely to accept your conclusion as correct. They simply will be less likely to walk away from you unconvinced if you take more time then simply telling someone to learn how to read.

Besides;
Have you ever thought that someone might have to take your explanation to a gaming group who has the same misconception?
They would have to convince said group with nothing more then 'some guy on the internet told me differently' and their group will easily convince them that the internet was wrong.

Absolutely, but people are simply reading it wrong. Instead of calling it an 'interpretation' they could be open to other viewpoints. Two sets of closed minds does not a conversation make: it's an argument. I'm absolutely always open to being wrong, but in this case the people saying you must move are reading the English language sentence wrong and inferring things not there.

If it was interpretations, fine. But there's some ridiculous reaching happening.

If there's any discussion to be had please provide rational reasoning. Otherwise, people need to be open to being wrong, and not just say "this needs an FAQ" every time they parse grammar incorrectly.

Rant over.