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.

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

 Kriswall wrote:

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

You are not the bad guy for asking neither is he the bad guy for refusing to do so. You have every right to request him to not use certain words that you find to be an insult and he has every right to continue to use those words despite your objection.

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Stux wrote:
It really is ambiguous. It's all dependent on the scope of the negation in the sentence, which is vague in the language used.

If the negation only applies to whether the unit moved, then they must have had a movement phase to not move in. If the negation applies to the whole rule then the condition is satisfied if there is no movement phase.

Its

(Not move) in the previous movement phase.

Vs

Not (move in the previous movement phase).

The two expressions evaluate differently.

There is no clear RAW here without further clarification.

I see this as correct. It's logically ambiguous. In other words, is there a requirement that the unit stayed still for a fill turn, i.e. didn't move in the previous movement phase? If so, they fail the test in turn 1 and can't shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Edit: I'll drop the issue. I am sorry JohnnyHell has once again derailed a thread since he knows I can't normally see his comments.

Classy. Blame the one being offended, not the one being offensive. At this point, you know the term is a politicized insult. If you continue to use it, you are responsible every time a thread derails due to its use.

Taking offense when obviously none was given is just as “classy”.

You guys should stop this garbage.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your contention that the only thing that matters in a two way dialog is how the message is delivered? How the message is received doesn't matter?

I'm unclear why asking someone to stop using politicized insults on a gaming forum makes me the bad guy.

You are not the bad guy for asking neither is he the bad guy for refusing to do so. You have every right to request him to not use certain words that you find to be an insult and he has every right to continue to use those words despite your objection.

Eh... I consider people who intentionally use insulting terminology and refuse to change it with a dismissive 'I don't care' to be less than ideal. Maybe not bad, but definitely not winning points for communication, diplomacy or sportsmanship. I actually tend to agree with a lot of his points about how GW is terrible at writing rules and frequently uses FAQs to change the written rules (when they should use Erratas). I just don't agree with how he chooses to deliver his message.

Not really an issue anymore. He put me on ignore. The issue has been resolved with selective censorship on his part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

It's a permissive rule set, BUT this is a situation where we're trying to see whether or not we violated a restriction... or whether or not you fulfilled a requirement?

In other words...

If we get the re-roll so long as we didn't violate the restriction preventing us from moving in the previous movement phase, we get the re-roll. We objectively didn't move in the previous movement phase.
If we get the re-roll so long as we fulfill the requirement requiring us to have no moved in the previous movement phase, we don't get the re-roll. We objectively didn't not move in the previous movement phase as there was no previous movement phase.

The wording in the rule doesn't make it unambiguously clear as to whether we're looking at a requirement or a restriction. My gut tells me it's a restriction, but my gut also tells me that deployment should be considered prior movement. As I said before, HIWPI is to not allow the ability in turn 1 since the unit previously deployed and deployment feels like movement.

As previously mentioned, any rule that refers to an event that didn't happen is inherently meaningless.

It could say if the unit didn't jump up and down under its own power in their preceding movement phase, you win the game. There is no preceding movement phase to refer to. So the consequences are immaterial. Exaggerating for effect.

Does the unit gain a benefit by having "not moved", or does the unit have a benefit that is lost by "having moved?"

The rule can be validly interpreted either way. Neither conclusion is more accurate than the other.

HIWPI is that I'd allow such rules to benefit. 2nd turn is disadvantageous enough, so I'd let the 2nd player have the (very limited) benefit as a concession to poor game mechanics advantaging the first player so strongly.

 doctortom wrote:

Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

I don't see how the permissiveness of the ruleset is relevant here.

If the rule is that you must not have had a previous movement phase where you moved then that is fulfilled by not having had a previous movement phase. That is a perfectly legitimate reading of the rule, the problem is that it is not the only legitimate reading of the rule.

In a permissive ruleset, you have to be able to show that you met the requirements in order for you to get the benefits. If there's not a previous turn, then you can't show they didn't move in the previous turn. Just saying there wasn't a previous turn doesn't cut it, you have to have had a previous turn and have not moved.

I agree with the first sentence. It's not relevant to the rest of what you said at all though.

Read in a certain way the rule gives permission to apply the ability without there being a previous movement phase. That permission allows you to do just so, given it's a permissive ruleset.

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

If the answer is "there was no previous movement phase" then there wasn't a phase for them to move or not move in. If you are trying to get an ability based upon your previous movement phase, if you didn't have a previous movement phase then you don't get the benefit because there's no phase there to have done (or in this case not done) what you're trying to show. They're not just asking whether you didn't move, they asked if you didn't move in that previous phase.. You cannot say they did not move in their previous movement phase if there was no previous movement phase for them to not have moved in. Lack of phase = lack of verification.

The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

I think the act of defining the term "default state" begins to shift the focus onto a RAI stance and not necessarily that of a RAW.

RAW, you have not been given express permission to consider deployment as if the model had remained stationary nor as if it had moved.

By "default" state, any rule that revolves around looking at the previous turn/phase cannot be used as there is no turn/phase to look back to, unless otherwise noted.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The issue is what is the default state.

Does the unit benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and loses that benefit if it moved? If so, there is no trigger to lose the ability,.

Does the unit NOT benefit from the re-rolls as a default state, and gain the ability by actively "not moving"? If so, this action has no trigger to gain the ability.


There is no defined default state. As the rule refers to a meaningless point in time, the unit should continue in it's default state, but this is not defined.

As such, each interpretation is as valid as the other, and only perceived intent can be a determining factor.


If I argue that the unit has the benefit by default, and only loses it if it moved in the preceding phase, it is correct to allow the re-rolls.
If I argue that the unit must gain the benefit by actively not-moving, it has not not-moved so it is correct to disallow the re-rolls.

What is the default state? The unit always has the rule, as it is on the data sheet. I would /personally/ lean that if the unit always has the rule, the clause to fulfill would be to lose the ability by moving. But there is no hard/fast way to determine what the intent was.

It's not just that you didn't move as determined by some nebulous default state, it's that you didn't move in the previous movement phase. You have to meet that criteria. That means that 1) you have to have had a previous movement phase, and 2) you haven't moved during it. If you don't meet both of those conditions, you don't get the benefit. If there's no previous movement phase, then you can't meet the criteria due to the lack of a previous movement phase. .

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's a permissive ruleset - you have to have performed the action (or non-action) in this case and have to be able to show it in order to get the ability. If you can't prove it, you don't get it. That's not ambiguous.

Basically asking the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase" would work too.

That way the answer is "There was no previous movement phase, so they could not possibly have moved"

If the answer is "there was no previous movement phase" then there wasn't a phase for them to move or not move in. ....

And if "there wasn't a phase" then they could not have possibly moved.

Let's try this another way...

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may reroll, as the condition in which I would lose this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls allowed)

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may NOT re-roll, as the condition in which I would gain this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls not allowed)

The correct interpretation depends on which default state is presumed, which is a matter of RAI, as the rules do not express which is the correct default state.

The default state can sometime be determined by how the rule is written. Here's two examples:

1. This unit may reroll 1's to Hit if it did not move in it's preceding Movement Phase.
2. This unit may reroll 1's to Hit unless it moved in it's preceding Movement Phase.

For 1, the default is you don't get rerolls until you meet the criteria. The criteria requires there be a preceding Movement Phase that you did not move in before you gain the benefit of the ability.

For 2, the default is you get rerolls unless you meet the criteria. If there was no preceding Movement Phase you can't meet the criteria of moving in it.

As for the original question, Cadian's (or other Born Soliders) don't get to reroll 1's in Overwatch ever*. Their rule only applies in the Shooting Phase.

*Techincally, they can reroll 1's in Overwatch in the unlikely event they are charged during a Shooting Phase

 greatbigtree wrote:
Let's try this another way...

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may reroll, as the condition in which I would lose this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls allowed)

I can re-roll unless I moved in the previous movement phase. Since there was no phase, I didn't move in it. Therefore I may NOT re-roll, as the condition in which I would gain this ability has not been fulfilled. (Default state: re-rolls not allowed)

The correct interpretation depends on which default state is presumed, which is a matter of RAI, as the rules do not express which is the correct default state.

Let's put this in another-another way. Can you reroll a roll that never occurred? As in, is there such thing as a reroll to a roll that never existed? Would that count as a reroll or a roll?

I firmly agree with deathleaper. The unit didn’t move in the preceding movement phase. It’s immaterial whether there even was a movement phase because even in that situation they obviously didn’t move. So it would get the rerolls.

@Skchsan: I don't understand what you're trying to say, at least in relation to the quote of my own words.

The only scenario I can imagine in which you could re-roll a roll that didn't occur would be a weird situation in which you could choose to voluntarily pass and/or fail a roll. You decide, announce it, and then change your mind. In this case, your opponent is apparently a massive jerk, and doesn't let you change your mind, but Ah-ha! You can reroll the roll you chose to pass/fail. Soooo.... Technically there is a situation in which you could hypothetically re-roll a roll you chose to pass fail, without having to actually roll the die/ce in the first place.

@ AlexTroy:

Your interpretation of the first "version" requires a comma that is not present, between "Hit" and "if". As it is, there is no comma between, to create a cause and effect relationship. I can apply my previous if yes then no, or if no then yes as being equally valid. That's what I'm trying to say. In order to have a clearly defined meaning, the rule would have to read (similar to) either...

A: This unit may always reroll 1's to hit, unless it moved in its preceding movement phase. - This establishes the default state as being able to reroll, unless a "trigger condition" of moving prevents that.

B: This unit may elect to forfeit its movement. If it does so, it may reroll 1's in the subsequent shooting phase. - This establishes that the movement must be actively forfeited, in order to gain the benefit. This establishes a default state as not being able to re-roll, unless the forfeiture occurs. It also clarifies that this rule wouldn't be useful in the assault phase for Overwatch. This could be altered by including the terms, "Reroll all shooting and overwatch attack rolls until their next movement phase".

clively wrote:
I firmly agree with deathleaper. The unit didn’t move in the preceding movement phase. It’s immaterial whether there even was a movement phase because even in that situation they obviously didn’t move. So it would get the rerolls.

You are wrong. The wording of the rule is clear. It requires a movement phase, no movement phase yet, no re-rolls. It doesnt say if the unit didnt move. It says didnt move in their previous movement phase. You cant ignore parts of the rule you dont like.

The rule specifically states that they must not have moved in their proceeding movement phase. Not that the unit hasn't moved at all.

So when deciding if the unit in question gets the benefit of the rule we ask ourselves two questions -

1. Has the unit had a proceeding movement phase?
2. Did the unit move in its proceeding movement phase assuming it had one?

If the answer to question 1 is 'no' then there is no way the unit can meet the requirements of the rule so we don't apply the benefit.

If the answer to question 1 is 'yes' then we ask question 2 and see if our unit gets the benefit.

This is clear. There is no ambiguity. It would be ambiguous if the rule was written 'if this unit hasn't moved' with no mention of a proceeding movement phase. The fact that the proceeding movement phase is mentioned makes the rule clear. If the unit charges but has stayed stationary in the proceeding movement phase they would then still get the benefit.

I kinda see the confusion with this but the RAW is clear. You need to have had a proceeding movement phase to get the benefit.

It is not ignoring. You have a rule that says you can re-roll. It has a stipulation that you may not re-roll if you moved in the previous movement phase. The rule does not describe what happens if there is no previous movement phase to refer to.

This, of course leads to what do you do if there's nothing to determine if you're not allowed to do something... but I've run through that about 3 times now.

Most people here are arguing RAI, depending on which base state.... bah.

The rule says you may only reroll if you didn't move in your proceeding movement phase right? It's not saying 'you may reroll always, but not if you did x', it's actually phrased 'you may reroll as long as you didn't do x'. It's a subtle but important difference that should make its resolution easier.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


If the answer to question 1 is 'no' then there is no way the unit can meet the requirements of the rule so we don't apply the benefit.

This is the leap of logic I disagree with. Yet again, we don't know the scope of the negation so we can't assume this.

We don't know if the intention is that the unit needs to have had a state of 'not moved' in the previous movement phase or if the unit must not have had a state of 'moved in the previous movement phase'.

These are vastly different but equally valid readings of the rule.

OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

Consequently, the stratagem can be used on a unit that elected to stay in combat during movement phase but moved to consolidate during fight phase.

Shame on all of us No one looked up what the cadian rule says. See spoiler.



Overwatch is a shooting attack, but its not happening in the shooting phase. Cadians cannot re-roll hit rolls of 1 when overwatching.

EDIT: Nevermind, eliminated after seeing p5freak's comment.

Are there any other examples of something like this besides the Cadian one? Just wanting to make sure this isn't a broader issue but is really just addressing the Cadian example.

The Dark Angels Grim Resolve rule, but that one allows re-rolling 1's in overwatch.

I did not have the rule available to me.

I concede that the benefit is not gained for overwatch, as it specifically stipulates the shooting phase and overwatch occurs in the assault pHase.

Thanks pg5.

This is the DA chapter tactic.