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.

It's been fun to watch this one develope.

A slight thread hijack here, since I don't think we're making any progress on the pre-measuring issue.

A notion that's being bandied about lately is that, since some areas of the rules aren't covered, like this, and that consensus must be reached (termed "common sense" by Russ), that all areas of the rules, even ones that are covered, require this consensus.

Hogwash. I simply refuse to accept it.

Russ, in the "how to have an intelligent rules discussion" article, Bill and I cover this: if both sides agree the rule is ambiguous or not covered, THEN common sense, as you term it, kicks in. But that's it. And even when it does kick in, it doesn't mean this consensus is going to be reached, and the game must go on.

So if I decide to measure a 24" arch from my speeders (which I would never do), there's nothing you can do to stop me but ding my sports score, because the rules simply don't cover it. (as evidenced by the fact that no one's provided anything resembling two premises and a conclusion that's going to carry).

But it's good that we found this and we can all note it for later discussion.

So if I decide to measure a 24" arch from my speeders (which I would never do), there's nothing you can do to stop me but ding my sports score, because the rules simply don't cover it. (as evidenced by the fact that no one's provided anything resembling two premises and a conclusion that's going to carry).

<?

 

But I argue this is hogwash, because if I reach over in the shooting phase and move your tank, there is nothing you can do to stop me (short of grabbing my wrist), because this is not covered in the rules. 

 

If your response to this is "The rules don't say you may move my models in the shooting phase"

 

Fine

 

Show me where, in the rules, it states you may sweep an arch with your tape measure in the moving phase?  There isn't. You've got to go to no less than 3 rules sections and try to infer something that is not clearly in RaW.

 

My point?  This whole concept is silly, and if folks would just allow a little common sense into their world WHILE actually reading and understanding the rules, life would be a better place.

 

Why does this relate to WD315?  Because this whole thread, the concept of 'manipulating the exact wording of the rules to gain a game advantage' is right here in this thread.  I'm sure someone out there will try to use some of the logic presented here to claim, that strictly by RaW, they can sweep measuring arcs during movement. 

 

Just as someone might push toward a D6 roll over a rule, someone may easily exploit weak or bad RaW to do the same.  If folks read RaW and determine that it is inarguably possible to premeasure anything in the movement phase, then you have found another example similar to the point the WD315 author was making.  Perhaps the rules read specifically a certain way, but it doesn't mean it is the correct interpetation.  There is always the possiblity of an error or unintentional consequence to a new rule. 

 

RaW is not black and white. Although some folks out there like to dream that it is.  Without common sense up front, RaW is only a rough guide, at best.

Russ, that is a very extremist point of view. comparing the moving of another person's model on their turn in their shooting phase is a very exaggerated comparrison to the premeasurment issue.

There is nothing in the rulebook that even starts someone along the path of doing what your example brings forth but the movement section does have rules in regards to how the movement phase works. While you are correct that the book doesn't come out and say "It's ok to premeasure where your unit can move" it does imply that you would have to do so.

In the case of premeasuring movement I have never actually had this become an issue, even when I worked for GW (briefly running a retail store locally) I had only one instance where it was questioned and that situation wasn't even entirely about premeasuring.

What I am trying to say is by definition of the movement phase it is permissible to premeasure distance for your unit... hell according to what was found it is obvious that you can move, and then move back as long as you don't move on to the next unit.

Now comes the "is it ethical and sportsmanlike" issue in regards to premeasurement, which IMO the entirety of this thread is actually discussing.

I would never have a problem with premeasuring movement distances as long as they aren't measuring outside of the unit's movement.

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

<?

 

That is correct.  You measure, you move.  That's how I play it.  The reason my example is so extreme is to illustrate a point.  The reason YOU think my example of moving an opponent?s model in his shooting phase is silly is because you are using common sense with what you know of the full rule set to understand that it is not permissible to do that.  Even though there is NO specific rule forbidding me from moving your model.

 

My argument is, that if you would extend this common sense to the movement phase, you would understand why it is not permissible to allow pre-measuring movement, even though there is no rule specifically forbidding it, there is also no rule specifically allowing it.  But you refuse to look at the examples given by other illustrating how it breaks other aspects of the game system to allow it.

 

Do not focus so narrowly on the rule you are trying to interpret, you must view the rule set as a whole.  "How will my reading of the rules affect the whole game?  How can my reading of the rules be exploited by others?  If there are obvious exploits, perhaps my reading is wrong."

 

Your and Ed's reading of the rule opens up LOTS of exploits.  My and Ragnar's reading open no exploits. 

 

The problem with strict RaW: "I dont' care about exploits, I'm just doing what the rules say..."

 

No, you're doing what YOU think the rules say.  Oh, and how convenient, your reading of the rules give you an edge. ;-)

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/31/2006 8:41 AM

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

That's exactly how I am trying to get myself into the habit of playing. I declare I am moving "that way, to about right there" and then measure out the actual distance. It helps me be decisive, prevents me from second guessing myself, and keeps the game moving. Plus, it prevents any arguments about premeasuring and sportsmanship.

Its not too hard to simply visualize the model in the new position before you measure it.

 

Shouldn't this be moved out of YMDC at this point? Its obviously not covered in the rules, so how can it be successfully covered in the RAW forum. The whole thing is basically a "Playing Style and Sportsmanship" issue.

I suppose by RAW, you can never measure movement. You must simply know how far 6" (or whatever) is, and then move that distance. Of course, then you are risking disqualification if you ever move too far, your opponent calls you on it, and the judge measures the distance out and bans you for cheating.

The reason YOU think my example of moving an opponent?s model in his shooting phase is silly is because you are using common sense with what you know of the full rule set to understand that it is not permissible to do that

Actually no I don't think it's silly, I think there is no premise to even use that example. There is nothing in the rulebook that would even begin to remotely consider that action.

You compared that to a discussion that actually has rules to at least begin to support the premeasurement issue. You made up a completely farse example and compared it to a discussion that has at the least 70% rule support.

No, you're doing what YOU think the rules say. Oh, and how convenient, your reading of the rules give you an edge. ;-)

True, experience would definitely give you that conclusion.

My thoughts are, actually this really hasn't come up before. I mean normally a 'general' has a game plan and is ready to move his models before it's even his turn and when it is his turn he already knows where he wants to move his units etc... so to me this whole discussion is a bit silly. But when given the information provided I feel that premeasuring movement ranges really isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I mean each situation is different and will have different results as to the ethics involved. I have read this thread and I found myself thinking "yea that would be cheating" and I find myself thinking "What's wrong with doing that"?

Denouncing a certain act because it has the possibility to be exploited would really kill the game IMO. I mean, what rule in this game CAN'T be exploited to some extent?

Posted By blue loki on 03/31/2006 9:03 AM

Posted By DaIronGob on 03/31/2006 8:41 AM

From what I gather at your posts you would not even consider premeasuring a unit's move until you have already announced where said unit is physically going to move.

That's exactly how I am trying to get myself into the habit of playing. I declare I am moving "that way, to about right there" and then measure out the actual distance. It helps me be decisive, prevents me from second guessing myself, and keeps the game moving. Plus, it prevents any arguments about premeasuring and sportsmanship.

Its not too hard to simply visualize the model in the new position before you measure it.

 

Shouldn't this be moved out of YMDC at this point? Its obviously not covered in the rules, so how can it be successfully covered in the RAW forum. The whole thing is basically a "Playing Style and Sportsmanship" issue.

I suppose by RAW, you can never measure movement. You must simply know how far 6" (or whatever) is, and then move that distance. Of course, then you are risking disqualification if you ever move too far, your opponent calls you on it, and the judge measures the distance out and bans you for cheating.

Beautifully put. I do the same thing really. I even go so far as to talk out the situation WITH my opponent that way we are both learning!

The last game I played was my Nids against a Conscript heavy guard army. I was saying things like, "now if I move too far out I will get hammered by those lasguns but if I don't move far enough I won't get into combat"... things like that. To me that is fun.

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.

--------------------

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

The conclusion he draws from this is "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."

I disagree. Simply because you are explicitly prohibited from going back and moving a previous unit again does not mean that you are permitted to move the same unit you are currently moving twice. Permission must be granted. The fact that a related act is explicitly forbidden does not mean that this act is implicitly sanctioned.

I maintain that my conclusions hold.

Counter arguments?

I'll counter, just for the heck of it:

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.

C1 is a restatement of P2.

C2 is a restatement of P3

So, unless I'm mistaken, that's a text book "begging the question" (Including your conclusion in part of your premises).

And Ragnar, only one conclusion per set of premises please.

Careful Ragnar, Ed's whole trick here is to try to get you to prove a negative:  "You can't premeasure movement."

That's all BS.  It is incumbent upon him, or someone, to prove you CAN do something in a rule set, not the other way around.  Game rules only describe what you can do, they do not list what you can not do.  (Thus all my examples about moving opponent's models above).

No one has presented a logical argument for allowing premeasuring movement or sweeping a ruler. (Unless I missed it)

You must remember Russ, I'm not making a claim either way, since I think the rules do not cover the point. So it is not incumbent upon me to do anything but disprove any arguments given.

Which I did.

But if someone presents the counter argument I'll attempt to disprove that as well. (assuming I still think it's incorrect after I see it.)

No one has presented an argument that permits the players to breathe either. The measuring method is very arguably outside of the scope of the RAW, which therefore becomes a question of sportsmanship and gamer-ethics.

I don't see the connection to WD315 either, which deals with issues well within the scope of the RAW (and how we should just ignore it all so GW doesn't have to edit their product).

Additionally if your argument is that premeasuring is forbidden by intent and this is obviously common sense, I'll gladly challenge that notion. I think it's common sense that your little plastic guys know how far they can travel in a given period of time. It's certainly an easier concept than judging the maximum effective range of a projectile weapon. Shall we D6 for it?

 Russ, Ed, I don?t think either of you is reading very carefully. 

Kilkrazy made an effort to prove it is allowed by demonstrating that going back and moving a previously-moved unit is explicitly forbidden. This falls into the error of assuming that a prohibition against one thing equals permission to do something else. But it was a legitimate try.

Ed, I am drawing two very straightforward conclusions from three very straightforward premises. If the directions say "Turn left at the light" a valid conclusion which can be drawn is that "I should not turn right at the light."  This is basically what I'm doing. This is not the same as building on an unproven assumption. I can draw as many conclusions as I like from a given premise. If the sweater I am wearing is solid black, I can accurately draw conclusions about what colors it is NOT until the sun goes down.

Attack the premises. Is there anything false in them?  Or the conclusions.  Do they not follow from the premises? Let me add another premise to make it clearer:

P1: I may only do things which are explicitly allowed by the rules or implicitly required by the rules.

P2: The rulebook states my models may move up to a certain distance.
P3: I must measure said distance in order to correctly move my models without exceeding the allowed distance.
P4: 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.

No one has presented an argument that permits the players to breathe either. The measuring method is very arguably outside of the scope of the RAW, which therefore becomes a question of sportsmanship and gamer-ethics.

I don't see the connection to WD315 either, which deals with issues well within the scope of the RAW (and how we should just ignore it all so GW doesn't have to edit their product).

Breathing is outside the scope of the game.  Measuring is withing the scope of the game, how you measure various things is in RaW, there are pages and pages on it in fact.  (coherency, where to measure range from, etc.)

The point from WD315 is that two folks can read the same text and derive two different meanings.  I don't believe he ever makes the statement that GW should not edit their work. 

On Common sense, you are mis-understanding my meaning, Common sense does not equal how does reality plug into the game.  Common Sense equals how does my reading of the rules fit into the over all game. 

Here's one for you to disprove Ed

 

P1: Models are allowed to move a specific distance in the movement and other phases (fleet).

P2: The only way to very legality is to mearuse that distance.

C1: Distance is measured at the time of the movement to verify legality.

 

Premeasuring would not be allowed under this logic as you don't verify your distance until you move. The only way to to it at the time of movement would be to lay down the ruler at the ending point and see if it is within the allowed movement distance. Yes you would be able to try to see if you can move 24" but that would simply be sportsmanship problems there. This owuld not allower premeasuring or that slowed "radius of possible movement" crap. It bugs me when people measure to see if they will be able to get behind the woods before they try.

I believe that P2 is false because there are multiple ways to verify legality, Premeasurement being one of them, but none of which are listed in the BGB.

Snoogums, Ragnar, good ones.  Adding the P1 is a solid addition Ragnar.  I think a lot of folks ignore that issue.

I did catch Killkrazy's post, but it wasn't in the simple Premise/Conclusion format we generally use, so harder to verify/pick appart. 

The fact that this is even a topic of debate staggers me. C'mon boys, are we this bored?

Let me change my stance, this is the dumbest argument ever.

Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game with some of these people...

Posted By blue loki on 03/31/2006 12:56 PM
I believe that P2 is false because there are multiple ways to verify legality, Premeasurement being one of them, but none of which are listed in the BGB.

 

Are you saying that "pre measuring" isn't measuring? P2 is simply saying that you have to measure the distance with something, not when it happens.

Posted By methoderik on 03/31/2006 12:57 PM

The fact that this is even a topic of debate staggers me. C'mon boys, are we this bored?

Let me change my stance, this is the dumbest argument ever.

Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people. Thank you lord for blessing me with a good natured, intelligent gaming group so I do not have to game some of these people...

 

Oh where's the love methoderik?  This is fun.  I love a good argument...

 

"no you don't"

 

"Yes I do"

 

"No.."

 

"Yes.."

 

"oh damn."

I still remain utterly unconvinced.

And I want to be convinced. These arguments just aren't doing it.

We all agree that you have to, at some point, measure. So that being a given, I'm not following how you guys are saying that moving to the left, but reversing and moving to the right, all the while measuring, is somehow not legal.

I'm not saying it's explicitly legal, but you certainly haven't shown it to be illegal.

I'm not saying it's explicitly legal, but you certainly haven't shown it to be illegal.

But that's the point, thing's must be explicitly legal to be done.

Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative, saying that the rules don't say you can't?

Ok I think this may break the camels back.

When you are moving a unit you must maintain unit coherency.

Also every model has the potential to move it's maximum distance and remain in coherency.

So I can move model a 6" Towards the enemy line but say I want to move model b 6" to the exact right of that?

Then I would need to move the rest of the models in between the two and as long as I maintain coherency this unit moves accordingly.

So in essence, per the rules, I can measure for each model in a 10 man unit. That is 10 separate measurements in any direction I wish to move each model...

 

EDIT: Let's see, I have a unit in a 2" coherency and the unit is shaped like an "O". If I move the unit I can then reshape the unit as I see fit but I must maintain coherency so I can measure the models out to shape the unit like an "L" as long as they have maintained coherency.

You have to measure. It's impossible to play without measuring. But nothing in the rule requires you to measure more than once. Thus you may not. It's really that simple.

Attack my argument. Right now you're playing Anderton, telling me you don't believe me but not playing by the rules to try and disprove my conclusions.

Yes, DaIronGob, the way I play you do indeed measure for each model.  But once you measure you are committed, so there is no abuse.

So you are saying that I must move 10 models with only measuring once?

Fine, I measure once for each model.

 

EDIT: I am questioning the statements of only being able to measure in one direction. As long as my 10 man squad remains in coherency I can move each model in a different direction.

 

In fact, getting really technical with this one, any measurement made after the intial measurement would be in a technically different direction and since the rules don't allow you to measure in a different direction it would be illegal to move more than one model at a time per unit.

Posted By snooggums on 03/31/2006 12:57 PM

Are you saying that "pre measuring" isn't measuring? P2 is simply saying that you have to measure the distance with something, not when it happens.

I misunderstood. In the context of your conclusion, "C1: Distance is measured at the time of the movement to verify legality.", it sounded like you were singling out measuring as a singluar act which did not include pre-measuring.

If we take, measuring to mean "measuring in all of its forms", then your P2 does indeed stand, however your conclusion does not, as "at the time of movement" rules out pre-measurement without being supported by a premise. Pre-measurement is not done "at the time of movement", it is done before hand.

Pre-measurement is ruled out if measuring is only done to verify the legality of your move. Premeasuring is not required to make that move, so it would not be allowed.

EDIT: I am questioning the statements of only being able to measure in one direction. As long as my 10 man squad remains in coherency I can move each model in a different direction.

In fact, getting really technical with this one, any measurement made after the intial measurement would be in a technically different direction and since the rules don't allow you to measure in a different direction it would be illegal to move more than one model at a time per unit.

Sure. You can measure once for each model. The legal procedure is to measure for one model, move it, then measure for the next, move it, and so on. Given that each model is committed to its move once measured, no premeasuring is happening and no abuses occur. Obviously in a normal casual game players may fudge the rules a little, moving the unit quickly and only making a couple of measurements. But as long as each measurement commits a model to a move, we are protected from premeasuring abuses.

Maleed, this is a discussion of designers intend and I present to you this:

FACT: Nowhere in the rule book does it say you can pre-measure anything

Rules state: You pick a unit to shoot, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to shoot.

Rules state: You pick a unit to charge, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to charge.

 

Inferrence: You pick a direction to move, then measure.  You can't premeasure distance to move.