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.

The rule in question:

https://imgur.com/nNCTX2w

The clarification required: Does being stationary allow you to fire the turret twice?

It's an important question to decide how sponsons would behave. If you must move in order to get the twin fire, then your sponsons would fire at -1.

To me, it seems obvious that you must move to gain twin fire. What do you think?

Moving 0" is moving less than half speed. I would say remaining stationary gets you the full benefits of the rule.

 Shadelkan wrote:
The rule in question:

https://imgur.com/nNCTX2w

The clarification required: Does being stationary allow you to fire the turret twice?

It's an important question to decide how sponsons would behave. If you must move in order to get the twin fire, then your sponsons would fire at -1.

To me, it seems obvious that you must move to gain twin fire. What do you think?

No clarification needed. Moving 0" satisfies the conditional. Hold still and fire at will.

[quote=Shadelkan 7

"CRB P. 180

HEAVY
[Fluff]
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn."

By both your definitions, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when firing heavy weapons if you want to fire twice with the turret weapon.

I think that you should take another look at the rule. Especially with the explanation in parentheses, the ability to fire twice while stationary is pretty clear.

As above, it isn't.

 Shadelkan wrote:
"CRB P. 180

HEAVY
[Fluff]
If a model with a Heavy weapon moved in its preceding Movement phase, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls made when firing that weapon this turn."

By both your definitions, you must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when firing heavy weapons if you want to fire twice with the turret weapon.

I think that you should take another look at the rule. Especially with the explanation in parentheses, the ability to fire twice while stationary is pretty clear.

As above, it isn't.

Wait, what? I'm afraid I'm going to need you to be clearer on this. Moving 0", AKA not moving, is moving less than half your movement stat. Therefore, you may fire twice, and fire with all sponsons and 0 penalty for moving, because you didn't move.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

 Shadelkan wrote:


Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

You're overthinking it. You don't have to move at all, or count as moving, despite your interpretation of the rules, to get the benefit of firing twice. You can sit right back on your ass and shoot all your weapons with no penalty for moving and also fire your turret twice.

Promise.

"Not moving" is included in "moving less than half".
You're not looking at the full sentences but instead interpret words out of context , that's why you end up confused.

 Shadelkan wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Shadelkan wrote:
The Grinding Advance rule says exactly "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase (ie, it moves a distance in inches less than half the current Move characteristic)"

It says it has to move. It even its 0". But then if it has to move, you have to subtract 1 on sponson hit rolls. That's all I'm looking for, whether or not if I have a stationary Leman Russ, and it fires twice, do I have to subtract 1 on my sponson hit rolls.

And that's what we've answered. Moving 0" does not count as moving, so you suffer no penalties for sponsons. It also counts as moving less than half your movement characteristic, since 0" is less than your movement characteristic, so you can fire your turret weapon twice.

Strightforward. Don't overthink it.

Moving 0" doesn't count as moving, but also counts as moving?

It doesn't count as moving, but it also counts as moving less than an arbitrary distance. If you didn't move, you qualify for any benefits you get that say "If you move less than x inches". It isn't a stipulation that you must move in order to get the benefit, it is only a stipulation that you don't move half speed or more in order to qualify. The difference in your position at the beginning and at the end of the movement phase is less than half your speed, therefore you qualify.

Like others said, you're trying to overthink it.

It's also not even a rule yet!

Telling someone 'you are overthinking it, I promise it works this way' is not very helpful....

It is a very good question and something we can only hope is made more clearer when the Rule is released, maybe by some Frequently Asked Question situation to go along with it. The Rule does begin by stating If this Model Moves ... and the part in parentheses even starts stating i.e it moves a distance, so it is more then reasonable to read this and come away believing this is a Rule that comes into affect whenever a Model moves. Then you are left with the obvious follow up question of what happens to the other weapons if you do use this 'move and fire' Rule, and hence the Opening Posters question being asked here and some very unreliable answers in response. A strict reading is exactly as the Opening Poster fears, and with Rules that have yet to hit the table it is near impossible to know if this is intended or not.

I would highly recommend the Opening Poster writes to Game Workshop about this, so they can better write out their intentions.

If something doesn't move it has moved less than X. There's no more to it. Trying to make this rule force a move is silly. The intent is clear. The wording is clear. What's to write to anyone about?

If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And it has moved "less than X" in that case. Whatever X may be.

JinxDragon wrote:If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And it has moved "less than X" in that case. Whatever X may be.

Yup, these two states are not mutually exclusive and I can't believe it's even in doubt!

A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

Like I said:- It should be brought to the attention of the Authors that the wording used in this new Rule references the Movement state of the Model in a way that could be confusing to some readers. It obviously has led to unintentional consequences as it does, from a strict reading, require the Model to have moved by stating 'if this model moves...' as the opening clause. At best it is an possible point of confusion for many players that they can take a moment to correct for us, and at worse it might even be the intended result of this Rule and they need to make that clear as well. I, for one, can not even rule out the possibility that it might actually be intended as this is found on the Lemon Russ Tank... a tank whom's whole gimmick was 'a weapon platform that is stable to fire on the move,' and for which a lot of griping was heard when it stopped being able to ignore Movement penalties all together. Likely they will simply write that not moving is enough to trigger this Rule and that will be that, because that is what I believe they intended.

Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

Personally - I would re-write it to remove the word of 'turret' from the 'furthermore' section - That way it can move and fire all weapons without penalty, and the turret gets to fire twice... even if you move 0 inches!

 JinxDragon wrote:
A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. However, no that rule wouldn't come into effect if the model remained stationary - it also wouldn't need to.

The rule we are discussing includes the wording "i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic..." which you quoted except you stopped before the "less than half its Move" portion, ignoring the fact that you're then basing your entire understanding of the rule on an incomplete rule sentence.

0 inches is less than 6 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JinxDragon wrote:


Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

I realize that your arguments aren't how you would play it most of the time, so I'm assuming you agree on the intent (you might not), but I'm not arguing basic mathematics. I'm arguing that you're disregarding part of X in your X-Y statement, which includes basic mathematics within it.

 JinxDragon wrote:
A rule states 'If this Model moves, it may fire Heavy Weapons without Penalty,' does this Rule come into affect if the Model remains stationary?
Doesn't matter that the penalty is also dependent on the Model moving, and the end result is the Model firing normally anyway, it is just the question of when and how do we apply Rule that tell us: IF X, then Y.

Like I said:- It should be brought to the attention of the Authors that the wording used in this new Rule references the Movement state of the Model in a way that could be confusing to some readers. It obviously has led to unintentional consequences as it does, from a strict reading, require the Model to have moved by stating 'if this model moves...' as the opening clause. At best it is an possible point of confusion for many players that they can take a moment to correct for us, and at worse it might even be the intended result of this Rule and they need to make that clear as well. I, for one, can not even rule out the possibility that it might actually be intended as this is found on the Lemon Russ Tank... a tank whom's whole gimmick was 'a weapon platform that is stable to fire on the move,' and for which a lot of griping was heard when it stopped being able to ignore Movement penalties all together. Likely they will simply write that not moving is enough to trigger this Rule and that will be that, because that is what I believe they intended.

Because, right now your trying to argue that basic Mathematics trumps the logic of 'If X, then Y...' - and which of these two arguments is correct simply can not be determined at this point.
All I want is for the authors to be notified that this confusion does actually exist, so they can have the answer for this question when the Rule is actually ready to be released.

Personally - I would re-write it to remove the word of 'turret' from the 'furthermore' section - That way it can move and fire all weapons without penalty, and the turret gets to fire twice... even if you move 0 inches!

I stopped reading after the incorrect example, sorry. Different rule, different sentence structure so different meaning. It doesn't prove what you think. That one you quote requires moving as a trigger. The Grinding Advance rule requires you to not have moved over a certain amount to trigger. Is zero movement over half Movement value? No. Demonstrably no. Do the rule say "if the unit moves"? No, it doesn't. You need to read and correctly parse the rule itself, not say we need to write to GW. It really is already clear.

Touch your model and say you moved it
0.001 inches.

Problem solved.

Are people getting all salty that guard get tank buffs? Seriously.

If a model moves up to half it's movement allowed, it can fire the main gun twice. All other weapons are at -1. If you stayed still, you still get to fire the main gun twice, and also all other weapons at full ballistic skill.

Rule states "if this model moves up to half it's movement" any move from 0" to 6" is half or less, so gets the benefit. Trying to say otherwise simply isn't logical. Think about it - why would a tank move to shoot twice? Surely sitting still gives the same result?

 JinxDragon wrote:
If something does not move, it has not moved... simple as that.

And gets to fire twice. I'm glad you explicitly agree with the rest of the thread on this.

Lets try this from a different angle, because I am probably just poorly explaining why I view this as a problem:
I choose to make a teleport shunt and I pick up the Model in question, then place it 12 inches away from where it original position... how far has it moved?

 JinxDragon wrote:
Lets try this from a different angle, because I am probably just poorly explaining why I view this as a problem:

Your problem is that you "parse" the rule word for word, which removes important context. "Moving less than half" is the restriction, not "moving"+"less than half". There's a major difference between the two, if it was the later you'd be correct - but it isn't. "Not moving" is entirely within "moving less than half " , even though it is not within "moving".

I think what Jinx is trying to get as is that the rule can reasonably be read as "if this model moves" as one condition, and "under half speed" as another. Ie, the rule specifically talks about the model moving. Moving 0" is not moving, and therefore disqualifies it from the rule. This is further backed up by "it moves a distance in inchs...".

It is therefore reasonable to say that non-turret weapons get a -1 to hit when using this rule as you have to count as moving to use it.

IMO, I suspect that GW want you to use it while stationary, but there is a reasonable reading of the rules that says you can't.

Probably not pertinent ruleswise, but the rule is called Grinding Advance afterall, and not Grinding Camp ...

That said I'm in the Moving 0" Is Less Than Half -camp, so I'd say the rule kicks in while stationary. But it's a good example of yet another case of sloppy rules writing.

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.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]