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.

If a unit has an ability that is triggered by a specific action in their preceding movement phase, do they use it in turn one if their opponent goes first?

For example, enemy unit goes first and turn 1 charges a Cadian unit (reroll hit rolls of one in the shooting phase if they didn't move in the preceding movement phase)

Does the Cadian unit reroll ones during overwatch?

I asked a similiar question, i had first turn and charged DA with my BA. My opponent wanted to re-roll 1s for overwatch. My response was that he couldnt do that because he didnt have a movement phase yet. But the general answer was yes, they can.

My answer is still no, they dont. They didnt have a movement phase yet, no chance for them not to move.

Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

Now the question is do they get the re-rolls, even though it is not the Shooting phase?

 p5freak wrote:
I asked a similiar question, i had first turn and charged DA with my BA. My opponent wanted to re-roll 1s for overwatch. My response was that he couldnt do that because he didnt have a movement phase yet. But the general answer was yes, they can.

My answer is still no, they dont. They didnt have a movement phase yet, no chance for them not to move.

The issue is that a phrase such as 'if the unit did not move in its previous movement phase' has an amount of logical ambiguity. To reduce it to a type of formal logic, you could express the sentence as:

Not(move in previous movement phase)

Which evaluates to TRUE if you haven't had any movement phases yet. In other words: did you move in the previous movement phase? No, clearly you did not move in the previous movement phase because you haven't had one yet.

Or

(Not(move)) in previous movement phase

Which evaluates to FALSE if you haven't had any movement phases yet. In other words: in your previous movement phase, did you not move? No, you haven't had a chance to not move in a movement phase yet because you haven't had one.

So it's unfortunately ambiguous. Until we get clarification from on high, we'll have to make mutual agreements with our opponents or roll off.

In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

I would go further, as demonstrated above. RAW it is logically ambiguous whether you get the bonus or not. Without an FAQ we literally don't know for sure one way or the other.

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

Well, to me seems like RAW is clear, if it refers to a prior movement phase and you haven’t had a Movement Phase yet. You had to get to the battlefield somehow, right? Mebbe your dudes were walking along then WHOOPS battle time, so no stationary bonus? Or they had to scramble to the ramparts of your Bastion and are setting up defensive positions as shots begin to fly? It’s easy enough to rationalise the abstraction if you need to. If you think you should get the rerolls then you can abstract it as being in defensive posture expecting an attack. Similarly easy to square away. Maybe it can even feed into the narrative of your game? An ambushed side shouldn’t get rerolls if not expecting the ambush, for instance.

My group have played it both ways depending on opinions that day. Talk it out with your opponent before placing a single model and agree how you’ll play it that day. Playing by the rules is not the most important thing... both players playing to the same interpretation of the rules is.

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

Can we please stop using Special Snowflake as an insult? It's a highly politicized term in the US right now and I come here to get away from the current nightmare that is US politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

Agree. It's logically ambiguous. Ask a TO or talk to your opponent beforehand. HIWPI... deployment is more or less moving onto the battlefield. I wouldn't ask for re-rolls until the unit has spent at least one turn standing still.

For me the deployment should count as movement. For counting that a unit has not moved it must be that in your movement phase you "loose" the movement and "win" those re-roll.

My opinion. Only logic.

As far what I think it should be from a balance standpoint, I think units should be able to use the ability if they haven't had a movement phase yet.

Because ruling it that way only really benefits the player going second, and the player going second is at a disadvantage.

I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

Says the person who had it in his signature until recently. It's not political or "right wing", it was popularised by the 1996 novel Fight Club (that's 22 years for those keeping count, it's not new and its usage goes back even further). It doesn't break any rules and I will continue to use it, unless the mods want to make a Special Snowflake exception. (Disclaimer for the mods, this is what is known as "tongue-in-cheek humour", I do not intend to cause any offence, just to make a self deprecating joke at my own expense.)

So, to reiterate and get back on topic, in short, we don't know because GW don't bother to write rules correctly. This needs an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to "fix", because RaW you don't get the bonus.

From a strict RaW standpoint, you never had a "preceding movement phase", thus you don't get a bonus. As with all things that GW don't bother to do "correctly", clarify how it's supposed to work pre-game or ask the TO before the tournament.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’ve flagged this use of “special snowflake” to mods and BCB directly and nothing is ever done about it. I find it tedious and offensive as it’s an odious right wing insult. Just say “special FAQ” and the meaning is the same without the baggage.

Says the person who had it in his signature until recently. It's not political or "right wing", it originated from Fight Club.

It didn't used to be. It has since been politicized and is absolutely an insult used by certain parts of the political right wing to insult anyone seen as left leaning. Not only is it a highly politicized insult... it's also pretty low brow. If you don't think an issue is general enough to require an FAQ, perhaps instead just say, "maybe we can just treat this as a one off situation and rely on players to roll off or agree beforehand". Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

Which is it: RAW they can’t shoot or we don’t know? You can’t have it both ways, given you’re a RAW purist. Make a call.

 Kriswall wrote:
I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

FAQs are not people. You can't insult a document.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Which is it: RAW they can’t shoot or we don’t know? You can’t have it both ways, given you’re a RAW purist. Make a call.

RaW they can't shoot.
I already said that. What we can't know is the intent, because we can never know the intent because we didn't write the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I've also flagged the issue several times for the mods. My assumption is that they either don't agree or don't care. At the very least, it's an insult and I would think is in violation of Rule #1.

FAQs are not people. You can't insult a document.

Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

If semantics help you sleep at night, awesome. The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all. That says more about you, I think, than it does about the people who want to avoid politicized insult wording.

 Kriswall wrote:
Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

Then you have grossly misunderstood what I mean by Special Snowflake FAQ.

It's not an attack on wanting an official answer, it's an attack on the actual answer itself ignoring the rules. Such changes should be made by errata, not FAQ. However, GW disagree, fair enough. I accept the answers as actual answers, but that doesn't stop them being Special Snowflake FAQs that ignore the Rules as Written.

 Kriswall wrote:
Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

Not true in the slightest. I love FAQs. I don't want FAQs that ignore the rules. Rules changes should be done by errata.

 Kriswall wrote:
The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all.

I don't live in the US, so I don't care. I find the use of the letter E offensive. Do I demand everyone stop using the letter E? No, because that would be silly. In the US, the term spastic isn't offensive, in the UK it is a grossly offensive term for someone who suffers Cerebral Palsy (though it didn't used to be, euphemism treadmill in action). Do I go and screech and demand that you ban that word in the US? Of course not, because that would be silly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Doesn't that sound better than getting snarky and implying that players who want a question answered in an official way are "special snowflakes"?

Then you have grossly misunderstood what I mean by Special Snowflake FAQ.

It's not an attack on wanting an official answer, it's an attack on the actual answer itself ignoring the rules. Such changes should be made by errata, not FAQ. However, GW disagree, fair enough. I accept the answers as actual answers, but that doesn't stop them being Special Snowflake FAQs that ignore the Rules as Written.

 Kriswall wrote:
Pedantry aside, we both know that FAQs are written for people and that by calling an FAQ a "special snowflake", you are, in effect, calling the people who want or need the FAQ "special snowflakes".

Not true in the slightest. I love FAQs. I don't want FAQs that ignore the rules. Rules changes should be done by errata.

 Kriswall wrote:
The reality of the situation is that the term is a highly politicized insult in the US, you've been asked more than once to stop using it as some find it offensive and you don't care at all.

I don't live in the US, so I don't care. I find the use of the letter E offensive. Do I demand everyone stop using the letter E? No, because that would be silly.

Yeah... I think this is the core of the issue. You are knowingly offending/irritating people and you just don't care. Then, when pushed on the matter, as always, you come up with some ridiculous deflection. You're not actually offended by the letter E. That's a dumb argument to go with. Now, if I found out that some term I used had some offensive baggage for UK readers, I'd try not to use the term in a setting where I'm likely to run into UK readers. I consider that to be a basic courtesy. You clearly don't. You do you. Use offensive terms. Just don't be surprised when people find you offensive. I frequently find you offensive and abrasive. Not an attack. Just an observation based on your acknowledgment that you don't care that some people find your word choices to be offensive and your ongoing resistance to choosing less offensive terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In the US, the term spastic isn't offensive, in the UK it is a grossly offensive term for someone who suffers Cerebral Palsy (though it didn't used to be, euphemism treadmill in action). Do I go and screech and demand that you ban that word in the US? Of course not, because that would be silly.

I didn't know that. My brother actually has spastic diplegia, a form of cerebral palsy. As I am a decent person, I will try to avoid using 'spastic' in a setting where I will encounter UK readers. Thank you for helping me to become a better communicator.

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.

BCB does remind me of a former dakka member called "Gwar!"

 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.

 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.

Going back to the OP, so if you could claim the benefits of the acting in such and such way during the first turn, can I claim that my Ravenwing has "advanced" inorder to arrive at its deployed location to gain the benefits of Jink?

Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Since your models will almost never move in your opponents movement phase, during overwatch they will not have moved in the preceding movement phase. Ergo, they could get bonuses.

That is not how the rule is worded. Its in their preceding movement phase. Not preceding movement phase. Notice the red word ?

This is it. They haven't had a movement phase and therefore the rule does not apply. It's the only stipulation and it hasn't been met. RAW is no, if that's how the rule is worded of course.

Disagree, as above. It all depends how you parse the rule logically. One way requires a movement phase to not move in, the other does not because not having a movement phase means you didn't move in it.

It is logically ambiguous.

Actually it really isn't ambiguous. You have to be able to prove that you didn't move in your previous movement phase to get to use the ability. If there isn't a previous movement phase, you don't have a phase there to prove that you didn't move in it. If you can't prove you didn't move, you don't get to use the ability.

This is also how GW has historically handled it - there have been vehicles in previous editions that could get a cover bonus or another enhancement if they moved in the previous movement phase (I'm thinking Eldar grav vehicles a few editions back - I think it went for DE vehicles as well). GW ruled on these that in your first turn they can't take advantage of that because you didn't have a previous phase to either do or not do something in. I don't see them handling this any differently.

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.

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.

 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.