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.

Indeed Ghaz! This is becoming circular.

Not quite.  I agree that the game rules are permissive.  Why then, does that mean that you only place the ruler when you are moving a unit (no premeasure)?  I've never read that, and I'm willing to wager that you've never read that.  Why are you placing this additional restriction on the Movment rule.  The definiton and mechanic of the movement rule appears to be very clear.   Pick a unit and physically move said unit up to its max movment.  That's it, end of story.  Of course there are model/unit rules that can affect where a model/unit can move, but that's irrelevant to this topic. 

So, I measure 360 around the unit, fine haven't broken the movement rule yet.  Pick the direction I want to move them and physically move them.  I don't see how the movement rule has been broken.  It doesn't say I can't  premeasure (my interpretation) and it doesn't say I must only place the ruler after I've picked the move direction (your intepretation).  If that's how you wish to play, fine with me.  You would not be breaking the Movement rule playing it your way, and neither would I playing it our way.  This brings me to an important point:  The two positions are both right.  Neither movement mechanic breaks the Movement rule.

...So, I measure 360 around the unit, fine haven't broken the movement rule yet.

So where does it say that (check 360)? Like everyone else in the doesn't say I can't camp your thinly veiled obfuscation is rather weak.

Though I suspect this will be entirely fruitless, by extension why not measure the whole board? For example your opponents moves, or charge distances from Demon prince, what if your opponent premeasured the distance between an assault unit of yours and his target unit in the movement phase and told you, well, you can not charge me next turn because I have just verified the closest models are 12.25 inches apart? It doesn't say you can't do that in the rules, so you can right?

Any hope you see where this is going?

Or why not measure more than one turn of movement, to ensure units in the right quadrant at the conclusion of the take and hold mission? Not against the rules right? Or how about pre measuring a move to make sure 50% of the models are in one quadrant or in another before moving them in such a mission? See?

Or the original scenario of this thread,  verifying that a Deepstriking unit is over 12 inches from any enemy ensuring it can not be destroyed in the drop, regardless of deviation, clearly not in the rules, and unfair, and a simple extension of the "well I can check 360 degrees concept" being advocated...

?

You say that while completely ignoring your own interpratation.  Namely the, 'I only place the ruler once I've picked the unit, direction, and physically move them'.  Why don't you try answering that?

Augustus, that was a really bad pun to say about the 360 argument.

The rule requires that we move no more than 6”. If you are just shuffling the models 2” to get into cover, both you and your opponent can easily tell than you are moving less than 6”, and you don’t even need to measure (unless you had a low difficult terrain roll, maybe). Assuming you want to move your maximum distance, a single measurement will be needed to verify that you are not moving more than 6”. It’s implicitly required by the rule, only because you need some way to verify that you’re not moving too far.

You could also do stage by stage measurements, as previously discussed. If I wanted to measure and move my Falcon 6”, then another 6”, that’s fine too. I’m not gaining any information I shouldn’t have.

Other than that, measuring has no purpose in the movement rules, unless you’re using it to gain information you shouldn’t have. Measuring a 6” arc around your unit gives you knowledge about your distance to other units and terrain that gives you an advantage.  12” or gods forbid 24” around a jump pack unit or skimmer gives you a huge amount of information.   The (very) few times I've seen someone pull this with a Fast moving unit I've wanted to punch them.

You say that while completely ignoring your own interpratation.  Namely the, 'I only place the ruler once I've picked the unit, direction, and physically move them'.  Why don't you try answering that?

Why would I? When you have eloquently done so:

Pick a unit and physically move said unit up to its max movment.  That's it, end of story.

Well said.

Note, the text is not:

Pick a unit and verify all possible locations to which it could move, evaluate the new position and decide on a course of action, check other distances once the unit has moved to its location put the unit back if necesary, and choose another location if desired, and eventually physically move said unit up to its max movment or decide not to after having seen all possible outcomes. 

Your ball.

Mannahnin> 12” or gods forbid 24” around a jump pack unit or skimmer gives you a huge amount of information.

Well spoken, and now, with new eldar wargear, it could be 36 inches! Excellent point, One could use that premeasuring 360 degree info, to verify all ranges (charges and balistics) on a 4 x6 board in one shot.

Think that's supported by the rules or fair?

Still think because it doesn't say you can't it's ok?

Posted By Augustus on 02/05/2007 11:38 AM

Think that's supported by the rules or fair?

It might not be supported by the rules, but then, that's hardly a valid argument as to whether it's fair, or even sensible given GW's spotty track record.  As a few people have pointed out, the ability to estimate distances visually really isn't a skill that we should consider to be related to one's ability to play the game.  Especially when dealing with a universe that's supposedly more advanced than our current one.  We can manage counter-battery artillery fire based on radar tracking of fired shells today, which makes guess range weapons particularly ridiculous in the context of 40K.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 3:42 PM
 Especially when dealing with a universe that's supposedly more advanced than our current one.

And that's the slightly flawed assumption that leads many people down the wrong path.

In many ways, yes, the 40K universe is more advanced than ours. And in many other ways, it's not... as is explained in the fluff.

The fact that artillery is less advanced on the game than in today's military isn't a sign of the rules being silly... it's a sign of the lower technology behind much of the equipment used by most armies in the game.

Likewise with the targetters that were mentioned earlier. Sure, we have access to laser rangefinders. Most models in the game do not, for whatever reasons.

The ability to estimate distances is a part of the game, just as the ability to plan out an entire game in your head is a part of the game of chess. Neither ability is strictly necessary to play their respective games... but the better you get at them, the better you usually get at the game.

Posted By insaniak on 02/05/2007 4:15 PM

The ability to estimate distances is a part of the game, just as the ability to plan out an entire game in your head is a part of the game of chess. Neither ability is strictly necessary to play their respective games... but the better you get at them, the better you usually get at the game.

And what I'm saying is that while it  estimating distances might be a part of the game, there's no particular reason for it to be.  Nor is your red herring that compares estimating distances to strategic ability particularly useful or enlightening.

That said, there's absolutely no excuse for the use fluff as a reason why the rules require you to assume that 40K technology is sometimes inferior to where we were 70 years ago, and sometimes several thousand years more advanced.  Especially when doing so requires you to ignore the fact that a plurality of the available armies are not suffering from a technological backslide (Chaos, Tau, Eldar, Necrons).

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
And what I'm saying is that while it  estimating distances might be a part of the game, there's no particular reason for it to be.

Of course there is... the whole structure of the game revolves around estimating distances.

That's just the way it is designed.

Yes, a game can be designed differently... but then it would be a different game.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
 Nor is your red herring that compares estimating distances to strategic ability particularly useful or enlightening.

'Red herring'...? They're both skills useful to play their respective games. That's not meant to be particularly 'enlightening'. Just a clarification of the point.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
That said, there's absolutely no excuse for the use fluff as a reason why the rules require you to assume that 40K technology is sometimes inferior to where we were 70 years ago, and sometimes several thousand years more advanced.

Of course there is. The game rules are designed, to a certain extent, to reflect the background of the game.

The rules don't require you to assume that... they simply provide a framework on which the game is played.

It's when you try to put those rules into a real-world context that the fluff needs to be considered. Because 40K isn't meant to be an accurate, real-world simulation. It's meant to be a game set in a fictional science fantasy universe.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/05/2007 4:54 PM
 Especially when doing so requires you to ignore the fact that a plurality of the available armies are not suffering from a technological backslide (Chaos, Tau, Eldar, Necrons).

Chaos have one of the same technological handicaps as the Imperium: Lack of knowledge. And this is compounded by a lack of resources, and a lack of real organisation.

Eldar have a highly ritualised approach to war. They wage war with the same equipment they've used for milennia... not because they can't do better, but simply because that's how it's done.

Necrons are a stagnant culture. They have equipment that's millions of years old, and no real way (or need) to improve it.

Of them all, Tau are really the only ones with no real excuse for being less advanced in some areas... although you could argue that their incredibly rapid advancement in some areas has simply left gaps in others.


Really, the background fits the rules as well as you want it to. If you simply try to poke holes in it, sure, you'll find places to stick your finger. I'm honestly not sure why you would want to do so, though... if you like the game and it's background, surely it would be more productive to think of explanations that fit the background instead... which generally isn't that hard to do, given the depth of the fluff.