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.

Ghaz wrote:

holden88 wrote:d) Or you can decide not to have a hambuger at all.

There's nothing saying that you can't re-evaluate your decision 2 mins later and decide to go ahead and get a hambuger after all.

Because you didn't decide not to have a hamburger at all, did you? No. You just decided at a later time. That is not 'at all'.

Yes, and why can't this same logic apply to the game.

Here is the basic structure of the movement phase.

1) Pick one of your units that has not moved yet.
2) Measure any possible moves for this unit.
3) You may now move this unit or decide to not move it at all.
4) Go back to step 1 and repeat until all your units have moved or you decide to end the movement phase.

This is pretty straight forward. I don't think there's too much to debate here. It's all straight out of the book. Obviously there are some things I've not covered here like falling back, difficult terrain, pinning etc.. but these things don't really impact our discussion.

Still with me? Good. Now, step 3 above (and page 11 of the BGR) doesn't say "you may decide to not move a unit at all this movement phase". It simply says not at all. As in no movement. This is not the same as a movement of zero. This means no movement at all. As in the absense of movement. As in the unit doesn't make any kind of movement and doesn't count as having been moved. I think everyone agree's on this? Even though you have measured a possible move for this unit you may still fire heavy weapons in the up coming shooting phase for example? The at all part is simply refering to the fact that I decided to move a unit so I began measuring but then I changed my mind and decided not to move it at all.

The fact that I have pondered possible movement for a unit (by conducting measurements) does not somehow "activate" this unit and make it ineligible for future consideration.

So now were back to step 1 and I once again select a unit that hasn't moved yet to start the sequence over. Any unit I may have previously selected for movement but decided to not move at all is still eligible at this time because these units haven't moved yet. It doesn't matter that I may have decided not to move a unit earlier in the phase. The only criteria used to determine if a unit is eligiable for selection or not is: "has the unit moved yet this phase".

In other words step 1 does not say:

1) Pick one of your units that has not moved yet. This unit cannot be a unit that was previosly selected earlier in this phase.

Padixon,

That's it folks. 'at all' like Ghaz says, is used (once you read the rules) to indicate that you are done moving that model and have decided to move another unit and can not go back and change your mind later as in step 2.

the bolded part is what I question.
Part 2 says you can't *change* your move, I am not changing the move. I am changing my decision to not move.

If Measuring was included in 'moving', I would agree with you.
Shooting says that once you measure, you are considered to have shot. The movement rules do not say anything like that. Measuring is not part of moving.
If it *was* part of moving, than once you measure, you would have 'moved', and can't shoot heavy weapons. (And we know that isn't right.)

So, measuring is *not* part of 'moving'; it is something that is done before you move.

Otherwise you are pre-measuring.

It says you can measure before moving, and then you can move or not. That is all we are doing.




edit:
I just want to stress that people keep adding words to the rules.

They do not say
"at all this phase"
"at all this turn"
"at all this game"
"at all this minute"
"at all ever"

There is no set amount of time referenced, to say otherwise is adding words to the rules.

As it stands "at all' is indefinite, it means that is the way it is at that moment, and it will stay that way for an indefinite amount of time. It is not set to last a turn, or phase, or game, or whatever. It will be that way until it changes. And it changes when the player changes his mind.

"I am not going to eat at all"
If 15 minutes later I decide to have a snack, it does not mean the original statement was false.

"I am not going to eat at all today"
Now, if I snack in 15 minutes, it means the original statement was false.

I would agree with you coredump except that I am convinced on how the rule on "MEASURING DISTANCES" on page 3 and the 2 paragraphs on page 11 interact.

What I mean to say is that you may not measure distances unless a rule tells you to do so.

And on page 11 we measure the distance to move a model.

These rules do interact. For a player to follow both rules without breaking either of them is to:

1) decide to move a model: thus giving permission to measure
2) follow the rules for moving a model and measure in any direction to move the model or decide to not move 'at all'

These 2 rules interact because to satisfy the "measuring distance" rule I first must be given permission to move a model in the first place, and that is given when a decision is made 'to move' a model.

Hence you satisfy the quote "Once you have started moving a unit..." Because to be able to measure in the first place you must first decide to move a model...and once you start to move a model "you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

And to continue on page 11 "...and then change you mind to....decide not to move it at all." and thus completing this models movement and therefore restricted to going back to it because you have already started its movement by measuring as the rule on page 3.

The crux of this entire discussion is whether measuring constitutes "...started moving a unit..."

And to sum my post for the lazy, is the rule on page 3 "MEASURING DISTANCES" requires a rule to state you can measure in the first place, and to be able to measure in the first place you must 'move' a model, but you may decide to not move 'at all' but that does not take away the fact the player "...started moving a unit..."

NOTE: A good note to take is the fact the rule only says "started moving", and then says "finish its move" which means as soon as you start you must finish, there is no pause.

the morale of the story is think before you start measuring.

Also, the whole argument about the words 'at all' has no bearing 'at all' on how I read this rule. (pun intended )

EDIT: Again as usual its very OK to disagree, we all have different ways of looking at things and that is perfectly fine. But, this is how I see it, but the irony of internet forums is in the end despite all the time we spend typing and 'arguing' are opinions mean completely jack, lol.

Another EDIT: I for one am NOT a rules stickler, and in fact on several occasions have asked my opponent (especially if they are new) to go back even several moves ago to make a change because what they did was pretty stupid and would lead to a quick end and no fun for either of us.

In friendly games and even in competition games sometimes I do not practice what I preach with this current rule. Because we are supposed to have fun first and everything else second.

coredump wrote:

"I am not going to eat at all"
If 15 minutes later I decide to have a snack, it does not mean the original statement was false.

That most definently makes your statement false.

willydstyle wrote:...can't really apply a set time-limit to the phrase.

It could mean for the entire phase.

It could mean for the entire game.

It could mean until you decide to come back to that unit later in the phase.

Of the three options, option number two is patently ridiculous. ..option three has the most support by the rules.

I concur, though in practice I am completely against premeasuring as a concept in a table top game. Wildstyle's post illustrates the reason "at all" is indefinite, literally taken a model could never move again.

literally taken a model could never move again...until another rule came along and allowed it to happen.

Which is exactly what happens when you return to your movement phase the next time.

I still don't understand, even outside of this, why people consider the initial rules of movement to be meaningless.

They say "Once a unit has completed its movement, a player selects another one , and so on, until the player has moved all the units he wishes to move"

If you take the sentence "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's movement in one direction, and then change your mind and move it somewhere else...or not move it at all" and combine it with the fact that you can't go to another unit until you've completed a units movement...what justification do you have for measuring the other moves?

I select a unit. I measure all over the place for it. What allows me to then select another unit and measure all over the place for it? Have I completed the other units movement? Well, no. Did I have any legal reason to measure it's movement? I don't see any.

So that leaves a contradiction - you have the ability to not move it "at all" - which some are interpreting to mean "until I feel like it later". Thats fine...but once you've selected a unit to measure, you have no legal right to select another one - you cannot select another unit until "a unit has completed its movement".

So then the argument becomes that measuring is not selecting the unit or "starting to move it". Which is fine, but does not explain why you are allowed to measure. If my opponent was trying to play that way if they wanted to measure a move I'd say "are you selecting this unit to move?". If they said no, I'd ask them what rule allows them to measure if they aren't planning on moving that unit right now. There doesn't happen to be one. It may be perfectly fine to measure a units move in one direction and decide to go the other way, or not move at all, but it isn't perfectly fine to measure a move you know you have no intention of making. Since you can't select another unit until this one is done...you're not getting to measure another unit either.

In other words, you have to have a reason to measure. Wanting to see how far something can move in various directions is not a reason to measure the move. You can only justify measuring a move you intend to actually make. Even if you then decide "oh, I'll not move at all", you have no right to select another unit until you're done with the current one.

Not that this will convince anyone, but I think everyone in this thread is beyond convincing anyway.

When you get down to discussing the english definition of rules rather than context there is not a good chance of reaching a consensus on what it means. Stuff like this should just be put in a general FAQ and/or decided where you play because no matter what you think, people are just discussing english interpretations rather than an actual rule.

Hence you satisfy the quote "Once you have started moving a unit..." Because to be able to measure in the first place you must first decide to move a model...and once you start to move a model "you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit."

because you have already started its movement by measuring as the rule on page 3.

The crux of this entire discussion is whether measuring constitutes "...started moving a unit..."

I agree with just about everything you are saying. This bit, however, seems to be causing the 'problem'.

If you say that measuring is part of moving a model, than I totally agree that you can't measure, and then come back later.

But I do not see how you can say that measuring is part of moving. If it *does* count as part of moving, then once you measure, you can't decide to 'not move', since you have already started.
Second, once you measure, if that is included as part of 'moving' it also means you can't fire heavy weapons.

I see no way to support that measuring means that you are moving. And if it is not moving, then you have not started moving.

Not that this will convince anyone, but I think everyone in this thread is beyond convincing anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. But I like the latest tack you have taken, it brings up some new angles for the discussion.

For example

It may be perfectly fine to measure a units move in one direction and decide to go the other way, or not move at all, but it isn't perfectly fine to measure a move you know you have no intention of making.

I can agree with this. If you are not planning on moving the unit, it is an exploit of the rules to measure for the unit. Similarly, I believe it is at least poor sportsmanship to measure every possible move for each unit, and then start moving.

if they wanted to measure a move I'd say "are you selecting this unit to move?".

I can respect that. But will you always do that?
What if I want to move assault marines 4", (so I don't need to measure), I pick the first one up to move it, then put it back because I want to move my rhino first.
Do you play it that since I 'selected' the assault marines, I have to complete their movement before moving on?
What if I didn't pick up the model, but said I was going to move them (thereby defacto 'selecting' them), how would you play it?

I can see a hardline reading of "select the next one", but then you need to be consistent. With your interpretation, measuring is no longer the concern, 'selecting' is.

Thats fine...but once you've selected a unit to move, you have no legal right to select another one - you cannot select another unit until "a unit has completed its movement".

I have made a minor change so it reflects the actual rule. You select a unit to move.... once you make that selection, you can't select another unit until you have completed that units movement.

Again, I can respect that, but I don't think it is at all how it was meant to be played. This is not chess where once you touch the piece, you have to move it.

I think you misunderstood me a little. What I am trying to say is the 'decision and measurement' to move starts the movement of the model and the 'decision' is what prompts the measurement. Once a measurement is taken, that models 'move' is being 'evaluated'. The player at that point can always choose to move/not move as he sees fit, and of course not incur any penalties besides not being able to move the model again that turn.

Remember the 'measuring distance' rule must be followed like any other rule. To follow it means a rule has to tell us to measure in the first place. But to measure for movement requires the player to "start to move" the model.

Hence why I stand on this side of the debate. Just because a player decides not to move, the fact he measured is the moment he 'started' and then 'finished' the 'movement' or lack thereof of the unit.

Just for me, the key is not whether the model moved, but whether a measurement was taken and a decision made.

For example going by page 11 at what point does the term "...started moving a unit..." actually occur?

Is it when the player physically moves the model? And if he does, and decides to place him back and not move him at all, does this mean that he never "...started moving a unit..."?

Do you see what I mean? You can logically say that any movement of the model, even resting your finger on it can justify the qualifier "...started moving a unit..." kinda like chess almost.

My point is the qualifier is actually in the decision to move the model that is then enacted by the means of making a measurement which is semi-required on page 11 and justified on page 3.

Again, the crux for everyone is what qualifies for "...started moving a unit..."

EDIT: I do not play this way, because it seems too.....picky. But, anyone can see that this can be abused if pre-measuring was allowed to occur. You can easily pre-measure all your units, and then start moving them and already know if you are in assault range with another unit. I have never seen anyone abuse this and I feel it would probably be pretty obvious if they did and would only at that point start to be a little pickier about movement rules.

@coredump:

There is a clear rule for what happens if you move a unit (even a litte) - "once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit"

So in the example of the 4" assault marine move, even though you didn't measure it you'd be caught by that rule. In this regard measuring isn't the only way a unit can be selected - but it is one of the ways.

I agree that the game is not chess. But chess has a specific rule for when a move is finished. 40k has a specific rule that says once you start a move, you have to finish it. So we're just arguing over what constitutes starting a move.

I agree that a flat declaration of "I select this unit" is not specifically how the game is intended to play, and I wouldn't necessarily expect it. But I don't believe you have any justification for measuring unless you've selected the unit to move - it's implicit. Just as if you picked up your assault marine and moved him 4" is implicitly selecting the unit. I'm only asking for explicit declaration because otherwise I don't feel that anyone has any justification for measuring, per the rules on page 3.