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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
No? Then you can't shoot twice as you haven't met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
No? Then you can't shoot twice as you haven't met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Because that's utterly stupid to be penalized for not moving. By your logic because the rule is called "Grinding Advance" you must advance for it to work.

It's not logic, it's parsing English. The requirement is to move less than 5. 0 is less than 5. The requirement is fulfilled

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because that's utterly stupid to be penalized for not moving.

But that's how it's written right now.

Maybe they have a gun-loading system linked to vehicle's treads, so they can reload fasta if the tank moves Morknissia would be pleased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
It's not logic, it's parsing English. The requirement is to move less than 5. 0 is less than 5. The requirement is fulfilled

The thing is that remaining stationary =/= moving 0" via rules because movement is a certain clarified action which exactly contradicts what you're trying to claim.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It simply isn't. Nowhere does it require movement. That's a mis-parsing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The condition is not moving, it's moving under half its Movement value. Zero is under half, no?

The sentence is not structured to say "if the unit moves" which would require movement.

"If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase... it can shoot it's turret weapon twice..."

So did you move under half your speed in the movement phase?
Yes? Then you agree you moved, and suffer a penalty to heavy weapons due to moving.
YES? Then you CAN shoot twice as , BY MOVING ZERO INCHES, you HAVE met the condition of moving under half speed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Nor do I.

I can't believe this thread is still going. I'm disappointed that I've drawn myself into it.

Movement, in this case, is measured in inches.

A value of zero is still a value.

Zero inches is less than X (knowing that X is positive)

It's English and Mathematics.... and it's fairly basic.

So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less than 5.

*edited for spelling.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance. And you're claiming that when you want to fire heavy weapons at no penalty, you haven't moved but when you want to fire your weapon twice, you in fact have moved.

Any official response to this from GW? I play with rules lawyers & as far as they are concerned you must perform a "move" in order to gain the benefit of Grinding Advance. 0 =/= moving. Therefore whenever Grinding Advance is used, sponsons suffer -1BS.

This rule hasnt been released yet. It will be in the upcoming AM codex. Its possible, although highly unlikely, that it gets changed.

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

And you're claiming that when you want to fire heavy weapons at no penalty, you haven't moved but when you want to fire your weapon twice, you in fact have moved.

I'm not claiming anything. Certainly not that "you in fact have moved". I'm explaining that the unit's movement value is zero.

The requirement to fire heavy weapons with no penalty is that the unit must not move.

A movement of zero inches means that the unit has not moved. Again, requirement met.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

Cool, you met one part of the requirements to shoot twice, but not the first requirement. Hint: it has to do with the word move. Moving 0 inches is also know as staying stationary, which most people know it as not moving. Requirement not met

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you're claiming that you must always shoot heavy weapons with a penalty because you've always moved at least 0"?

No, because if your value of movement is zero, you have not moved.

A movement value of zero is still less that 5.

But the requirement is to MOVE below half max distance.

Correct. The requirement is to move less than 5 inches.

Zero inches is less than 5 inches. Requirement met.

Cool, you met one part of the requirements to shoot twice, but not the first requirement. Hint: it has to do with the word move. Moving 0 inches is also know as staying stationary, which most people know it as not moving. Requirement not met

In fact, it has to do with the word "less".

Cool?

Some people really can't stand the good old guard getting decent rules for a change.

Stating stationary is moving less than half speed as zero is a positive, thereby fulfilling that part.
Because you have remained stationary, your sponsons are at full BS. Even though you have technically 'moved' it's simply arbitrary due to zero being counted as a positive.

Arguing against this is simply trying to twist it to suit your own agenda. Seriously people, grow up and use common sense rather than devolving into TFG to screw an advantage.

I'm the kind of guy who points out you can't shoot Assault weapons after advancing and even I think this is a silly debate.

Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving less than half your movement value. It's really that simple and I wish GW's FAQs had a little more bite in them. I'd love for a rules question to be answered "No, don't be stupid" for once.

This is the exact same non-argument as "can a character buff itself".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"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"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"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"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

As alanmckenzieMade said, you're deliberately misparsing it and ignoring half the sentence.

"moved" is not the same as "moves under half speed".

 alanmckenzie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"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"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.

Right, let's look at this part specifically then: "(i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)."
If you move 0" did you move a distance? It's not that I'm deliberately mis-parsing the rules. You seem to be ignoring the requirement of movement. If you don't move then you didn't move any distance and can't trigger the rule.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

Having seen this thread since it first started, I'm confused as to how this is still being debated. it seems pretty clear cut to me.

What was your movement value from the last phase:

Movement 0 inches also carries the stipulation of not moving, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. for one to be true, so must the other.
Movement 0-5 inches is below half speed for the leman russ (If I'm remembering its speed correctly) therefore it can fire twice as dictated by grinding advance.
Movement >5 inches is not below half speed, so it does not benefit from grinding advance.

Remember, whatever you do, you're advancing, unless you retreating. if you are not advancing, please report to your nearby commissar for positive morale reinforcement.

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not moving fulfills the requirement for moving...

Let us assume this is correct.

Heavy weapon rules
"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"

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

So if you say that moving 0" is sufficient for Grinding Advance, moving 0" must also be sufficient for the heavy weapon penalty. The way both rules are worded rely on you to have moved in the movement phase to trigger an effect. That's what the rules say, whether or not you think that's how they should be played is a different story and you can have a discussion with your opponent. Just don't be surprised if someone asks you to play it as written.

Are you deliberately mis-parsing the Grinding Advance rule? It's very much starting to look like it.

Move your underline....

Grinding Advance
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

There you go.

Like I said before, it's English and Maths... and basic.

Right, let's look at this part specifically then: "(i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)."
If you move 0" did you move a distance? It's not that I'm deliberately mis-parsing the rules. You seem to be ignoring the requirement of movement. If you don't move then you didn't move any distance and can't trigger the rule.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic of those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

Agreed. It is NOT a strawman.

The conditional for heavy weapons and movement is a) it moves or b) it did not.

If A than -1 to hit. If B fire as normal

The conditional for grinding advance is a) it moves more than 1/2 M attribute or b) less than 1/2 M attribute.

If A shoot once. If B shoot twice.

Everything from 1/2 down to 0 is all LESS than 1/2 which all meets the conditional for shooting twice.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

 Lance845 wrote:

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

You are required to move a distance. The rule is called grinding advance, which means you have to move. You cant just pick only one sentence from the entire rule (the one which says moving less than half movement speed) and ignore the rest of the rule. Another sentence says that the tank keeps up a fearsome rate of fire even as it advances towards your foe. This clearly means you have to move.

p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

You are required to move a distance. The rule is called grinding advance, which means you have to move.

[Citation Needed]

What the rule is called has zero bearing on the rule itself. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

 Lance845 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You'll surely agree that zero inches is less than 5 inches?

Nobody has been arguing against that strawman.

It's not a strawman. Don't argue in bad faith. It's a legitimate criticism of the logic those claiming the rule requires movement. Don't brand legitimate discussion a strawman, please.

I honestly don't see how it contributes to the discussion. But let me answer it: Yes, zero inches is less than five inches.

My questions:
If you move zero inches did you move a distance?
"If this model moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current move characteristic)...."

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not move a distance?

You are not required to move a distance. The requirement is <1/2 M. 0 falls under that.

I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

JakeSiren wrote:
I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

The rule isn't saying you have to move. It's saying you have to move less than half. 0 is less than half. Therefore staying still will allow for this rule.

You can dislike it, but you can't deny it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
I disagree with your assessment. Re-read the underlined part. Did you move a distance in inches less than half of the current move characteristic? If you stayed stationary then you did not move, so the answer is no and you can't fire twice.

The rule isn't saying you have to move. It's saying you have to move less than half. 0 is less than half. Therefore staying still will allow for this rule.

You can dislike it, but you can't deny it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if "It's saying you have to move less than half" then that's still saying you have to move.