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.

So this may be a dumb question, but I've done some googling and can't find a good answer.

So here's my question. If coteaz is joined to a strike squad who moves in their move phase causing the psycannons to snapshot in heavy mode. Then on my movement I move into coteaz's IBEY range and his squads fires at me, can the psycannons fire heavy 4 without snapshotting?

Page 51 of the BrB says a model with a heavy weapon that moves in the "preceding" movement phase can fire heavy weapons but only as snap shots. So does that means in my movement phase the strike squad psycannons could fire assault 2 at full ballistics or heavy 4 as snapshots at me since they moved in the "preceding" movement phase?

"can the psycannons fire heavy 4 without snapshotting?"

"If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase..." (51)

The models did not move in the preceding Movement phase, as the movement phase before they shoot is your movement phase even though you are currently in it.

Wouldn't that be the current movement phase? Is there anything that specifies it as preceding or current? I looked in the BrB but it doesn't specify. Thanks GW for this mess haha. And thanks DR for the response.

Well the preceding movement phase is the one that comes before the shots are taken.

The start of the current movement phase definitely comes before the shots were taken.

I can see GW ruling it either way though.

It isn't even an easy question to answer, even when you can foresee the intent of the rule, because the concept of the 'previous phase is the same as the current phase' breaks what we would view as a liner time-line.

The way the special rule creates a break in the order of events, one can technically say your movement phase has been suspended till the rule has been resolved. That suspension creates an 'end' point for your movement phase, even though you you have permission to continue with the rest of it after the rule has been resolved. Tracing the time line back from that break you will encounter the start of your movement phase before you encounter the start of your opponents, making it so that tiny slither of a movement phase is the preceding phase.

It an be made all that worse as y our movement phase is the past, present and the future all rolled into one at that point. That slither is the preceding, the current phase is titled movement, and after the rule is resolved you will go continue your movement phase. It is a complicated, logic twisting and debatable sequence of events... so on par for Game Workshop rules.

As its written I would say it is still only 2 shots..
it says if they moved in the preceding movement phase... which they did. because Coteaz ability is in your movement phase,
the preceding is still his own.. and he did in fact move.. therefore he gets 2 shots..
Thats what I think at least

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well the preceding movement phase is the one that comes before the shots are taken.

The start of the current movement phase definitely comes before the shots were taken.

I can see GW ruling it either way though.

Doesnt IBEY occur during a Movement phase ? Therefore the preceeding movement phase would apply to the weapon in question (not the one where IBEY occurs)

Yes IBEY does occur during a Movement phase.

But the preceding movement phase can be interpreted as the movement phase that started before the shots are made.

The current movement phase started before the shots are made.

But I can see GW ruling it either way so discuss it with your group.

Well, you cant be in the current and preceeding movement phase at the same time.

Im with Fragile^^^

"Preceding movement phase" could be defined as the movement phase that started most recently. It could also be defined as the one that completed most recently. I think the second definition is more reasonable, personally.

Some clarification from GW would be nice, though.

Normally I would be with you guys on the current turn can not be the preceding turn sort of thing. Sadly I have come to expect a lack of logic when it comes to rules written by Game Workshop. Hence the long complicated way to try and find a semi-logical solution that might fit into the most twisted way it could 'work.'

Don't hold your breath for an FAQ answer, but if they give one don't be surprised if it makes no logical sense as it won't be the first.

Considering the Definition in the English language of Preceding actually means.. "Come before"
preceding movement phase, would be the one BEFORE the current one.. meaning THEY MOVED!!
brushing up on english can help you better understand the rulebook as well

Only it isn't as clear as that, never is when it comes to Game Workshop written rules. When the rule is being evoked you have already started your movement phase, as that is the first phase of your turn. Therefore the movement phase prior to when the rule was evoked is the one in which you moved units out of reserve. If that is the case, then the weapons would not shoot snap-fire shots.

I do agree with everyone here pointing out that it could go either way when put to a FAQ. However considering all the other silly and illogical things I have seen in FAQ's, I wouldn't be surprised if they use the above logic. I am even starting to wonder, with me even being able to think that twisted logic explanation, that I might be thinking in more 'rule based legalese' then is healthy.

I agree the FAQ could go either way.. cuz I've seen worse..
but as a GK player I would never even consider being able to shoot 4 shots if i moved in my movement phase..

I believe the intent is that they mean "in the previous turn's Movement phase". However, RAW supports the opposite.

The reason being that "phase" is defined in the rules as a segment of a turn, it has definite start and end points. The word "precede" by its very definition refers to the past tense. So taken as a whole the rule refers to a phase that has taken place in the past. That's a whole phase - we aren't told "preceding Movement phase start". Taken in context this must refer to the entire phase, and can therefore not be the current one - because that would be present tense instead of past.

The points made about the start of the Movement phase having passed are irrelevant... we're not told to use a specific part of the phase. You must consider the entire phase.

KonTheory wrote:
Considering the Definition in the English language of Preceding actually means.. "Come before"
preceding movement phase, would be the one BEFORE the current one.. meaning THEY MOVED!!
brushing up on english can help you better understand the rulebook as well

Unfortunately, for Englishmen, the GW writer's grasp of His majesty's language is often not that good.
If it was, then these issues wouldn't crop up.
If it was, though, it would be an adequate tournament rule set - which it is neither intended to be, nor actually is.

 chromedog wrote:

KonTheory wrote:
Considering the Definition in the English language of Preceding actually means.. "Come before"
preceding movement phase, would be the one BEFORE the current one.. meaning THEY MOVED!!
brushing up on english can help you better understand the rulebook as well

Unfortunately, for Englishmen, the GW writer's grasp of His majesty's language is often not that good.
If it was, then these issues wouldn't crop up.
If it was, though, it would be an adequate tournament rule set - which it is neither intended to be, nor actually is.

Also, YMDC rules - Dictionary definitions cannot be used.

Correction - they should not be relied on, mostly because the BRB redefines words. If the BRB doesn't define a word then using the normal definition is fine.

rigeld2 wrote:
Correction - they should not be relied on, mostly because the BRB redefines words. If the BRB doesn't define a word then using the normal definition is fine.

Bolded section seems pretty clear to me.

YMDC Tenets wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

 Enigwolf wrote:
Bolded section seems pretty clear to me.

YMDC Tenets wrote:Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

It seems pretty clear to me, too, yet I come to the opposite conclusion you did. Perhaps you do not feel that DR's misuse of "preceding" was sufficiently egregious? Does not using "preceding" to include "current" qualify as "using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner"?