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, i thought this one had been "closed" long enough and as i still had some relevant questions / discussion here, i would like your opinion on this.

The RaW i am asking about is this:

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

Emphasis mine. Now the picture i made for this, where Green is 6" (including base length), blue is "Where my model is going", and any Red is impassable terrain.
TOP VIEW


Now, per the Rules above, all A,B,C and D are "correct", as "no part of its base *has finished* the move more than 6" away".

I, personally, still have an issue with C) and D), but as you can see, B) "moves" much more than any of those 2. <= Problem.

Why i have an issue with C) : the model clearly has to go "around" the Red section, so the distance travelled **should** be shorter than a 6" direct length (3-4" up above the red leaves only 3-2" to go back 'down' the other side.

I don't think i need to point out the issue with D.

Now, the only "resolvable" way i can read the RaW above is by assuming when they say "measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else", they mean just that, you measure (in a straight line, so you "measure" Green, not any Blue - Blue does not ever exist) where you want to go, but only perform the "move" once the final location is decided (And validated via the "Impassable Terrain" rules)
With an implicit sectioning of the move, where for C), you can measure 4" in a straight line up to get past the obstacle, and then 2" down on the other side, while D) is then an impossibility.

Thing is, none of the coloured text above has ANY RaW support... Help?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I, personally, still have an issue with C) and D), but as you can see, B) "moves" much more than any of those 2. <= Problem.

No problem at all, since it has no practical effect on the game in the slightest.

The only time moving in anything other than the measured path would need to be considered at all is when you have something obstructing your movement in the direction you want to go.

Thing is, none of the coloured text above has ANY RaW support... Help?

Yes it does. As per the rule you quoted, you measure the model's move in a given direction. If you then move the model along anything other than that path, you haven't measured the model's move. You've just measured the distance between start and end point, which only satisfies the second half of the rule, not the first.

So RAW infantry pretty much behaves like short range jump pack infantry. But I think everybody already plays with measuring where the model moves, not to mention it makes more sense when difficult terrain is involved.

The only time I play it more like RAW is when there's likes a small chasm or so that is technically impassable terrain but you can cross it by doing a dangerous terrain test.

Uh, around here we measure the 'walkable' distance, not a 6" radius and put them there. They indeed move only 6" (so, if D 'walkable' distance is longer than 6", the model doesn't arrive there).

Are we doing it wrong?

You're doing it right.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I, personally, still have an issue with C) and D), but as you can see, B) "moves" much more than any of those 2. <= Problem.

No problem at all, since it has no practical effect on the game in the slightest.

The only time moving in anything other than the measured path would need to be considered at all is when you have something obstructing your movement in the direction you want to go.

So how do you measure "the measured path" of B? It is allowed by the rules, is it not?

 insaniak wrote:

Thing is, none of the coloured text above has ANY RaW support... Help?

Yes it does. As per the rule you quoted, you measure the model's move in a given direction. If you then move the model along anything other than that path, you haven't measured the model's move. You've just measured the distance between start and end point, which only satisfies the second half of the rule, not the first.

How, then do you measure "C"? How do you measure a "corner" for standard infantry? The rules don't mention bending the tape measure around a corner (even if that is RaI).

Am i correct in assuming you are saying that you perform a measurement (of 6") in a single axis?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Uh, around here we measure the 'walkable' distance, not a 6" radius and put them there. They indeed move only 6" (so, if D 'walkable' distance is longer than 6", the model doesn't arrive there).

Are we doing it wrong?

I'd also use a similar idea of "shortest path" to get where you want to go, and measure that. But i'm just not certain the rules are clear enough on this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:


In addition, to try and clarify HIWPI on this, i'd see it as per the picture above.

Even though i might consider the blue line ("It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.") The rule referring to the Blue tape measure in B: I'm measuring but changing my mind, and end up choosing the last measurement.
The "yellow" tape-measures would be how i actually measure the move.

Thing is, option C) and D) (back to your post insaniak) do not have any support for this "double measure" technique. So why would the final position "B" in case C) be illegal, but the end of the tape measure (about 1-2" back) is then allowed?

(Still looking for RaW)

 BlackTalos wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:


In addition, to try and clarify HIWPI on this, i'd see it as per the picture above.

Even though i might consider the blue line ("It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all.") The rule referring to the Blue tape measure in B: I'm measuring but changing my mind, and end up choosing the last measurement.
The "yellow" tape-measures would be how i actually measure the move.

Thing is, option C) and D) (back to your post insaniak) do not have any support for this "double measure" technique. So why would the final position "B" in case C) be illegal, but the end of the tape measure (about 1-2" back) is then allowed?

(Still looking for RaW)

This. Any other way to play it is bull.

Lance845 wrote:
This. Any other way to play it is bull.

But nothing in the Rules say this is how you do things...? We literally just have:

if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase

In C) (illegal move by our understanding), i have fulfilled the above requirement, have i not?

 BlackTalos wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
This. Any other way to play it is bull.

But nothing in the Rules say this is how you do things...? We literally just have:

if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase

In C) (illegal move by our understanding), i have fulfilled the above requirement, have i not?

Yes, it does. That terrain is impassible. You cannot move through it. It's literally what impassible means. A model can move "up to" 6 inches. Not 10 inches in a loop ending 6 inches away.

Here... "pg. 63 - Movement: Bikes and jetbikes can move up to 12" in the movement phase."

Not end 12" away from starting location. UP TO 12". Every movement rule states the same thing.

This is not chess. If you take your hand off the model it is not stuck where you put it. You can return the model to it's starting location and remeasure to a new location. But regardless, the model can only move up to 6" in the movement phase.

"Pg. 18 Movement Distance: Models move up to 6" in the movement phase."

RAW. The total distance traveled must be the # of inches allowed by the models unit type.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So how do you measure "the measured path" of B? It is allowed by the rules, is it not?

Not if it results in the model moving more than 6", no.

But, again, it makes no difference to that specific example. If there is nothing obstructing the model's movement, there is no functional difference between moving the model 6" in a straight line, or 460" in a lap around the board, provided that the model still winds up in the same final location.

How, then do you measure "C"? How do you measure a "corner" for standard infantry? The rules don't mention bending the tape measure around a corner (even if that is RaI).

As I pointed out in the previous thread, the rules also don't tell us how to roll dice. Or how to breathe while standing up.


They just sort of assume that how to use a tape measure is fairly basic knowledge that people should be on top of already.

It's probably meant as such. Say in example C, you move your model to the corner, 3 inches, and then from there you measure the distance to B.
You then decide it's not good enough and use your remaining 3 inch to move back to where you started or in some other direction. Though I'm unsure how you would ever move more than 6 inches in this way, the only restriction to moving in this manner is that you never place the model in such a way as that it would be more than 6" from where it started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe they added to ensure you don't suffer from accumulated error if you do a lot of stops on the way to your destination. Either way though, all your examples would be illegal following the blue path, as the blue path is always more than 6".
When you move the model, you are literally moving the model X amount of inches, but you can move in any way you want provided you still have movement "points" left and can continuously measure the distance from whatever point you stop temporarily.

It's just worded how it is to allow you to undo a move if you decide against it

While it doesn't mention a distance travel in that section, I believe it is meant to be the same considering the rules for moving 'through' something or the inability to move through, they would be redundant if we took distance and travel distance as two different things.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
So how do you measure "the measured path" of B? It is allowed by the rules, is it not?

Not if it results in the model moving more than 6", no.

But, again, it makes no difference to that specific example. If there is nothing obstructing the model's movement, there is no functional difference between moving the model 6" in a straight line, or 460" in a lap around the board, provided that the model still winds up in the same final location.

The "allowance" of the 460" in a lap around the board is what still troubles me.
If i elected to do so, how do i measure my final location? Shortest path possible between start and finish? I mean that is already a contradiction of HYWPI with other views here that you actually measure travel (and therefore the 460" in a lap around the board would not be allowed for them)

My question (or at least train of thought) here is for a model doing a "460" in a lap around the board" in situations B) and C)
The RaW for one does not seem to differentiate the two in this matter, unless you are advocating that this "shortest path" method is RaW? I'd consider it an interpretation (which is also mine currently), and the HYWPI of this shortest path does then differentiate both.

 insaniak wrote:

How, then do you measure "C"? How do you measure a "corner" for standard infantry? The rules don't mention bending the tape measure around a corner (even if that is RaI).

As I pointed out in the previous thread, the rules also don't tell us how to roll dice. Or how to breathe while standing up.

They just sort of assume that how to use a tape measure is fairly basic knowledge that people should be on top of already.

Thing is, using a tape measure in 2 steps, or even bending it is not completely basic use of the tool (which measures "A" to "B").
Some versions of the tool will not even bend (unless we consider the GW-supplied one to be the only in existence for this ruleset? )

Roknar wrote:
It's probably meant as such. Say in example C, you move your model to the corner, 3 inches, and then from there you measure the distance to B.
You then decide it's not good enough and use your remaining 3 inch to move back to where you started or in some other direction. Though I'm unsure how you would ever move more than 6 inches in this way, the only restriction to moving in this manner is that you never place the model in such a way as that it would be more than 6" from where it started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe they added to ensure you don't suffer from accumulated error if you do a lot of stops on the way to your destination. Either way though, all your examples would be illegal following the blue path, as the blue path is always more than 6".
When you move the model, you are literally moving the model X amount of inches, but you can move in any way you want provided you still have movement "points" left and can continuously measure the distance from whatever point you stop temporarily.

 Nem wrote:
While it doesn't mention a distance travel in that section, I believe it is meant to be the same considering the rules for moving 'through' something or the inability to move through, they would be redundant if we took distance and travel distance as two different things.

As i say above, i don't know if the RaW covers this interpretation, but it is completely counter to my HIWPI interpretation, which is much more like that of Insaniak.
When the RaW says:
"It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!)"

I read that as "I wanted to go 6" this way", which you do. But then you "change your mind" and go 6" "even the opposite way entirely!", so you model actually *travelled* 18".
Very similar to chess: as long as you're holding your model, you can measure and put him in B3, then change your mind and go to C5 but as soon as you let go (finish your move), the move *has to be valid*.
Swap "letting go of the chess piece" with "completing the Unit's move" and that's how i currently see 40K.

With the issues mentioned above resulting from this ability to "change your mind and decide to move (...) somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!)"

Sorry if i'm going too deep with the movement phase philosophy, but it's been on my mind and the only time i asked the local store manager he almost thought i was slowed....

You say it yourself.
It's perfectly fine to MEASURE a unit's move and then change your mind and MOVE it the opposite way.

And moving is: Models MOVE up to 6".

So it's not like chess in that regard. You moved the model?..you MOVED the model! You either stop moving voluntarily or you use up your 6 inch movement allowance.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The "allowance" of the 460" in a lap around the board is what still troubles me.

There is no 'allowance' to move 460".

My point was that it makes no difference in that specific example if you do. Not that it's actually allowed by the rules. The rules are quite clear that your movement distance is 6". So if you move more than 6", you have broken that rule.

Thing is, using a tape measure in 2 steps, or even bending it is not completely basic use of the tool (which measures "A" to "B").

I would disagree... That's not exactly rocket science, right there.