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:
Absolutely, but people are simply reading it wrong. Instead of calling it an 'interpretation' they could be open to other viewpoints. Two sets of closed minds does not a conversation make: it's an argument. I'm absolutely always open to being wrong, but in this case the people saying you must move are reading the English language sentence wrong and inferring things not there.

If it was interpretations, fine. But there's some ridiculous reaching happening.

If there's any discussion to be had please provide rational reasoning. Otherwise, people need to be open to being wrong, and not just say "this needs an FAQ" every time they parse grammar incorrectly.

Meant over.

You could explain where they go wrong, or you could just state they're wrong. And I guess you could tell them they're wrong and insult them, too. It makes a huge difference which option you choose, even if you're right, as to how productive a discussion can be. That's what Jinx is pointing out, and he's criticizing the 2nd and 3rd option being taken way too often - and he's right at that.

I apologise for being rude, guess the gymnastics being performed to make the 'interpretation' fit got my goat. I was out of order.

Reading the whole rule clearly shows how its intended. The name is grinding advance. The first sentence "...even as it advances on the foe." You dont advance on the foe, if you remain stationary. The second sentence : "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase...". RAW, yes, you could move 0", RAI is that the tank has to move.

No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

p5freak wrote:
Reading the whole rule clearly shows how its intended. The name is grinding advance. The first sentence "...even as it advances on the foe." You dont advance on the foe, if you remain stationary. The second sentence : "If this model moves under half speed in its movement phase...". RAW, yes, you could move 0", RAI is that the tank has to move.

"Advance". I do think it means what you think it means.

'Advance' is this game is term given to extra movement at the expense of shooting. You can't 'Grinding Advance' if you actually Advance).

..which highlights (not that it needed it) the conversational, 'just two guys pushing space soldiers around', relaxed style of the game. You just can't pretend it's written like Star Fleet Battles.

 JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know... maybe:
Instead of insulting the Opening Poster when he kept explaining why he still had an issue with your reasoning, one could have thought about it from his interpretation for more then just two seconds. Afterwards they could approach the opening poster with some more sympathy, starting by stating you understand where the confusion is coming from. You could then take a moment to laugh at how Game Workshop writes terrible rules and then proceed to explain that they simply used the colloquial use of the word 'move' and are not referring to the action known as Movement. This would cause the Poster to respond less defensively and more likely to accept your conclusion as correct. They simply will be less likely to walk away from you unconvinced if you take more time then simply telling someone to learn how to read.

Besides;
Have you ever thought that someone might have to take your explanation to a gaming group who has the same misconception?
They would have to convince said group with nothing more then 'some guy on the internet told me differently' and their group will easily convince them that the internet was wrong.

I'm sorry. Nobody owes anyone the lengthy hand holdy sympathetic BS you suggest.

A question was posed, an answer was given. Refusal to accept the answer does not mean there needs to be "sympathy" and a shared chuckle at GWs expense. Continuing to stretch the English language and nit picking specific words to attempt to justify the misreading/misinterpretation of the rule despite the many people correcting you is asking to get less and less nice responses. Nobody is going to bond with someone over TFG readings of rules.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

If GW wanted the tank to be able to fire twice while standing still they could have written that on the datasheet.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

"Advance". I do think it means what you think it means.

'Advance' is this game is term given to extra movement at the expense of shooting. You can't 'Grinding Advance' if you actually Advance).

..which highlights (not that it needed it) the conversational, 'just two guys pushing space soldiers around', relaxed style of the game. You just can't pretend it's written like Star Fleet Battles.

The word advance has nothing to do with the advance rule. Once again, not the best word choice by GW. While the rules allow you to advance a tank, and move less than your half movement value, you wouldnt be able to fire heavy weapons.

Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, RAI is that the tank is a stable firing platform. Staying still is more stable than moving. RAW and RAI is that stationary works.

If GW wanted the tank to be able to fire twice while standing still they could have written that on the datasheet.

Which datasheet are you talking about? The book isn't even out yet! It's not even up for pre order yet!

Gendif wrote:
Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

I would not accept that interpretation. If you interpreted the rule like that in a game against me, I would quit. There are plenty of places where I think both sides have a position that has some merit, and where I could accept an outcome other than my own interpretation. This is not one of them.

Gendif wrote:
Moving 0" is what most people consider not moving.
If the requirement is to "move under half its speed" clarified to mean "move a distance in inches less than half its move characteristic" then in both cases one must move.
This is the key point, you mus have moved.
I agree that 0" will always be less than half of any model with a move characteristic greater than 1" however it is also considered not moving.
If you do not move then you cannot claim to have moved.
If you have not moved you cannot use anything that requires you to have moved.
You must make your Leman Russ move (Even if only a fraction of an inch) to activate this.
This is the literal and logical reading of these rules.

That's pretty much how the RAW translates. Of course it's more logical to be able to fire twice while stationary if you can do it on the steady move but it's not written this way. It is litteraly written: "MOVES under half speed". And we know for sure that there is a difference between moving and being stationary. You can't claim that you moved 0" if the model has remained stationary via rules. What some of the posters are trying to do is implement a concept of Not moving = Moving 0". But there can be no Moving 0" in 40k rules as of now. Because there is no such concept in the rulebook.
So, if you want this sweet double shooting, you got to move and this will make sponsons fire at -1 to-hit penalty. If you want to remain stationary, you don't get the -1 penalty but you also don't get double-shots for the main weapon.

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

It's slap dash moggy piddle like this that's making me a little worried that GW are just coasting of the glow of 'well 8th isn't 7th', I mean they must know how bunghole retentive some of the player base is and yet omit "or remained stationery" cos well we can sell you an errata book each year

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

What I put forward was my strict RAW reading and I don't really see any room for disputes of the RAW here. Now as for RAI we're obviously interpreting intentions and there's room for different readings so I'll add my opinion.

It's called grinding advance and the flavour is about how a Leman Russ can put up a "fearsome rate of fire as it advances on the foe". To me this conjures images of tanks shelling enemy positions as they crawl forward seizing ground and pushing the enemy back. The RAI seem to be to allow you to keep up a strong rate of fire whilst also moving.
They could very easily have just written something that said "All Leman Russ turret weapons shoot twice and ignore the penalties for moving with a heavy weapon." But it doesn't say that instead it talks about moving slowly forward whilst shooting. One way to look at it is that the extra main gun shot is to make up for the fact that any sponsons you have will be less accurate, the crew can't keep everything optimal whilst they advance so they focus their efforts on the main gun.

So yeah, my RAI reading on this lines up with my RAW one. Even if you don't want to move tapping your tank for an extra main turret shot seems like a good deal to me.

Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

Another thing with fluffy approach is that too much armor penetration is a bad thing because a shell can fly through an enemy tank and not damage it enough to stop it. The ideal shot is the one that penetrates one wall and explodes inside an enemy vehicle - often having the second wall trigger it's explosion.

 koooaei wrote:
Another thing with fluffy approach is that too much armor penetration is a bad thing because a shell can fly through an enemy tank and not damage it enough to stop it. The ideal shot is the one that penetrates one wall and explodes inside an enemy vehicle - often having the second wall trigger it's explosion.

This is... kind of a myth. Overpenetration is a problem in World War II tanks, but modern tanks have enough variety in anti-tank ammunition that it's really not. Tungsten AP vs Uranium AP for solid shot, HEAT for light vehicles, HE-FRAG for unarmoured vehicles...

It's not like they're just throwing around one kind of AP shell.

That's one of the reasons they actually do.

Gendif wrote:

That's how it's written. We certainly willt play it the way you get double shots even if you're stationary but that's RAI - not RAW.

What I put forward was my strict RAW reading and I don't really see any room for disputes of the RAW here. Now as for RAI we're obviously interpreting intentions and there's room for different readings so I'll add my opinion.

It's called grinding advance and the flavour is about how a Leman Russ can put up a "fearsome rate of fire as it advances on the foe". To me this conjures images of tanks shelling enemy positions as they crawl forward seizing ground and pushing the enemy back. The RAI seem to be to allow you to keep up a strong rate of fire whilst also moving.
They could very easily have just written something that said "All Leman Russ turret weapons shoot twice and ignore the penalties for moving with a heavy weapon." But it doesn't say that instead it talks about moving slowly forward whilst shooting. One way to look at it is that the extra main gun shot is to make up for the fact that any sponsons you have will be less accurate, the crew can't keep everything optimal whilst they advance so they focus their efforts on the main gun.

So yeah, my RAI reading on this lines up with my RAW one. Even if you don't want to move tapping your tank for an extra main turret shot seems like a good deal to me.

There is no pause between the mention of movement and the distance requirement for it. The condition is that it moves less than a given amount (50% of its move characteristic).

Is 0 less than half?

Don't add commas, hyphens or parentheses where they don't exist. The phrase is straight "if you move less than this", not "if you move, AND move less than this."

For a full-health LR, 0 is indeed less than 5".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

You forgot to include potentially infinite amounts of overwatch fire...

ItsPug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Fluff-wise, shooting more is not always an advantage. You might run out of ammunition by the time you get close to the enemy. So, not wasting precious shells on low hit-chance shots is a good idea. Get in as close as you need for a more reliable hit and than shoot them with more of what you've still got because you haven't wasted it on 'covering fire'. None of this is of course present on the tabletop. Just MOAR dakka.

The Leman Russ can shoot a maximum of 14 times.

There are very few tanks that have ever existed (and likely will ever exist) that carry fewer than 14 rounds.

You forgot to include potentially infinite amounts of overwatch fire...

True...

Larks wrote:
There is no pause between the mention of movement and the distance requirement for it. The condition is that it moves less than a given amount (50% of its move characteristic).

Is 0 less than half?

Don't add commas, hyphens or parentheses where they don't exist. The phrase is straight "if you move less than this", not "if you move, AND move less than this."

For a full-health LR, 0 is indeed less than 5".

Don't ignore parentheses where they do exist.

You say, "Don't add parentheses where they don't exist" but there are parentheses in the rule itself which qualify what is meant by, "moves under half speed in its Movement phase". You cannot rely on this condition without the qualifier explaining what it means. That qualification is that the model "moves a distance". Remaining stationary is not moving a distance, because 0" is the absence of distance in inches.

It's plain the RAI is otherwise, but don't tell people not to imagine parts of a rule you claim aren't there when they plainly are.

Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

 thejughead wrote:
Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Nooooope. Acknowledging that you move means your sponsons fire at -1. I tricked myself this way too lol.

thejughead wrote:Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Jacksmiles wrote:

 thejughead wrote:
Just say you are move 1.5 forward and 1.5 back into the same spot

Nooooope. Acknowledging that you move means your sponsons fire at -1. I tricked myself this way too lol.

I'd also suggest that the Minimum Move rules give us an indication that movement should be considered as moving from one point to another, distant point.

I mean otherwise your opponent could claim that even though you only moved say 4" point to point and are therefore eligible to benefit from Grinding Advance, you actually moved 6" forward and 2" back, making you ineligible, or something.

There is no qualifier that the model *must* move. I'd suggest anyone hanging their argument on that re-read. By the exact wording as written zero is a valid distance that is less than half.

Honestly, unless you can somehow disprove that zero is less than <any given positive number> then the 'must move' argument falls flat. And that is impossible.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There is no qualifier that the model *must* move. I'd suggest anyone hanging their argument on that re-read. By the exact wording as written zero is a valid distance that is less than half.

Honestly, unless you can somehow disprove that zero is less than <any given positive number> then the 'must move' argument falls flat. And that is impossible.

Well, no. The benefit is conditional on the model "moving a distance", not "moving no distance", or "not moving any distance". Zero inches here means the asbence of distance in inches.

Again, while the RAI may be obvious, the RAW is, as is often the case, clear if not sensible.

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.

 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.

Seems seems pretty clear to me from knowledge of the English language.

_