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.

JakeSiren wrote:
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.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

You're comparing throwing apples to oranges.

Should we take into context the new regiment rules? I believe it's been leaked tallarn vehicles will be able to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. What bonus would be achieved by either interpretation to incite people to take Tallarn? Just moving less than half movement or moving 0 inches up to less than half?

I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty. Thus RAI Grinding Advance means some fraction of an inch to less than half movement. That way tallarn regiments would benefit.

 mrwhoop wrote:
I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty.

Except you're equating two totally different things. Not moving being less than 0" doesn't suddenly make all HWT take -1 to hit.

The rule doesn't say you have to move though.

Let me try this a different way. It won't work, but let's see.

IF: (Moves less than half speed)
THEN: (Fires twice)

0" = (Moves less than half speed)
Therefore: (Fires twice)

You can't take one word of either phrase and have them still mean the same thing. You have to take the whole phrase, without stopping after the word "moves". Moving 0" means you don't move, but you never had to, because the phrase is "moves less than half speed" not "moves, less than half speed."

Does that help at all, or am I smashing my head against a brick wall?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 mrwhoop wrote:
I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty.

Except you're equating two totally different things. Not moving being less than 0" doesn't suddenly make all HWT take -1 to hit.

Well yes and no. I did say context, as in other rules affecting shooting. If the tank moves less than half movement it can shoot twice. If a hwt moves it takes a modifier to shooting. If you can say your tank moved 0 and thus half movement to qualify I can say your hwt moved 0 and get -1.

I think it would work for the Tallarn (if true about no moving penalty for vehicles) to combine with grinding advance rather than everyone staying 0 inches and they have a superfluous ability. Why move when I can sit like all the other regiments?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
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.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
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.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
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.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

Then let me ask differently:
How are you going to demonstrate "If this person throws under half of 10 apples in the afternoon"?
Someone who has not thrown an apple doesn't meet the description of someone who has thrown under half of 10 apples in the afternoon.

It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

JakeSiren wrote:
It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

Not if you had $0 to begin with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

Not if you had $0 to begin with.

I can't help that GW has been putting out so many good releases

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
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.

If I have a bunch of people throw up to 10 apples at a donkey, then separate them into halves of people who threw 5 and those who threw less than 5, people who threw none go in the less than 5 group.

I think your analogy is flawed, but go on. You have demonstrated less than half of the movement characteristic part of the rule, but how are you going to demonstrate "(i.e. it throws a number of apples less than half of 10 apples)...."?

My follow up questions are:
If you throw zero apples did you throw an apple?

If the answer is yes, what does it mean to not throw an apple?

Rule doesn't care about that. You're conflating two different sentences and thinking they are the same.

Then let me ask differently:
How are you going to demonstrate "If this person throws under half of 10 apples in the afternoon"?
Someone who has not thrown an apple doesn't meet the description of someone who has thrown under half of 10 apples in the afternoon.

It's the same as if I said "I will give BaconCatBug under half of my fortune". You would be thinking "sweet", but if I gave you $0 I wouldn't have given you anything and so what I said would be incorrect. If I gave you 1c then what I have said is correct.

You're twisting the wording. It's not "Under half of 10" it's "Less than half of 10."

Someone who has thrown 0 apples in the afternoon has in fact thrown less (strictly speaking fewer, because apples are a discreet object) than half of 10 (fewer than 5 - simplify your fractions!) . So you torpedo your own ship with this example.

And yes, if you gave BaconCatBug (or me) less than half your fortune, we would be very happy. If you gave us $0, we would be very sad. If we took you to court, though, you could demonstrably prove in court that zero is, in fact, less than half of something.

YMDC is that courtroom. Strict readings matter.

Probably time to move on as RULE #1 and RULE #2 can't take much more of a beating than they already have in here.

From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

 mrwhoop wrote:
Should we take into context the new regiment rules? I believe it's been leaked tallarn vehicles will be able to move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty. What bonus would be achieved by either interpretation to incite people to take Tallarn? Just moving less than half movement or moving 0 inches up to less than half?

I'm of the mind 0 doesn't count or hwts would always have a penalty. Thus RAI Grinding Advance means some fraction of an inch to less than half movement. That way tallarn regiments would benefit.

The bonus to Tallarn would be that they can move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty on vehicles other than Leman Russes. Grinding Advance is for the Leman Russ. I don't see the Tallarn rule (which we'll probably find out quickly if it's correct) providing an argument for either side of the Grinding Advance argument.

Dionysodorus wrote:
They just had an Inside the Studio stream (if you're a subscriber I think you can watch the video on twitch). I'm told that they gave away some of the other doctrines:
Tallarn: advance and fire (not heavy weapons), vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons
Steel Legion: rapid fire up to 18", vehicles ignore AP of -1
Cadians: re-roll 1s to hit if they don't move

I caught the end where they said that Basilisks are now AP-3.

There's a grenade stratagem like the Death Guard one, where every model in the unit can throw.

I don't think I like the idea of Cadians sitting tight and re-rolling a punisher twice. Btw he did clarify it's for infantry and tanks. Guess we'll know for sure by the weekend.

Bowing out

*Edited for clarity: I meant shooting twice and re-rolling each separate attack.

You can't re-roll a dice twice...

Jacksmiles wrote:
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.

Really!? Cite a reference to that instead of an assumption.

 thejughead wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
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.

Really!? Cite a reference to that instead of an assumption.

"The first is the model's minimum speed - in the Movement phase, all parts of the model's base must end the move at least that far from when they started."

So, at least for minimum move there's no shenanigans allowed for saying you moved forward x" then moved back the same amount to satisfy the minimum movement. They're taking point to point.


That said, you can't just take a straight line point to point distance as the distance you move - if you're trying to move around a melee combat without being involved in it, you have to account for the distance it takes to move around the combat; you can't just pick a point on the other side of the combat, measure a straight line from where you started to where you ended, and say that you moved only that many inches.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

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.

This is the English language, not parsing algebraic equations. "Moves less than half" is the requirement - moving 0" satisfies this whether you agree or not.

Is 0" less than 5"?

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

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. 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.

There wasa rule in 7th clled endless swarm. The swarm wasn't actually endless. The name has no baring on anything.

Not that fluff has anything to do with the rules either but,

KEEPS UP a RATE OF FIRE, EVEN as it ADVANCES.

So it maintains the same rate of fire even though it is moving. Meaning the rate of fire it has while stationary is maintained even while in motion.

??

 JinxDragon wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

Jeeze, I didn't see that.

Though the line, "We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move" is a nice thing to read. I'm a wargaming nerd so I'll take any validation I can get.

 JinxDragon wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:This is something we have passed on to the studio guys. We're pretty sure 0" is less than half move but we will see if this needs an FAQ.

With this post, the entire thread was done... even the people handling the facebook account are like 'Oh, yeah we can see why this might confuse people, let us get the Authors to clarify for you guys.'
All we can do at this point is wait for the Authors to get back to us on this.

That sentence from the fb team oozes sarcasm. 'Pretty sure', huh?

Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?
I am fully on the side of the tank firing twice if it stays still, but we need something more solid then 'the Facebook team was sarcastic when someone brought it up' to please everyone....

We have been told the matter has been passed on to the studio, so let us see what the Authors have to say.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?

Unless it's a perfectly clear and unambiguous rule? Most likely.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Are the Facebook team forbidden from expressing their own opinion?
I am fully on the side of the tank firing twice if it stays still, but we need something more solid then 'the Facebook team was sarcastic when someone brought it up' to please everyone....

We have been told the matter has been passed on to the studio, so let us see what the Authors have to say.

As they're not the Rules team, they don't give answers unless approved to. Stops people saying "GW SAID" So the behaviour you're snarking about is to stop the next thing you mention. ;-)

If the Facebook team are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use their Facebook posts as Errrata?
Also; Why would they inform us that the issue has been passed on to the Studio, if the next part they posted is meant to be taken as 'this is the answer' ?

Oh, someone got the answer in right as I was typing up the question... I actually am very impressed JhonnyHell, it wasn't even that obvious a lure!

 JinxDragon wrote:
If they are forbidden from expressing their own opinions, why then are Posters here told they can not use Facebook posts as Errrata?

They're employees of a company, doing their job. This "forbidden from expressing" phrasing is a bit OTT, chap.