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.

For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

It'd be more accurate to say that the result of moving changes the value from FALSE to TRUE.

You're assuming a nullable type here - that "moved" can evaluate to NULL. That is a requirement for your statement to be true. And this is not rules as written, a yes/no statement does not by default read as nullable.

"Have you ever murdered a man in Jew Jersey?"
"Wait, what? I've never been to New Jersey."
"So the answer is no?"
"Um, i'm going to go with NULL."

 Marmatag wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

It'd be more accurate to say that the result of moving changes the value from FALSE to TRUE.

You're assuming a nullable type here - that "moved" can evaluate to NULL. That is a requirement for your statement to be true. And this is not rules as written, a yes/no statement does not by default read as nullable.

"Have you ever murdered a man in Jew Jersey?"
"Wait, what? I've never been to New Jersey."
"So the answer is no?"
"Um, i'm going to go with NULL."

I agree that through the lens of a logical/programming viewpoint, we're being asked to evaluate the value of a variable where we haven't yet set a value. In that sense, the value is null and we get an error message. The game stops and we notify the developers that they have a bug that needs to be fixed via errata. In a non-programming environment, we just bicker endlessly on the internet. There was no prior movement phase. Did the unit move in the prior movement phase? No idea. Currently impossible to answer. They didn't move, but they also didn't stay still... because there was no prior movement phase.

 p5freak wrote:
This is the DA chapter tactic.

Spoiler:

It looks like the argument we've been having will apply to Grim Resolve as that isn't limited to Overwatch. Of course they haven't addressed it in the DA FAQ.

They wouldn't get to reroll 1's during their first shooting phase as they did not have a prior movement phase.

I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

By RAW it is clear, you have to have not hot moved in your previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you don't meet the criteria of not having moved in the previous movement phase. You might not think that is what they intended, but that is how the rule works now.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
For anyone with any programming knowledge it’s pretty obvious that we just don’t know the answer.

As soon as you have a movement phase, the “moved” variable either turns true or false.

When you call the variable before the first movement phase, you’re just going to get an undefined value.

To give us a definite answer they just need to put in something like “models that have not yet had a turn count as having been stationary in all previous phases.” or something.

No we do have an answer, and it's that not having a movement phase doesn't mean that you haven't moved. It's precisely because it returns NULL that the RAW stance is claiming you cannot claim the benefits of having "not moved in the prior movement phase."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I was under the impression that the Cadian rule was similar to the DA rule... which is the argument I've been making previously.

So, again, we have a disagreement of base / default state which is not clarified.

Yes, because there is no such thing as "default state." Nothing defaults to anything. If you didn't have a movement phase, you did not have the choice of not moving during prior movement phase.

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

It i impossible for a unit to move when they did not have a movement phase yet.

Therefore since they definitely did not move in their previous movement phase (after all how could they have if there was not a previous movement phase) they are eligible for the re-rolls.

I see how it could be clearer though. maybe this one requires an FaQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Shame on all of us No one looked up what the cadian rule says. See spoiler.

Spoiler:

Overwatch is a shooting attack, but its not happening in the shooting phase. Cadians cannot re-roll hit rolls of 1 when overwatching.

They can though because:

40k 8th ed BRB wrote: Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attack...

Therefore, since you resolve Overwatch like a normal shooting attack, you would get the re-rolls if you would have if it were the shooting phase since "a normal shooting attack" occurs in the shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Therefore, since you resolve Overwatch like a normal shooting attack, you would get the re-rolls if you would have if it were the shooting phase since "a normal shooting attack" occurs in the shooting phase.

Overwatch is resolved LIKE a normal shooting attack made during opponent's CHARGE PHASE. Born soldier only procs during SHOOTING PHASE only.

Making a normal shooting attack =/= firing in shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

It i impossible for a unit to move when they did not have a movement phase yet..

That doesn't matter. The rule states that you get the reroll if you didn't move in your prior movement phase. It doesn't care one jot about whether you moved or didn't move at some point that wasn't in the previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you can't show that you didn't move in it, and therefore you don't get to reroll 1's. I

You don't get to read only part of what the rule says, you have to read the whole thing and meet the criteria. The criteria is not to have moved in the prior movement phase, not just to have not moved before shooting.

 doctortom wrote:

That doesn't matter. The rule states that you get the reroll if you didn't move in your prior movement phase. It doesn't care one jot about whether you moved or didn't move at some point that wasn't in the previous movement phase. If you don't have a previous movement phase, you can't show that you didn't move in it, and therefore you don't get to reroll 1's. I

You don't get to read only part of what the rule says, you have to read the whole thing and meet the criteria. The criteria is not to have moved in the prior movement phase, not just to have not moved before shooting.

A unit that does not have a previous movement phase could not have possibly have moved in the "prior movement phase"...

The requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. Since they did not have a previous movement phase, the only answer to the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase?" is a solid: No.

 skchsan wrote:
Making a normal shooting attack =/= firing in shooting phase.

Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

 DeathReaper wrote:


A unit that does not have a previous movement phase could not have possibly have moved in the "prior movement phase"...

The requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. Since they did not have a previous movement phase, the only answer to the question "Did this unit move in their previous movement phase?" is a solid: No.
..

Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect. You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved. If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW. Prove that you did not move in the prior movement phase if you have no prior movement phase. The answer is not "no they did not move", the answer is "there was no previous movement phase, therefore they can't claim they didn't move during it."

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect.

So are you saying that they did somehow move in their previous movement phase?

You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved.

Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase.

If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW.

My assertion is correct, because without a previous movement phase there is no possible way for a unit to have moved.

Prove that you did not move in the prior movement phase if you have no prior movement phase.

Easy, there was no previous movement phase, so there is no possible way for them to have moved.

The answer is not "no they did not move", the answer is "there was no previous movement phase, therefore they can't claim they didn't move during it."

Incorrect.

The answer is "There was no previous movement phase, therefore they can not have moved during it."
.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase.

Yes, if you don't have a previous movement phase, then you cannot determine whether a model has "not have moved" or "have moved".

The rule cares not of representational and figural sense of movement. Of course, if you physically have never moved an object, it must have not moved. If you are so inclined to taking "literal" sense, at t=0, the model existed off the game board, inside a box. At t=1, the model was placed on the game board. At t=3, the case in point occurred. Under what assumption does the limits of "not having moved" prior to a movement phase become established? Afterall, it was LITERALLY moved from somewhere off the battlefield on to the battlefield at some point before the model's first movement phase.

So by the extension of your argument, the model literally had to be moved to the location it's claiming the state of "not having moved in the previous movement phase which did not exist." So, quite literally, the model has been moved despite there hasn't been a movement phase to legally make a move.

RAW, it LITERALLY says you must have not moved during the previous movement phase to qualify for the benefits.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Umm yes it really does = firing in shooting phase as that is when a normal shooting attack is made...

So then I can use stratagems that is used during shooting phase during overwatch too I guess.

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

Why should I be limited to stratagems pertaining to overwatch only when shooting attacks made during overwatch is indeed shooting phase.

There are too much discrepancies and piecemeal reading from your interpretations.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, the requirement is that they did not move in the previous movement phase. What you typed after that is incorrect.

So are you saying that they did somehow move in their previous movement phase?.

I am saying there is no previous movement phase for them to have moved or not to have moved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have to have a prior movement phase in order to have moved or to have not moved.

Incorrect. If you do not have a previous movement phase, you can not have moved. It is literally not possible to move in a previous movement phase if there is no previous movement phase..

That is not incorrect at all. You don't know what movement has happened before the first turn, as it is undefined.

Grim Resolve:

"You can re-roll all hit rolls of 1 for this unit whenever it shoots (including when firing Overwatch) so long as it did not move in its prior Movement phase"

I bolded the key part there. There are two conditions which must be met -

1) you must have had a previous movement phase.

2) You must not have moved in that previous movement phase.

If you don't have a previous movement phase, you do not meet the criteria,as there is absolutely no way to prove that you did not move in a phase that does not exist. You are making things up by saying they obvious had not moved.

If there is no prior movement phase, then you can not show that you did not move in a prior movement phase - your assertion is incorrect by RAW.

My assertion is correct, because without a previous movement phase there is no possible way for a unit to have moved..

Which presumes the bonus is earned by not moving, rather than the bonus lost by moving. Two equally valid... yawn... something... something...

 greatbigtree wrote:
Which presumes the bonus is earned by not moving, rather than the bonus lost by moving. Two equally valid... yawn... something... something...

More specifically not moving in the previous movement phase. Moving during fight phase (pile in and consolidate) would not count towards moving during movement phase.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

As long as the strat specifically modifies the Overwatch to hit, then yes you can.

Why should I be limited to stratagems pertaining to overwatch only when shooting attacks made during overwatch is indeed shooting phase.

There are too much discrepancies and piecemeal reading from your interpretations.

Because a +1 to hit is meaningless if it does not specifically say that it affects Overwatch. So you can use a strat that states +1 to hit, but if it does not specify that it works for Overwactch, then you only hit on a 6 anyway and you have wasted CP's...

 doctortom wrote:
But, the criteria is not that you did not previous move, it is that you did not move in the previous movement phas. Again, explain how you can prove it about something that does not exist. If there is no movement phase, there is no "during" that you did not move in, therefore you do not get the bonus.

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

 skchsan wrote:
Afterall, it was LITERALLY moved from somewhere off the battlefield on to the battlefield at some point before the model's first movement phase.

I am not 100% sure what you are getting at but...

The rule cares about their previous movement phase... Not what happened before their previous movement phase.

So them being deployed does not count as them moving in their previous movement phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

 EagleArk wrote:

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Not quite... Since there was no movement phase, there is no possible way for them to have moved. Therefore they absolutely fulfill the condition of not moving in the previous movement phase, since there was not a movement phase for them to even attempt to move in...

They clearly did not move in a non-existent phase since the phase does not exist, no one did anything in that phase since it does not exist.

 EagleArk wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.

The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Did anyone read the actual doctrine from the Codex?

“Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase applies to the shooting phase. Overwatch does not happen in the shooting phase. Therefore, to answer the OPs original question - no, you don't get rerolls on Overwatch. The rules are specifically worded to indicate that firing Overwatch is not the same as shooting in the Shooting phase, so the wording matters.

As far as the greater question of "previous phases" goes, it would never affect this Doctrine. The Cadian player would have a movement phase 100% of the time in situations where this Doctrine applies.

Other rules where movement affects shooting work in a similar way. The Hellforged Scorpius, for instance: "On any turn in which the Scorpius does not move during the Movement phase, it may fire it's Scorpius multi-launcher twice in the following Shooting phase."

This means a) if I don't move b) I can fire twice in the Shooting phase. It does not mean c) I can also fire twice in the Charge phase of my opponent's turn during Overwatch.

I guess it just shows they aren't ready yet...so...yeah.
Done.

I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

Well I think the Fight Phase is a modifiers shooting phase as well, therefore it applies in the fight phase! /s

That's utterly ridiculous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
But, the criteria is not that you did not previous move, it is that you did not move in the previous movement phas. Again, explain how you can prove it about something that does not exist. If there is no movement phase, there is no "during" that you did not move in, therefore you do not get the bonus.

There is literally no way to have moved in the previous movement phase, so they 100% did not move during the previous movement phase, since there was not a previous movement phase to move in.

There is your proof.


The unit 100% did not move in the previous movement phase, since there was no movement phase. Condition satisfied.

Not at all. You have offered absolutely no proof at all that, just an illogical statement that is false in the face of it. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If there is no previous movement phase, there is not a phase for you to determine whether or not you moved. Your assertion that you couldn't possibly have moved is missing the forest for the trees; you are given a specific defined phase during which you cannot have moved in order to get the bonus; if that previous phase does not exist, then you can't claim anything that depends upon something happening or not happening in that phase, because that phase does not exist That is how the RAW works. You don't get to make assumptions about whether something happened or didn't happen in a phase that does not exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Did anyone read the actual doctrine from the Codex?

“Re-roll hit rolls of 1 in the Shooting phase for units with this doctrine if they did not move in the previous Movement phase. If an INFANTRY unit with this doctrine is issued the ‘Take Aim!’ order and it did not move in the previous Movement phase, re-roll all failed hit rolls for the unit until the end of the phase instead.”

We're not just dealing with that one doctrine now. As was pointed out, Grim Resolve for Dark Angels also has something similar; but a little different. That had been posted here, and was a more general statement for getting to reroll 1's if you didn't move in your previous movement phase, but was not limited to the shooting phase. If somehow an opponent had first turn and could declare a charge on a DA army, then they would get to fire Overwatch before the DA army had a previous movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:

But there also wasnt a previous movement phase for them to NOT move in. So they cant fulfil the condition.

Not quite... Since there was no movement phase, there is no possible way for them to have moved. Therefore they absolutely fulfill the condition of not moving in the previous movement phase, since there was not a movement phase for them to even attempt to move in...

They clearly did not move in a non-existent phase since the phase does not exist, no one did anything in that phase since it does not exist.

Nope, they don't fulfill it because there was no previous movement phase. You can not show that they did or did not do anything because that phase is non-existant. You have to show that they did not move during the previous movement phase, but there is no during that you can point back to for them to not have moved. Your sophistry ignores that you have to have had a previous movement phase to start with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

It applies for the Dark Angels since Grim Resolve specifically says that the rerolls for shooting include Overwatch. The Doctrine specifies the Shooting phase; it does not have a statement for including Overwatch the way the DA have, nor is it a more general statement of just applying to shooting (instead of saying specifically in the shooting phase).

Riggs wrote:
I disagree with techsoldaten, Overwatch is a modified shooting phase, rerolls should apply there. Modifers are specifically prohibited, but rerolls and other "bonuses" are not

No, you are wrong. Read the core rules. Overwatch is not a modified shooting phase. There is no such thing. Overwatch is happening in the opponents charge phase. Cadians only re-roll 1s in their shooting phase.

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

Stux wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
OMG Why is everyone ignoring the word THEIR ? Its part of the rule. Its impossible for a unit not to move when they didnt have a movement phase yet.

I'm not ignoring that.

I know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but how you've written it makes no sense. Of course a unit can have not moved without having an opportunity to move. And tht's the crux of the issue, that the language is logically ambiguous but people are treating it as if their reading is the only one.

That's because the rule asks you to check if the unit "moved in its previous movement phase", not simply "moved". The position youre arguing for is selectively reading the requirements.

It's not selective, it's merely parsing it differently when converting it to formal logic. Because the language is unclear on which way it should be parsed.

Everyone saying it is obvious that it doesn't work is selectively reading it one way and ignoring the other legitimate interpretation.

Everyone is saying 'you have to have had a movement phase to not have moved in', but that isn't the only way the rule can be read. It can also, totally legitimately, be read that you must not be the case that you moved in your previous movement phase.

"Couldn't move because there was no movement phase" =/= "Didn't move in the previous movement phase".
Period.