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.

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.

Actually the language is quite clear. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If you haven't had a previous movement phase, there is no phase during which you can determine whether or not they moved. As there is no previous movement phase, you can't claim the bonus. You can't legitimately parse it to ignore the fact that it states that you have to have had a previous movement phase to determine that it did or did not move in.

Again, any interpretation of the Cadian Doctrine that includes Overwatch is incorrect.

BRB, Charge Phase, Point 3: Overwatch

"Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker. A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several times a turn, thought it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attach (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's Ballistic Skill or any modifiers."

This is saying a) Overwatch (with a capital letter, meaning a proper noun) is separate from Shooting, b) Overwatch is done during the Charge phase, and c) Overwatch follows the normal rules (meaning, this is not shooting "as if" it was the Shooting phase.)

The Cadian Doctrine reads as such:

"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" means Shooting phase only. It does not mean Charge phase. It does not mean hit rolls in Overwatch, it means hit rolls in Shooting.

Any other interpretation is incorrect. Any opponent rerolling for this Doctrine in Overwatch is either misinformed or cheating.

With regards to Grim Resolve, that's a separate issue. It specifically calls out Overwatch. I would argue the fact the unit did not move in it's prior Movement phase does not apply because there was no prior movement phase. But that's not the question the OP was asking.

A normal shooting attack for a Cadian unit that didn't move included rerolling ones, and should occur during overwatch.

Riggs wrote:
A normal shooting attack for a Cadian unit that didn't move included rerolling ones, and should occur during overwatch.

The Cadian doctrine only applies in the shooting phase, it says so on it; it does not apply during the charge phase, and thus not to overwatch shots.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Again, any interpretation of the Cadian Doctrine that includes Overwatch is incorrect.

BRB, Charge Phase, Point 3: Overwatch

"Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker. A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several times a turn, thought it cannot fire if there are any enemy models within 1" of it. Overwatch is resolved like a normal shooting attach (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Charge phase) and uses all the normal rules except that a 6 is always required for a successful hit roll, irrespective of the firing model's Ballistic Skill or any modifiers."

This is saying a) Overwatch (with a capital letter, meaning a proper noun) is separate from Shooting, b) Overwatch is done during the Charge phase, and c) Overwatch follows the normal rules (meaning, this is not shooting "as if" it was the Shooting phase.)

The Cadian Doctrine reads as such:

"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" means Shooting phase only. It does not mean Charge phase. It does not mean hit rolls in Overwatch, it means hit rolls in Shooting.

Any other interpretation is incorrect. Any opponent rerolling for this Doctrine in Overwatch is either misinformed or cheating.

With regards to Grim Resolve, that's a separate issue. It specifically calls out Overwatch. I would argue the fact the unit did not move in it's prior Movement phase does not apply because there was no prior movement phase. But that's not the question the OP was asking.

He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

 doctortom wrote:
He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

I've been following and there's been a little bit of waffling.

Hoping this does not turn into a rehash of all the Grim Resolve stuff. The Cadian Doctrine is much more cut and dry, it does not apply to Overwatch.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
He gave one example and we expanded beyond that with the Grim Resolve. During the thread we had the Cadian Doctrine quoted and it pretty much wrapped up discussing that particular doctrine then, but we went into a more general discussion about it when Grim Resolve had been mentioned and we still had a case where it wasn't limited to the shooting phase.

The biggest argument now is about whether you get to reroll for not having moved in your previous movement phase if you haven't had a previous movement phase, though it looks like we're going to get some rehashes of arguments from previous threads about whether something that specifically states that it applies during the shooting phase applies in other phases.

I've been following and there's been a little bit of waffling.

Hoping this does not turn into a rehash of all the Grim Resolve stuff. The Cadian Doctrine is much more cut and dry, it does not apply to Overwatch.

There is no waffling.

"couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" =/= "didn't move during the previous movement phase"

If there was no previous movement phase to not move in, you have not "not moved during the previous movement phase". The RAW is clear cut - you need to have "not moved during the previous movement phase."

"Couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" is the same thing as "not moved" is the basis in which the RAI is being contested upon. You cannot claim RAW with RAI interpretation.

 skchsan wrote:
...

"couldn't have moved because there was no previous movement phase to move in" =/= "didn't move during the previous movement phase"...

You have this entirely incorrect.

The two are equal, but you should have wrote it like this: ["didn't move because there was no previous movement phase to move in" = "didn't move during the previous movement phase"]

Why are you still discussing this?

The OP has been unquestionably answered with a simple post of the Cadian doctrine.

If you want to discuss/argue a new point around hypothetical movement in a phase (or not), make a new thread.

Mods is it not time to close this?

To be fair, my post is actually about preceding movement phase, the Cadian doctrine appears to be a bad example as the consensus is they can't reroll ones anyways, but the original question still stands, regardless of a poor original example

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why are you still discussing this?

The OP has been unquestionably answered with a simple post of the Cadian doctrine.

If you want to discuss/argue a new point around hypothetical movement in a phase (or not), make a new thread.

Mods is it not time to close this?

Dark Angels Grim Resolve came up during the discussion, and is still an issue, so we might as well let that continue here.

 doctortom wrote:

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.

Actually the language is quite clear. You have to have not moved in your previous movement phase. If you haven't had a previous movement phase, there is no phase during which you can determine whether or not they moved. As there is no previous movement phase, you can't claim the bonus. You can't legitimately parse it to ignore the fact that it states that you have to have had a previous movement phase to determine that it did or did not move in.

Yes, I can. Like this:

NOT(Moved in its previous movement phase)

If you haven't had a previous movement phase, have you moved in the previous movement phase? No. So the phrase in the parenthesis evaluates FALES, then the negation turns it to TRUE so the condition of the rule is met and the unit gets a re-roll.

(Disclaimer - this is only one way to parse it, not the only way. Which is why my position is it is ambiguous rather than it being allowed)

 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.

I'm sorry, but I feel this is just as valid as me arguing you wouldn't get the bonus because the previous Movement Phase (in the last Battle Round of our previous game), x unit may have moved.

HIWPI? No phase to "not act" in? No bonus. Also, GW should implement a USR that states EVERY model counts as moving in the first battle round of a game. You've mustered to the pitch, right? Only gunline "heroes" like myself could reasonably be upset at such a rule, I think. Though I could be tunnel-visioning here and not considering certain mechanics.