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.

ENCIRCLEMENT lets a unit outflank.

Aquilon Optics says "If, in your Movement phase, this model does not move or moves a distance less than half its Move characteristic, it can shoot with its [weapon] twice in the following Shooting phase..."

The main rulebook states that "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes" but doesn't state how far.

The only FAQ entry is from Spring FAQ 2019, but it's about units that are removed and setup again:
"Q: What rules apply to units that are removed from the battlefield after deployment (via abilities, Stratagems or psychic powers), and are then set back up again on the battlefield?

A: If a rule or ability causes a unit to be removed from the battlefield and subsequently set back up, the following rules apply to that unit:

1. Any rules that are triggered by or apply to units that are ‘set up on the battlefield as reinforcements’ are also triggered by and apply to that unit when it is set up on the battlefield.

2. Models in that unit count as having moved a distance equal to their Move characteristic that turn (and so suffer the penalty to their hit rolls for moving and firing Heavy weapons)."

Leman Russes have a similar rule and stratagem, Ambush, that interacts the same way. However, that was errata'd to add ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance.’ in the Astra Militarum FAQ. Furthermore, that's a more powerful stratagem that can be used for a unit of Leman Russes.

This old chestnut again.

In short, the unit has moved a null distance. It has moved, but we have no way of knowing how far it has moved. This is the exact same situation as Cloudstrike.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777217.page#10487720
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778126.page#10517966

GW fixed it for the Astra Copywritum stratagem "Ambush" and have refused to fix it for anything else.

RaW you cannot fire twice because you did not move "a distance less than half its Move characteristic", nor did you "not move".

treat it as having moved it's full movement speed, unless you have another rule that negates this. That's probably what they intended, and it helps us with dealing with this.

I'm gonna side with BCB on this. I'd say the "x" variable would have to be counted as full, or risk being abused as broken.

There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

 doctortom wrote:

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

It's an Executioner, not an Exterminator.

Why would it be unable to use that stratagem? The stratagem simply allows it to deep strike, and we know how to do that. The question at hand is whether or not this counts as moving more or less than half its movement speed, because all we really know is that it counts as having moved.
And as I said earlier, I would go with "it counts as having moved at full speed" due to how the same situation was clarified/errata'd elsewhere - since we can't just ignore the issue,and that's the best answer I can come up with outside of "we need GW to clarify this" which is the obvious 100% correct, but totally useless answer.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 wormark wrote:
There is precedent to rule it as moving the full distance and no evidence I can find to side with allowing it to double shoot.

The latter being the more important point, you have nothing to prove that it counts as moving at half speed or less. If the Exterminator had a funky rule that gave it some benefit if it had moved its full movement, you wouldn't be able to show that it had moved that full movement either (though people would be arguing about the precedents showing it should).

Without anything showing it counts as moving half speed or less, it won't be able to use the Encirclement stratagem.

It's an Executioner, not an Exterminator.

Why would it be unable to use that stratagem? The stratagem simply allows it to deep strike, and we know how to do that. The question at hand is whether or not this counts as moving more or less than half its movement speed, because all we really know is that it counts as having moved.
And as I said earlier, I would go with "it counts as having moved at full speed" due to how the same situation was clarified/errata'd elsewhere - since we can't just ignore the issue,and that's the best answer I can come up with outside of "we need GW to clarify this" which is the obvious 100% correct, but totally useless answer.

Sorry, I meant the Aquilon optics, where it can't say it's moving at half speed or less.

It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It's moved all the way from off the table! That's potentially a long way away

I don't think it's as straightforward as you're claiming here. This needs clarification from GW.

I vote for has moved its maximum distance, similiar to the ambush stratagem. The april FAQ 2019 answer also says it has moved its maximum distance. While its not the same, its similiar, and the closest we have so far as a clarification.

Another vote for “has moved maximum”, using other FAQs as guidance/precedent.

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

And, again, not moving any distance is not the same as moving 0 distance. A null value is not the same as zero.

Agreed. To move 0" it would need to be in the same place it started.

An undefined number is not the same thing as 0.

No, you people are confusing 'counts as moved' with moving some specific distance. It has both moved and moved zero inches. This is not possible for a physical object, but it is a possible result of a rule. Just like an unit disembarking from an Impulsor counts as having moved, yet can move its full move distance.

 Crimson wrote:
No, you people are confusing 'counts as moved' with moving some specific distance. It has both moved and moved zero inches. This is not possible for a physical object, but it is a possible result of a rule. Just like an unit disembarking from an Impulsor counts as having moved, yet can move its full move distance.

I'm not confusing that. You are confusing zero distance with moving from a zone without distance to a zone with distance.

It has moved, but hasn't moved any distance, thus it has not moved over the allowed distance.

It hasn't moved under the allowed distance either. It has moved an undefined distance, so it cannot accurately be said to have moved any specific number of inches. It hasn't moved 0", it hasn't moved 10", and it hasn't moved 2.37856". It's moved from off the table onto the table. Unless you're going to run the tape measure from your storage area to where it landed, you cannot say how far it moved, only that it moved.

Since the rule requires remaining stationary or moving under half distance, and you have not done either of those things, you can't shoot twice. If the rule applied when you have not moved more than half distance, as opposed to requiring it to move under half distance, there might be an argument.

No. That is the fallacy of thinking 'counts as moved' as having moved some distance. That is not the case. It is just a status effect, no distance is involved.

 Crimson wrote:
No. That is the fallacy of thinking 'counts as moved' as having moved some distance. That is not the case. It is just a status effect, no distance is involved.

If it had moved 0", it would have had to have been in the same position before it gained the status. It wasn't, so it has not moved 0".

It has set been set up. It has not moved any distance, just like the models you deploy in the beginning of the game haven't or just like models who disembark haven't.

Correct, it has not moved a distance. So it has not moved more than, less than, or the same as any distance. It hasn't moved less than half distance, so it cant shoot twice.

No, it is not some Shrödinger's distance, the actual distance is zero. Or do you also think that models which have disembarked from a stationary or assault transport cannot move as they have already moved some unknown but actual distance?

BCB: null distance is more 0" than it is 5" or greater.

I am sure it will be FAQ'd to count as full distance; and until then, we should play erring on the side of caution. But, also until then; the executioner dod not move more than half of its movement and can, technically by RAW, fire twice.

Long story, short; discuss it with your opponent first.

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It counts as having moved. The distance it has actually moved is zero. This is less than half its movement. It can fire twice.

It didn't move 0", it moved an undefined number of inches because it was "set up" and never actually moved.

No. I counts as moving, but it didn't move any distance.

It counts as having moved, but as BCB said it doesn't count as moving 0. In fact, that can be disproved by the fact that it wasn't in that spot at the beginning of the turn and it is in that spot after the movement phase. If it moved 0 it would have been there beforehand. It counts as having moved an indeterminate amount that, barring a FAQ, you have no way of proving it having moved a specific distance. Precedent from other rulings may end up being applied here, having it count as having moved full distance, but you can't prove right now any distance that it moved, including 0 distance.

Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope you guys do not move the models which disembark from stationary transports then either.

They are explicitly given permission to move as normal, it's a separate movement and irrelevant to this conversation.

It's Cloudstrike all over again. Demand from GW same fix Tallarn got.