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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
It's clearly stated units that redeploy are treated as having moved thier maximum distance, thus by extension this would apply to those coming straight into the table from reserves.

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

Units that redeploy started on the battlefield. Units that don't start on the battlefield cannot, by the very definition of the word, redeploy. You're taking an FAQ and extrapolating it to something entirely unrelated. This would be like saying "Re-roll hits" also works on wound rolls because both are dice that can be re-rolled.

Technically they started in the Teleportarium, or the Drop Ship, or the Webway, or in the Warp. They were taken from that point, and placed on a new point. Even using logic, that is a shift in temporal existence, hence a new spot in existence.

 deviantduck wrote:
I agree with your statement that it isn't movement and is only flagged as having moved. However, when other 'have moved' instances have been FAQd to full movement, it isn't a stretch to assume that's the intent here, too.

Sure, perhaps they will errata this too. But I say this third time: this rule was written after those previous rules were changed. Had they wanted it to work similarly surely they would have used the updated wording here too, making it clear it is a full move? Granted, it is possible that they just forgot that the FAQ existed. It is GW, who knows?
*shrug*

 Crimson wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
I agree with your statement that it isn't movement and is only flagged as having moved. However, when other 'have moved' instances have been FAQd to full movement, it isn't a stretch to assume that's the intent here, too.

Sure, perhaps they will errata this too. But I say this third time: this rule was written after those previous rules were changed. Had they wanted it to work similarly surely they would have used the updated wording here too, making it clear it is a full move? Granted, it is possible that they just forgot that the FAQ existed. It is GW, who knows?
*shrug*

I can see where you are coming from.

However how can it be determined when the various rules elements of the new Marine Codex were finalised? To enable a multi-lingual global release the rules must be finalised a significant time before release to enable the translation into other languages, printing and onwards distribution of the physcial media.

Up until the Redemptor Executioner there was only the need to define movement, or lack thereof with respect to marine units (e.g. heavy weapons, aggressors double firing). Specifying the amount of movement (i.e. answering is this equal to or less than 1/2) such deployment is taken as being wasn’t necessary.

GW have a habit of both a) making a decision for a (seemingly) comparative case, setting a precedent there and assuming we all know that that ruling applies everywhere and b) making a decision for a seemingly comparative case that doesn’t set a precedent… Which both lends itself behind taking a precendent from Ambush in C: AM, not to not do so.

However in the absence of a ruling to determine how much it has effectively moved then surely how much it has moved is undefined (it wasn't on the table at the start of the movement phase), and thus can’t meet the criteria for double firing.

Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.

BCB has the right of it-there's no value given. Precedent would indicate it should count as having moved full movement, but RAW right now just doesn't work properly.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

The model is placed on the table. It does not move, thus it has moved zero inches. To the question of whether the model is moved, the answer is 'yes' because it has been tagged with that status effect. To the question of whether the model is move less than five inches answer is also 'yes' because zero is less than five. It is perfectly clear and simple is you don't start to invent bizarre Shrödinger's movements out of thin air.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, we can't know for sure what they intended, but if they intended it to count as full move, they can errata that. And in absence of such an errata I maintain it can double fire. It has moved zero inches, and counts as moving. That's it.

Not at all. You can't prove it hasn't moved, or moved half or less.

The model is placed on the table. It does not move, thus it has moved zero inches. To the question of whether the model is moved, the answer is 'yes' because it has been tagged with that status effect. To the question of whether the model is move less than five inches answer is also 'yes' because zero is less than five. It is perfectly clear and simple is you don't start to invent bizarre Shrödinger's movements out of thin air.

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero.

Also, from a rules standpoint it does not get to fire twice because the rules state that it has moved, so that you can not say that it hasn't moved, and the rules do not state that it moved half its movement or less. It's that simple.You are the one inventing bizarre non-movements when the transport has been itself transported from another spot - a non-zero distance between where it was and where it ends up.

 doctortom wrote:

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero..

No, this is absurd. As far as the rules are concerned, the model did not exist before it was placed on the table.

No, your position is absurd
You cannot measure form where it was - because it didn't exist - to where it is now
You have an undefined (not null) distance
You are unable to prove - and this is a fact you cannot dispute with any rules - that it moved under half.

The model has not been in any other place. You're now literally claiming that you cannot tell how far a model that stayed in one place moved.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

The model did not start in that place, it was somewhere else before the movement phase, so therefore it moved to that position to deploy.Threfore its movement is greater than zero..

No, this is absurd. As far as the rules are concerned, the model did not exist before it was placed on the table.

As far as the rules are concerned the model counts as moving and has not specified a distance for how far it moved, therefore there is no proof that it moved half its movement distance or less by RAW. Your insistence that it moved 0" is what is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The model has not been in any other place. You're now literally claiming that you cannot tell how far a model that stayed in one place moved.

It didn't stay in one place - it came from somewhere else when you set it up on the table. The unit did exist before being deployed on the board - you have it listed in your army list to prove its existence.

You can't count movement outside the table! This is bloody insanity. Movement is something that can only happen on the gaming table.

 Crimson wrote:
You can't count movement outside the table! This is bloody insanity. Movement is something that can only happen on the gaming table.

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved. You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero. You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less. You have no RAW ground to stand on.

 doctortom wrote:

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved.

True.

You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero.

Yes I can. That is the distance the model has moved on the gaming table. This is the normal GW decreed way of defining movement distances in this game.

You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less.

Yes I can. Zero is less than half it's movement characteristic.

You have no RAW ground to stand on.

Yes I do. I am not inventing imaginary movements outside the table. I guess you want next to shoot at the models on shelve with your artillery.

I agree with Crimson. The wording for Reinforcements and all these different abilities is just like those for units disembarking from Transports. If I disembark from a Transport, how far can I move? My Move characteristics. If I don't move a unit that disembarked from aTransport, it moved 0" (i.e. remained Stationary). It just counts as having Moved.

GW's failure to define their "moved" status as having any particular distance means it is 0", the distance by route between where the model started on the board and where it ended on he board during the move (or lack of one). After all, there is no rule defining a move as the distance between where a unit started the phase and where it ended the phase, only where it started the move and ended the move. This is no different than a unit that Advances and then doesn't move. It moved 0", but counts as having Moved and Advanced.

As for the two FAQs for redeploying units and Ambush, they are special case FAQs that so many like to point out can't be generalized.

Now given that an FAQ is due within 2 weeks, how about we stop arguing and wait an see if GW fixes this disconnect that was pointed out right after the Spring FAQ was published?

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You can't count it as not moving when we're told it counts as having moved.

True.

You can't count the movement as zero because GW has not defined the movement as zero.

Yes I can. That is the distance the model has moved on the gaming table. This is the normal GW decreed way of defining movement distances in this game.

You can't count the movement as half or less because GW has not defined it as half or less.

Yes I can. Zero is less than half it's movement characteristic.

You have no RAW ground to stand on.

Yes I do. I am not inventing imaginary movements outside the table. I guess you want next to shoot at the models on shelve with your artillery.

You keeping conflating ACTUAL movement with RULES movement. These are 2 different things. According to the rules the model has moved, the fact that it is in the same place as it was does not mean anything in terms of rules.

You can advance and not move, if I do this can I still shoot and charge (in the absence of special rules)? No you cannot as, despite the model still being in the exact same place, according tot he RULES it has advanced.

Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Dadavester wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Except in this specific instance the distance matters. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that this distance would be anything other than the actual distance moved on the tabletop, which is zero. We're not discussing whether the model counts as having moved, we know it does. People are confusing toe different matters, the distance moved and whether the model has moved.

It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

 Stux wrote:
It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

No. That is just pure nonsense. Movement only happens on the gaming table.

 Crimson wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, we know that according to rules it has moved. No one has been disputing that. You're just confusing this tag with having moved some actual distance.

No I am not, and I explained this above. You are confusing moving ACTUAL distance with the rules.

A model does not have to actually move to be counted as moving. As I said above a unit that has advanced but not ACTUALLY moved cannot then charge. as according to the rules it has advanced despite its physical position on the board being the same.

Now with this being the case, the ACTUAL distance a model has moved is irrelevant in determining weather it has moved or not.

So a unit arriving on the board by reinforcements is counted as moving by the rules, the actual distance moved means nothing in the rules just that it has moved. Now the rule is that it must move less than half to fire twice, the unit has 100% moved but we have no way knowing how far so you cannot activate this rule.

Personally I would count all units arriving via reinforcements as having moved their full movement.

Except in this specific instance the distance matters. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that this distance would be anything other than the actual distance moved on the tabletop, which is zero. We're not discussing whether the model counts as having moved, we know it does. People are confusing toe different matters, the distance moved and whether the model has moved.

We are going around in circles.

Most people on here agree it cannot fire twice, there is an FAQ for the exact same scenario but a different unit/strat saying it cannot fire twice (and GW are known to make the mistake of FAQing rules and not taking it into account in other later rules).

I will be playing it as it cannot fire twice. If i play someone with one I will be checking with them first.

 Crimson wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It hasn't moved zero though. It's moved from a null position to it's current position, giving a distance of undefined.

No. That is just pure nonsense. Movement only happens on the gaming table.

Nonsense to you. Perfect sense to me and most others.

It hasn't moved while off the table, it's moved from off the table. You can't measure that of course, so it's undefined and not zero.

We're clearly not going to convince you though, and you're clearly not going to convince us. We're just going in circles now. But based on the consensus here, be prepared to have to argue it if you want to play it your way, and be prepared to not be able to convince the other person.

Not much point carrying on here though.

He won't have to argue it, he has stated he doesn't own the model, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. He is literally just trolling.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
He won't have to argue it, he has stated he doesn't own the model, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. He is literally just trolling.

Oh. So why am I trolling but people who disagree with me aren't? This is just a discussion.

While I won't play it this way as stated earlier, I really wonder why everyone is bashing Crimson. He's right, there is nothing that tells us the unit moved even one inch. It moved, sure, because we're told that it did so. But since it didn't physically move, it's a 0" move - similar to how disembarked models moved 0 inches but count as moved if they disembark and skip their actual movement.
But if we require that other instance to be errata'd to specifically state that we moved at full speed, we can assume that this errata was necessary for it to work the way it was intended.

To me, they clearly didn't learn their lesson and made the same mistake again here, and I will play as if the tank moved at full speed in that situation.

I don't know how to better explain this to you. Perhaps a basic college level course on Mathematics. But it's a pretty simple fact,

Zero is not Null. Null is not zero. It has not moved ZERO inches, it has moved NULL inches.

You keep repeating an untruth, that "it has moved 0"". It is false. It have moved Null. NULL is not ZERO.

You clearly state this when you say thinks like "It has moved "X" distance." So whatever X is, it's HAS MOVED. The fact that it has moved is clear in the rules and the logical truth. The difference is the idea that ZERO is somehow Null. Which is a logical impossibility.

Crimson - prove it moved zero

Prov it

Stop asserting. Prove.

In an actual game you could not, because you would be unable to measure from off table to where it is now.

You're done here, as your argument is disproven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - prove it moved zero

Prov it

Stop asserting. Prove.

In an actual game you could not, because you would be unable to measure from off table to where it is now.

You're done here, as your argument is disproven.

This is like asking me to prove that 1+3=4. Movement happens only on the tabletop. The model has remained stationary on the tabletop. It has moved zero inches. All this is perfectly self evident. and you refusing to accept it doesn't change it, any more than you refusing to believe 1+3=4 would.

Seriously the idea that you would measure movement distances outside the tabletop is blatantly absurd.