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.

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

You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

In other words, calling an argument you disagree with "absurd" does not actually dismiss that argument. You have to have proof for your position and against the other position. Dismissing the opponent's proposed position without evidence is at best bad form.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

I guess you didn't pay that much attention at your maths class then. Or your at German or Latin classes, for that matter.

Null literally is zero.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

You were not in that position on the tabletop before the movement phase, so therefore you couldn't have moved zero inches. You have moved an indeterminate number of inches, or as others have said a null value of inches. It is perfectly self evident, and you refuising to accept it doesn't change it.

 Octopoid wrote:


You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

In other words, calling an argument you disagree with "absurd" does not actually dismiss that argument. You have to have proof for your position and against the other position. Dismissing the opponent's proposed position without evidence is at best bad form.

Ok. I pick up a model from the tabletop. In doing so I lift the model seven inches from the tabletop. Then I place it on another point on the tabletop, six inches from its original position. Model has a move value of six. Was this a legal move? Or how about this. An opponent has placed their reserve units on a coffee table, two metres from my Shadowsword on the gaming table. Can I shoot those models with my Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon? Do these question seem absurd to you?

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

I guess you didn't pay that much attention at your maths class then. Or your at German or Latin classes, for that matter.

Null literally is zero.

However this doesn't stop the distance the model has moved as being undefined.

The model was introduced to the table during the movement phase, hence it wasn't on the table at the beginning of the phase.

This is important as given a suitable description of the movement the model will do/ has done (e.g. move 6" directly towards the enemy deployment zone) then the finishing position for that model can be determined from the start position (the usual movement sequence), however it will also be possible to determine what the model's start position was from the models' final position.

The position the model arrives from reserves is the final position of the model (the rules prevent any further movement such as advancing). The starting position is off the table and outside the frame of reference of the game mechanics, thus as far as I can tell the movement in terms of an exact distance can not be determined.

Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

No, because you do not measure from the start of the phase, you measure from the start of the move. And placing the model on the table is not a move. And as I noted earlier, you cannot start measuring things outside the table or assume that the models really exist for any rule purposes outside the table. As far as the rules are concerned the model has ever existed in one spatial position on the tabletop. A thing that remains in a fixed spatial position has, by definition, moved zero inches (or CM , or Planck lengths or anything.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

No, the model counts as moved in such situations, but there is no measurable movement. If there was a psychic power that would teleport the Repulsor across the table, the distance being teleported wouldn't count toward the movement for double shooting purposes either.

Distance as a value is null, not zero. You are a troll.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Where is "movement happens on the tabletop" written? Infact, the contrary is true. We can provide countless instances where "teleporting" is movement. Reinforcements are considered movement. Disembarking is considered movement.

How far has a unit that disembarked, but didn't move, moved? We know that it counts as having moved, and noone is claiming that the executioner doesn't count as having moved. But it moved exactly as far as that disembarking unit, which is still allowed to move its entire movement speed, while counting as having moved.
The logical conclusion should be that both units moved, but they moved 0 inches

 Crimson wrote:
No, because you do not measure from the start of the phase, you measure from the start of the move.

The model isn't on the table at the start of the move, it's deployed onto the table at the start of the move. Previous statements still apply.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Distance as a value is null, not zero. You are a troll.

You still do not know what 'null' even means.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

The model isn't on the table at the start of the move, it's deployed onto the table at the start of the move. Previous statements still apply.

Yes, it is deployed on the table. In one spot. In which it stays. Zero inches.

Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

Well done. 4 pages of bickering wrapped up into 5 concise lines.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Ok, thinking on it a wee bit.

What we know:

The executioner counts as having moved.

The executioner may fire twice if it moves less than a predetermined variable.

What we do not know:

The value in which the executioner is counted as moving.

So:

While the movement from set-up on the table is a lack of actual movement, the rule does not allow firing twice unless the model moves half or greater, it only allows firing twice if it moves less than half or does not move.

It has moved, with an unknown value of movement; therefore it cannot be said that the executioner has moved less than half of its movement. Therefore it may not fire twice.

Well done. 4 pages of bickering wrapped up into 5 concise lines.

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

Dadavester wrote:

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

It was not a mere FAQ, it was an errata. They literally added ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance’ line. Such line is not present in this stratagem. The IG FAQ is pretty old thus reasonably the writer should have used this updated wording if they wanted it to count as full move. Whether this is a mistake or intentional, we really cannot know.

 Crimson wrote:

Dadavester wrote:

This is exactly it. However some people are arguing because it has not moved since being placed on the tabletop that means it has moved zero.

Again i point to the LR/tallarn FAQ as this is the exact same thing and it is classed as moving full for GA.

It was not a mere FAQ, it was an errata. They literally added ‘The units are considered to have moved their maximum distance’ line. Such line is not present in this stratagem. The IG FAQ is pretty old thus reasonably the writer should have used this updated wording if they wanted it to count as full move. Whether this is a mistake or intentional, we really cannot know.

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

 doctortom wrote:

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

Indeed. That it moved zero inches means that though. And certainly they added the line in the IG stratagem for a reason? It was to stop Russes using Ambush from double shooting with Grinding Advance. If your reading of the rules would be correct, the additional line would have been unnecessary.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Not having a statement saying that it had a full move does not mean that it moved half speed or less.

Indeed. That it moved zero inches means that though. And certainly they added the line in the IG stratagem for a reason? It was to stop Russes using Ambush from double shooting with Grinding Advance. If your reading of the rules would be correct, the additional line would have been unnecessary.

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

 doctortom wrote:

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

I read it. It had nothing new so I didn't bother to repeat what I have said many times already. There is no reason to think that the movement distance is unknown, that is just something that some people seem to have concocted out of thin air. It is just like with transports. A model that disembarks but doesn't move further counts as moving, yet has moved zero inches. The same thing here.


BTW, I am sympathetic to the RAI-based argument that this is indeed a mistake. That they wanted it to work same way than IG's 'Ambush' but the writer fethed up and they didn't include the updated wording. Perfectly possible, albeit really not something we can know. However, if we assume that they know what they're doing (a dangerous assumption, I know) then these two stratagems are intentionally worded differently, which results them working differently. And I maintain that as written the 'Encirclement' allows the Repulsor to double shoot.

 Crimson wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

You've been corrected several times on the fallacious statement that it moved zero inches. Go back and read Kommissar Kel's post above for a good summary of the position. He presented the truth, which refutes your statement, and you have not come back with a counter for his statements.

I read it. It had nothing new so I didn't bother to repeat what I have said many times already. There is no reason to think that the movement distance is unknown, that is just something that some people seem to have concocted out of thin air. It is just like with transports. A model that disembarks but doesn't move further counts as moving, yet has moved zero inches. The same thing here.

A model embarked in a transport is treated as being on the battlefield even if not on the table (as shown in other FAQ questions/answers, only one topic of which is that disembarking passengers can't be targeted by someone with Auspex). The transport in your case is not on the battlefield to start with, so it's a different situation. Thinking that something that was not on the battlefield before its move and is on the battlefiled after its move counts as moving zero inches stretches credulity.

Setting up the model on the table is not a move. No actual move is happening at any point of this scenario. Only things related of movement is the lack of it, and the rule tagging the model having moved.

I'm a maths and physics teacher.

Mathematically and physically, being undefined and being zero are NOT equivalent. Try getting away with saying that something is zero in an exam just because it is undefined would see you get zero marks on that question!

In this rules case, the vehicle has not moved at all. It just counts as having moved. It hasn't actually done it, it just counts as if it has. No movement value is specified. Therefore there isn't one. Therefore it has not moved under half movement.

Furthermore, whilst the semantic argument about the word null is interesting, it does not invalidate the statement above.

However, to get into a discussion of the word null anyway, the term null can mean zero in some contexts, but the more correct use of the word as it would generally mean an empty set. That is clearly the context people are using the word in here. Arguing otherwise is not arguing, it is just playing word games.

 Fifty wrote:

Mathematically and physically, being undefined and being zero are NOT equivalent. Try getting away with saying that something is zero in an exam just because it is undefined would see you get zero marks on that question!

Sure. But nothing is undefined here.

In this rules case, the vehicle has not moved at all. It just counts as having moved. It hasn't actually done it, it just counts as if it has.

I agree with this.

No movement value is specified. Therefore there isn't one. Therefore it has not moved under half movement.

With this I do not agree with though. You said you're physics teacher: how far has an object which has not moved at all moved? Because that is a measurable distance and that distance is zero.

Jeeeeeezy peeps. Early in the thread it was identified that this isn’t covered by rules and you need to use precedents or house rule it. Lay off trying to beat each other up with tangential splainy. Neither of you has rules backing so everyone ends up just wasting thread space. Talk it over with an opponent before a game and agree how to handle it. That and HIWPI is all we have here.

Seems like we've heard all the arguments we're going to hear here. Future readers can decide which way to play based on the circular arguments already here, no need to go on