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.

Tricky... interesting points raised for and against…
Having read, and re-read the rules I'm in favour of such movement being permitted.

The pertinent restrictions to this case would appear to be that all the movement for a single unit is completed before moving onto the next, and using the path that each model takes no model may move more than it’s movement characteristics.

This movement would seem to adhere to these restrictions, consequently so long as the unit ends in coherency it appears legal.

Breton wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Breton wrote:
There's also no restriction to once.

You select the unit, while the unit is selected you can select any of it's models. A model that has already moved is "any of it's models". It just has to end in coherency (Something that can force a model to move twice) and not go beyond it's full MV.

Having to have the unit end in coherency does not force a model to move twice as there is no permission to move a model twice. If the model would need to move twice to have the unit be in coherency at the end of the unit's movement, you either need to rethink where you move (or don't move) that model the first time, as after all the models have moved once you have to be in coherency.

Cant measure coherency until after it's moved. You have just reduced every multi-model unit's MV characteristic to it's coherency distance. 1 Inch in most cases. You move your unit, check coherency, one model is 1.1" away, you have no permission to move it back 0.1". You're not allowed to move the entire unit back to where it started. You can't remove the incoherent model because the rules says you can't make the move, let alone get to the phase where incoherent models are removed. The only legal move now is to move the rear (relative to the direction being moved) models 1", then the next layer, then the next and so on until all models have moved 1 inch to remain in unit coherency at all times.

You make no sense. My statement does not do what you claim. My comments about thinking where you are moving the models to are only in relation for when the unit would be in coherency after all the models in the unit have moved and not during the movement itself. Note that I didn't state that the model must maintain coherency while it's moving (a patent absurdity for any unit that can move 5", you wouldn't be able to move the unit 5" if you had to maintain coherency while during the move.) You have a strawman argument misrepresenting what I said. Sorry, try again.

You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.

Breton wrote:

You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.

You’re right. There is no permission to move twice, or even once for that matter. There is only permission to “move”. And once it has been established that the model is allowed to move, which is when its unit is chosen to move, it only has to stop moving once a new unit is chosen or it has reached its maximum move distance. There is no other time that this permission is taken away, unless you can cite one.

The rules could not possibly encompass every situation where you would continue to be allowed to do something. So it tells you when you have permission to do something, and when that permission is removed. What if you move all the models in a unit as far as you can reach, and then walk to another side of the board, and finish moving them. Is this legal? Yes, because as long as they haven’t reached their maximum movement distance and another unit hasn’t been picked, they can still move. Unless it can be cited that they can’t.

rbacus wrote:

Breton wrote:

You still haven't addressed the major point that while the unit has permission to move, there is no permission for a model to move more than once.

You’re right. There is no permission to move twice, or even once for that matter. There is only permission to “move”. And once it has been established that the model is allowed to move, which is when its unit is chosen to move, it only has to stop moving once a new unit is chosen or it has reached its maximum move distance. There is no other time that this permission is taken away, unless you can cite one.

The rules could not possibly encompass every situation where you would continue to be allowed to do something. So it tells you when you have permission to do something, and when that permission is removed. What if you move all the models in a unit as far as you can reach, and then walk to another side of the board, and finish moving them. Is this legal? Yes, because as long as they haven’t reached their maximum movement distance and another unit hasn’t been picked, they can still move. Unless it can be cited that they can’t.

There's permission for models to move (given they describe types of moves), but no explicit permission to move twice. So, can models move? Yes. Can models move more than once? No, because "but the rules don't say I can't" isn't permission for you to be able to do it.

There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.

rbacus wrote:
There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.

By that logic you also have permission to shoot. Shooting once, twice, or 17 times is all shooting.

That’s a great point. And it would be completely true (like how it is in the moving phase) if it didn’t say that “a ranged weapon can only be shot once per shooting phase”

That’s in the pdf page 15 second paragraph in the parentheses. I’m positive it’s in the BRB as well and will double check myself when I get home.

But the point is, the explicit permission for a model to shoot ends once a model had shot all ranged weapons it is equipped with once.

It has a very clearly defined start and end to the permission, just like our primary argument in the movement phase.


Edited to add “once” at the end of a sentence

 BaconCatBug wrote:

rbacus wrote:
There is explicit permission to move. Moving once, twice, or 17 times is all moving. Just like it doesn’t say twice, it also doesn’t say once. It clearly defines when this permission to move is no longer granted. Words that aren’t there have to be inserted for what you say to be true, making it your interpretation of RAI, not RAW. So moving is not a thing that stops a model from moving.

By that logic you also have permission to shoot. Shooting once, twice, or 17 times is all shooting.

The difference is that the Shooting phase rules, and the Fight phase rules, specify how many attacks the model is allowed to make (in Number of Attacks) and there's a helpful example demonstrating that you're not actually going "select model, fire model's weapons, resolve that model's attacks", you're resolving X models firing Y weapon; then the next bunch of weapon fire.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's nothing in the rules to contradict the expectation that all of the models in the unit move at the same time and end their movements at the same time. (The fact that you probably have to pick up and move each model one at a time due to human limitations is a minor sportsmanship detail, similar to what to do if you have to resolve more attacks than you have dice...)

Ice_can wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yeah, I don't think you can do this.

BRB Page 206 wrote:Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield.

BRB Page 207 wrote:When a unit makes a Normal Move, each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic shown on its datasheet, but no model can be moved within Engagement Range of enemy models (pg 198).

You're only given permission to move, not move twice.

As presented; nothing states the way you are trying to state it.

You select a Normal Move for your unit A(5 models); You then move Model 1(with a Mv 6) 3" at a slightly left angle. You then move model 2 3" at a slightly right angle. Next you move Model 3 6" straight forward. Next you go back to model 1 and move it up to 3" straight forward or even slightly right to maintain full unit coherency at the end of your unit's 1 allowed Normal move. Model 2 Also moves up to 3" straight or possibly slightly left for the same reasons. Models 4 and 5 can move however they want, as long as they end in coherencey.

The only rules for Movement that we have is that the Unit all moves near the same time, can only move once, and that the models must all end their move in coherency.

So, in summation: First Quote is "Whenever you move a Model" which does note proclaim "Only move once"; and second only restricts each model's movement to within their Mv characteristic. You are given permission to move your models within specified constraints, you do not need permission to finalize each model's movements before moving on to the next model in the unit(those specifics are given for Movement at the unit level: i.e. move unit A fully before moving Unit B).

each model in that unit can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move (M) characteristic

A distance, not a combination of distances, which is how it would have to be worded to work as you claim.

End result of 3", then later 3 more inches, is still "a distance" of equal to or less than the Mv characteristic in inches.

"A distance" can be in a single move, or multiple separate moves.

Yeah put me down for the "you can move each model up to its movement characteristic, and you can do that in as many stages as you want" camp. Nothing in the rule suggests the move must be single and uninterrupted. Just that you have to move units one at a time, and that each model can move total distance no further than its move characteristic. It's not even "moving twice," it's just moving.

Why just limit it to twice? Why not four times? Why not six?

This seems like a terrible idea. Now the opponent needs to watch each individual model to be sure it’s not being abused. Was it moved 1.5” the first time, and just 4.5” the second? Or was it the other model that moved 1.5”, and this model actually moved 3.25” the first time, .5” the second, and 4” the third? It sounds like a good way to introduce a three card Monty scheme.

If you want to introduce an option to effectively slow down the game and increase the chance of moving more than the minimum (whether deliberately or accidentally),, you should require a rule that expressly allows it.

 Mastiff wrote:
Why just limit it to twice? Why not four times? Why not six?

This seems like a terrible idea. Now the opponent needs to watch each individual model to be sure it’s not being abused. Was it moved 1.5” the first time, and just 4.5” the second? Or was it the other model that moved 1.5”, and this model actually moved 3.25” the first time, .5” the second, and 4” the third? It sounds like a good way to introduce a three card Monty scheme.

If you want to introduce an option to effectively slow down the game and increase the chance of moving more than the minimum (whether deliberately or accidentally),, you should require a rule that expressly allows it.

But there is a rule that expressly allows it.

The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.

You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
End result of 3", then later 3 more inches, is still "a distance" of equal to or less than the Mv characteristic in inches.

"A distance" can be in a single move, or multiple separate moves.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But there is a rule that expressly allows it.

The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.

You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.

How do we define 'exceeding its movement value" in 9th ed?

If a model moved 2" northerly, 2" easterly, 2" southerly, then finally 2" westerly, how many inches has the model moved?

Even if the model has net displacement of 0", the model nonetheless has moved 8" total. (for the sake of this argument, lets say the model has M = 8")

9th edition makes an important distinction between moving (whether via Normal Move, Advance and Fall Back) vs. not moving (remain Stationary).

Under the current rule set, can we say having a net displacement of 0" = remain stationary?

If having net displacement of 0", despite actually having moved, meant that the model remained stationary, then has the model moved or not moved?

Furthermore, take an example of AIRCRAFTS with bombing type abilities where it asks you to pick a unit it flew over before resolving the effects of the ability - if the said aircraft did not have any movement restrictions (i.e. supersonic), and has enough M value to reach it's intended target AND come back to it's original position (i.e. target is ~10" away, M = 20"), then has this aircraft moved over the target enemy unit or not? If it moved, how many inches did the aircraft move?

 DeathReaper wrote:
But there is a rule that expressly allows it.

The basic movement rules expressly allow moving. They also do not restrict this movement except for the must an not move more than its movement value restriction.

You can move a model 1000 times or more as long as it does not exceed its movement value.

No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

You are now redefining movement to suit your opinion by adding implicit conditions and situations that don’t exist in print. You’re filling in the gaps with what you would like to see.

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

 skchsan wrote:
How do we define 'exceeding its movement value" in 9th ed?

Well, just like you would in any other edition. Look at its movement value, it is the number expressed in Inches. Going over that, would be "exceeding its movement value" Because that is not the english language works.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)

It does give permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.

The rules are permissive, and we have permission to move. Once that permission is given, you can do that thing until permission is taken away. Thats how permissive ruleset's work.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

You still seem to be confused by the definition of “expressly”. It means “clearly, unambiguously, plainly”. You keep using as the opposite, “implicitly”.

If you are going to redefine a rule to your advantage, the onus is on you to find an express rule to allow it, not just an omission of clarity that is open to opinion.

There is no express rule that I can’t stand on the gaming table and use a sand wedge to move my models up to 6”, it’s just implied that you should use your hand, a ruler, and not crush other models while you do so. But if I want to do so, it’s encumbent on me to justify it, not my opponent to prove it’s not allowed by the rules as written.

 Mastiff wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

You still seem to be confused by the definition of “expressly”. It means “clearly, unambiguously, plainly”. You keep using as the opposite, “implicitly”.

No, I am not confused. Because the rule gives permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.

If you are going to redefine a rule to your advantage, the onus is on you to find an express rule to allow it, not just an omission of clarity that is open to opinion.

There is no express rule that I can’t stand on the gaming table and use a sand wedge to move my models up to 6”, it’s just implied that you should use your hand, a ruler, and not crush other models while you do so. But if I want to do so, it’s encumbent on me to justify it, not my opponent to prove it’s not allowed by the rules as written.

I am not redefining anything.

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

You’re asking your opponent to prove a negative.

“Since the rules don’t expressly say I can’t move multiple times, I therefore am allowed to interpret it the way that gives me an advantage.”

You still haven’t given any compelling reason why your reading is more legitimate than any other interpretation. You are slowing down the game, you are increasing the opportunities to cheat, you are giving yourself the advantage of precise placement and matchups, so I can see why you might like this advantage, but you still can’t explain why unclear rules need to be decided in your favour.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:
No. That expressly allows movement up to a specific value. Full stop.

And with no other restrictions is is expressly giving you permission to move as many times as you need to, to reach that specific value. Full stop.

No, that is you adding your "context" to the rule. You have permission to move. It does not give permission to move multiple times. You didn't have permission to do that in previous editions, and you still don't have permission to do that this edition. Now, address some of the issues in Mastiff's next to last post, which you haven't given a response to. (you skipped over that post to respond to his post after that.)

It does give permission to move multiple times, by virtue of giving the permission to move and then not restricting that movement to a limited number of times.

The rules are permissive, and we have permission to move. Once that permission is given, you can do that thing until permission is taken away. Thats how permissive ruleset's work.

You have permission to move. You have no permission to move again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mastiff wrote:
You’re asking your opponent to prove a negative.
“Since the rules don’t expressly say I can’t move multiple times, I therefore am allowed to interpret it the way that gives me an advantage.”

You still haven’t given any compelling reason why your reading is more legitimate than any other interpretation.

This. Permission to move is not permission to move multiple times. There is no explict statement that you are allowed to move a model multiple times. Then again, DeathReaper is big on saying you have to read a rule with "context" which in this case the context is to see how he can contort what is actually written to make it do what he wants to do.In this case, apparently the "implict" instruction amounts to "but the rule doesn't say I can't"

 Mastiff wrote:
You’re asking your opponent to prove a negative.

“Since the rules don’t expressly say I can’t move multiple times, I therefore am allowed to interpret it the way that gives me an advantage.”

This is not at all what I did.

I have shown the rule gives permission to move.

1 more or 1000 moves, as long as it does not exceed the distance, is permitted.

 doctortom wrote:
You have permission to move. You have no permission to move again.

False. I have shown that 1 or 1000 moves are permitted.

You have not shown anything at all your making a bunch of unsupported claims and claiming proof. Thats not how rules work and it's certainly not how factual arguments work

You are now arguing against your original point.

Rules that give you an advantage are explicit, not implied by omission.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Correct. Bringing them back would be an advantage.
Is any advantage explicitly stated? No.
Therefore, do you get to imply an advantage? No.

Necrons have a special rule. Roll X die, bring back Y models.
Is this advantage explicit? Yes.
Therefore, do you get an advantage? Yes.

You're this close to getting it. Apply that to movement:

You can move a model up to its M value.
Is your advantage (multiple movements to get around your own models) explicitly stated? No.
Therefore, do you get to imply an advantage? No.

I see what he is saying. Once you select the unit to move, models in the unit gain the Can Move status, as it were.

The only things that remove this status, in the rules, are reaching the model's maximum movement distance or selecting another unit to move.

Things like "you can't move twice" prevents a model from, say, moving up to a corner, stopping to check LoS, then moving back again (or further forwards).

It also prevents models from being adjusted to meet unit coherency, so if you accidentally find out you are out of coherency at the end of a move, the game explodes, because it has reached an illegal state after one move and a second move to fix the first illegal state would cause a second...

I have not argued against my original point.

I am not implying any advantage.

Of course you are:

"The rules don't explicitly say you can't bring models back from the dead. But you can't."

"The rules don't explicitly say you can't move multiple times. But you can."

You're saying the exact opposite.

No, what he is saying is the rules DO give you permission to move, and only rescind that permission when:
1) the model reaches it's maximum movement distance
2) another unit is selected to move.

Do you know what isn't on that list? The act of moving itself. You can move once, four times, eighteen times, ninethousandfourhundredandtwelve times, and you will never, ever meet the conditions in which your permission to move is revoked.

1. The rules say you can't move a "unit" more than once. You could logically imply that a "model" can't be moved more than once, but you can't imply that its okay to move a model multiple times... where's the precedent?

2. If multiple moves were allowed, I would also assume that movement restrictions that are in the rules stating that you can't leave the battlefield or cross over another base, would not exist... but they do. I wonder why... (not really, its your choice to make poor decisions in prior turns.) Also GW says you may move up to your M in inches... its permissive but not guarannteed you get your full move.

3. You are allowed to move a model, when you move a unit. It says nothing about pluralizing move. That's my interpretation. You can move your model once... one time, take your finger off and you are done... (Okay its not chess, lol)

4. Maybe the problem is understanding the definition of the word move in the context of a game enviroment?

Move - verb (used with object), moved, mov·ing.
to change from one place or position to another.

The definition of a move is: a change from one place to another... Therefore multiple places or positions would be multiple moves. GW uses the word move, not moves.


In Short... of course you can't, come on now!

Okey dokey. 40k is now like chess, where once your hand leaves the model, it is there forever.

I eagerly await the time my opponent's knee sticks out from behind cover and he reaches back down to rotate it or scoot it back a millimeter or something and I can tell him "no, sorry, here is a thread on Dakkadakka, you took your hand off and now you can't move it anymore."

I look forwards even more to when that happens with a unit ending its move out of coherency and I can call my opponent a cheater. Sorry, mate, can't move any of those models to fix it. You just broke the rules. Victory by forfeit?