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.

 doctortom wrote:


Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.

Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

rbacus wrote:
\
You have explicit permission to do this

Citation needed.

Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The rules 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.

That's still not a citation giving explicit permission to move many times. Your argument is based on making an assumption that it allows movement of a model many times. Reading and understanding comments before making a snarky comment like your "reading threads before commenting" would be an even better idea. You apparently have no grasp on the word "explict".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.

Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.

"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets

yukishiro1 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.

Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once. I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.

There's nothing to suggest that you can interrupt a models action to perform another action by another model. And I have no idea why all the sudden in 9th edition you need to do this to ensure coherency. Maybe just move the models in coherency in the first place, and if you can't shoot your lascannon at my rhino... its your own fault. Also the book states that the unit must finish its move in coherency.... and it says... IF YOU CANT DO THAT, you can't make the move. (<-- see page 206 it actually says that. What it does not say is re-interpret the rules, so you can shuffles models around and do what you want. Make a house rule if you like.

yukishiro1 wrote:
And when you pick up a model and move it up off the board in your hand in order yo reposition it, you're moving it too, very likely further than its range characteristic. But you're not moving it for game purposes. This is the same. Moves in 9th happen by unit, not by model. Each model in the unit can move a distance up to its move characteristic.

Can you cite this?

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once, and in practice, as I have repeatedly stated above and everyone on the other side of the argument has conveniently ignored, the 9th edition coherency rules would make it virtually impossible to play with units of more than 6 models if you could truly only pick up and reposition each model in a unit once.

They can travel in a single file. Note, coherency is checked at the end of the move, not during. If you can't END a move in coherency, such move cannot be made.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.

yukishiro1 wrote:
9th edition rules don't work in practice without the opportunity to shuffle models around after you're done moving them to make sure the overall move constitutes a legal move under the coherency rules.

Shuffling the models after you're done moving the models are done for correcting human errors, not because it's RAW or RAI to do so. It would be illegal for you to 'shuffle' your models beyond it's M value anyways, so it can only be done if you had any M leftover in the first place.

 doctortom wrote:


"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets

Sigh. Please read the thread before responding halfway through. We've already been over this multiple times. The rules give you permission to move each model in the unitl up to its movement characteristic when you move a unit. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this must be done in a single pick-up per model.

Are you really claiming that if you're moving a tank around a corner, and you set the tank down once to make it easier to measure the rotation of the hull, that you've then finished your move with the tank and can't make the rest of the move, because you took your hand off the model? What if the model slips out of your hand - boom, that's where it moved to, no picking it up again and removing it, unless where you dropped it is an illegal place, in which case it doesn't get to make a move at all that turn?

That's not how the rule is written. The rule says you move units, and that when you move a unit, you can move each model in that unit up to its movement distance. Once you're done moving the unit, you move to the next unit. It doesn't say that each model has to be moved in a single pick-up. You're the one reading things into the rules that aren't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you are only allowed to pick up each model once as part of moving the unit, what happens when someone moves models in such a way that it isn't possible to be in coherency when the move for that unit is done? The rules clearly state a move CANNOT BE MADE if the unit doesn't end in coherency. If you can only pick up each model once while moving the unit, doesn't that mean you have to roll back the movement of the entire unit and pretend it didn't happen if you get to your last model and realize there's no way to stay in coherency at the end of the move based on how you've moved the other models? Because under your logic, you can't go back and readjust the ones you've already moved to make the move legal. So you have to undo the entire 30 man move and place them back where they were and forgo moving that unit this turn, don't you?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:


There's nothing to suggest that you can interrupt a models action to perform another action by another model. And I have no idea why all the sudden in 9th edition you need to do this to ensure coherency. Maybe just move the models in coherency in the first place, and if you can't shoot your lascannon at my rhino... its your own fault. Also the book states that the unit must finish its move in coherency.... and it says... IF YOU CANT DO THAT, you can't make the move. (<-- see page 206 it actually says that. What it does not say is re-interpret the rules, so you can shuffles models around and do what you want. Make a house rule if you like.

Moves happen by unit, not by model. It isn't "interrupting a model's action." There's no such thing as a model's action. Moving models is part of moving units. It isn't something independent of moving units.

If you have no idea why coherency is different in 9th than in prior editions, you might want to actually read the coherency rules, as it would quickly become clear how different the situation is from before. Having to draw coherency to two models and above all the explicit instruction that a unit cannot move at all if models would end out of coherency mean that if we read your "you can only pick up each model once" restriction into the rules, the result is that frequently someone will move 29 models, realize there is no legal way to move the 30th because of how they moved the first 29, and then, per the rules, have to undo the moves of the other 29 (which is impossible, obviously - nobody knows where those models were after they've been moved) and pretend as if the unit wasn't moved that turn.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I do not think the developers intended that people would frequently fail moves with large units and be forced to roll them back to their prior positions and forgo movement that turn - something which, needless to say, would mess the game state up even more, as it's impossible to return models to exactly where they were before a move.

Distance a model has moved is calculated by tracing its path of movement. If the unit in the example moved its full M, then doubles back to its 'original' position, then you have made an illegal move (you just moved 2M) - so no takesies backsies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you are only allowed to pick up each model once as part of moving the unit, what happens when someone moves models in such a way that it isn't possible to be in coherency when the move for that unit is done? The rules clearly state a move CANNOT BE MADE if the unit doesn't end in coherency. If you can only pick up each model once while moving the unit, doesn't that mean you have to roll back the movement of the entire unit and pretend it didn't happen if you get to your last model and realize there's no way to stay in coherency at the end of the move?

No that's not what I'm arguing. The whole 'move model A here, then move model B there, then move model A back to where it was" idea is gamey at best and hinges on implication by omission.

The point I'm making once a move is initiated, you must make a honest effort to abide by the rules in whole. You can't purposely initiate a move you know is not going to be possible, then take back the move. The rule states you cannot make a move if such move cannot end in coherency. It doesn't say, 'if your proposed move ends up not working out (i.e. impossible to maintain coherency), take the unit back to where it was." It is your responsibility as a player to pre-measure to ensure your proposed move will be legal. Any take backs are house rules, not something that is explicitly written out as rule.

Personally, I've never come across where maintaining coherency at the end of the move was impossible, unless you purposely manufactured such situation by either removing models from the center of the conga line or made a 'wELL AktcHUWurlY' deployment.

FWIW, I would think GW would release a FAQ clarifying that you can move over models within its own unit.

Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


"Nothing in the rules suggests that this must be done by picking up and placing the model only once" = "buit the rules don't say I can't do it"m, an argument that doesn't work for permissive rulesets

Sigh. Please read the thread before responding halfway through.

Look again, I was commenting on page 1 of the thread. Please check the thread before making comments about when someone started responding.

yukishiro1 wrote:
We've already been over this multiple times.

And it's been pointed out every time that you were incorrect when making the statements multiple times.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rules give you permission to move each model in the unitl up to its movement characteristic when you move a unit. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this must be done in a single pick-up per model.

There's not the slightest suggestion anywhere that this may be done as multiple moves. Hence my recently asking for an explicit statement that you have permission to move a model multiple times, rather than you just making an assumption that you can move multiple times.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you really claiming that if you're moving a tank around a corner, and you set the tank down once to make it easier to measure the rotation of the hull, that you've then finished your move with the tank and can't make the rest of the move, because you took your hand off the model? What if the model slips out of your hand - boom, that's where it moved to, no picking it up again and removing it, unless where you dropped it is an illegal place, in which case it doesn't get to make a move at all that turn?

Strawman argument, putting the model down once to measure the rotation of the hull, then continuing it's moviement would still be one move. It's not the same if you had a unit of 3 models, stopped the movement of the first model at the corner, decided to move 2 more models in the unit because you suddenly decided you wanted to rush them in front of the model you're moving, then move that first model for a second time. Or move fhe first vehicle in a squadron to the corner, move two other vehicles in the squadron then move the first model again. Stop trying to present a ridiculous counterargument. Presumably if you're oh so worried about having to set the tank down, tell you're opponent you're putting it down to measure the rotation but are continuing it's move after the measurement. Problem solved.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's not how the rule is written. The rule says you move units, and that when you move a unit, you can move each model in that unit up to its movement distance. Once you're done moving the unit, you move to the next unit. It doesn't say that each model has to be moved in a single pick-up. You're the one reading things into the rules that aren't there.

The fact is that the rule isn't written to allow for a model to move multiple times in one unit's move, and in a permissive ruleset you have to demonstrate the permission. Within the discussion about moving the unit there is talk about moving the models. there is no talk about moving the models more than one. You have not provided a citation for that, you are leaning on a "but the rules don'ts say I can't" argument for your position. And claiming that I'm reading things into the rules when my argument is based on the lack of rules being there to permit what you're claiming is laughable and disingenuous

Strawman argument, putting the model down once to measure the rotation of the hull, then continuing it's moviement would still be one move. That's

yukishiro1 wrote:
Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?

You house rule it to count the last one as a casualty. You weren't supposed to move ANY MODELS if the UNIT CANNOT END IN COHERENCY.

There is no such thing as "trying out" a move. If you initiated a move, you must commit to it, and make any and all honest efforts in maintaining coherency. Sometimes this would mean that you must move your unit in less-than-optimal way in order to adhere to the coherency rules.

The rule says the MOVE CANNOT BE MADE, not MOVE MUST BE TAKEN BACK.

The moment you initiated the actual physical act of moving the models for a unit that cannot end in coherency, you have made an illegal move.

 skchsan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Still not sure what you're saying, because you didn't clearly answer the question. What do you do if you get 19 models into a 20 model move and then realize that based on how you placed the first 19, it isn't possible for the unit to end in coherency because there is no possible way to place the 20th to obey the rule? What happens?

You house rule it to count the last one as a casualty. You weren't supposed to move ANY MODELS if the UNIT CANNOT END IN COHERENCY.

There is no such thing as "trying out" a move. If you initiated a move, you must commit to it, and make any and all honest efforts in maintaining coherency. Sometimes this would mean that you must move your unit in less-than-optimal way in order to adhere to the coherency rules.

The rule says the MOVE CANNOT BE MADE, not MOVE MUST BE TAKEN BACK.

The moment you initiated the actual physical act of moving the models for a unit that cannot end in coherency, you have made an illegal move.

You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?

Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move? You do realize this comes up all the time in 9th because of the having to draw coherency to two models rule, right? This becomes extremely complex geometrically very quickly once you start introducing other units and terrain to the equation. It's inevitable that people will mess it up all the time.

Please just answer my question instead of answering things I didn't ask like how you would house rule it.

yukishiro1 wrote:


You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?

Flogging with a dreadsock.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?

If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.

 doctortom wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:


You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?

Flogging with a dreadsock.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?

If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.

The rules say "the move cannot be made." That clearly refers to the move for the whole unit, not the individual model, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

So the rules tell you that if you get to the 20th model and realize there's no way to place it in coherency, the entire move cannot be made. If we accept your argument that each individual model can only be picked up once, the result would have to be that we roll the movement back for the entire unit, placing all 20 models back where they previously were and treating them as not having moved.

But this also means that the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit - otherwise the instruction that "the move cannot be made" doesn't mean anything. And that defeats the argument that the move of an individual model is complete and irrevocable after you set it down.

I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?

First off, I respectfully request you to tone down - this is a discussion, and disagreements happen in discussions.

Second, clearly you haven't read my post in full - As I've stated, I'm split on the whole 'move model more than once in a single movement phase' stance because I find it gamey because it's an assumption from implication by omission.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:


You still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask for how you'd house rule it. I asked what the rule itself requires. What do the rules require when you realize that by mistake you've made an illegal move, going on your interpretation that you cannot pick up each model more than once during the move?

Flogging with a dreadsock.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you saying the rules provide no solution for what happens if you inadvertently make an illegal move?

If the rules do provide the solution, please provide a citation.

The rules say "the move cannot be made." That clearly refers to the move for the whole unit, not the individual model, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

So the rules tell you that if you get to the 20th model and realize there's no way to place it in coherency, the entire move cannot be made. So this means that the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit. If we accept your argument that each individual model can only be picked up once, the result would have to be that we roll the movement back for the entire unit, placing all 20 models back where they previously were and treating them as not having moved.

That's not what it says. "The move cannot be made" does not mean "the move of any individual model is not complete and finalized until you are finished moving the entire unit", it means "the move cannot be made". So what if it means placing all 20 models back where the previously were and treating them as not having moved? It's your fault for making an illegal move in the first place. It sounds like you're whining about having to follow the rules. You should realize before you start moving the last of the 20 models in the unit that you're not going to have them in coherency, when you're moving the last few models you should make sure to pay attention to having them end up in coherency. Besides, ou can still move the unit as they count as not having moved, just try to make it a legal move the next time they move. If your opponent wants to house rule that you can adjust a couple of models to have made the first move become a legal one that's okay, but realize that that is only a house rule, not RAW.

Loading...

yukishiro1 wrote:
But this simply isn't true in this circumstance. The rules very clearly state that if all models cannot end in coherency, the unit cannot move. Not that the last model cannot move.

You're not fully understanding me then.

I'm not saying that the last model cannot move. If all models in a unit cannot end move in coherency, then at the time of said unit being selected to move, the whole unit cannot make a Normal Move, Advance or Fall Back. It is your responsibility to 'secure the landing site' of your unit before committing to a move (by physically beginning to move the models).

yukishiro1 wrote:
The unit itself cannot move.

Yes, the unit itself cannot move if all of its parts cannot make a legal move.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There is no possible way to read "THE MOVE CANNOT BE MADE" as referring only to the move of one individual model.

No one (or at least I) said anything or that sort.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It literally doesn't work with the coherency rules. The instruction has to refer to the entire unit. The only way you can make sense of this is to read what it says literally: the unit moves as a whole.

You're kind of losing coherency here. Please elaborate. (no pun intended)

yukishiro1 wrote:
You only track the movement of individual models as it relates to the movement of the model as a whole. No model's movement is complete until the move of the entire unit is complete, because it's only at that point that you know whether the move can be made.

This is not true because pre-measuring is legal. You can actually 'map out' the results of your move with placeholders, before you actually move the models in the unit, if accuracy is of upmost importance. Not sure if you were around, but there was a time when pre-measuring was illegal, and there was this whole discussion on the fairness of the rule because some people have better sense of distance than others, thereby creating an unfair advantage.

I have as much permission to move once as I do to move twice - that is, I have permission to move.

In order for that permission to mean "only move once" it would have to say "only move once" or something like that. But it doesn't. The word "once" is never once (haha) applied to models, only to units.

Here is the sum total of things you have to worry about when moving a model:
1) Make sure that model's unit is selected to move, and you haven't selected another unit.
2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance.

That's it. Literally any other case (the model is on fire, the model's already moved a bit, the model's on the second floor, it's a Tuesday, the Soviet Union's reuinified, aliens have abducted the model, etc) is irrelevant.

And shockingly (*audience-gasps.wav*), moving more than once isn't on that list - how many times a model has moved (so long as its unit remains the only unit selected and it hasn't moved further than its maximum movement distance, i.e. those two conditions above are watched for) is just as irrelevant as the price of tea in China.

rbacus wrote:
I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.

I totally disagree with a single model moving at two distinct times. Moving once, implies you have made a models move up to M". Moving that model again... show me a rule that gives you permission to do that? Because you have already made a normal move, or an advance or a fall back and satisfied the conditions of those rules. I get that you want... demand your maximum move, but nothing in the book guarantees that, and the book doesn't even hint that you can split your movement up. If it did.. I'm all for it.

And please cite your source... I'm looking at page 206 - 207.

And I just read the rules on coherency.. (for those who have a problem with this YukiShiro...)... ProTip: "move each model in coherency with a model that has already moved"... unless you are stretching your unit out as much as possible normally you'll never have a problem, but they did add that the head and tail of a unit must be within coherency of 2 other models of the same unit if it has more than 5 models... so... that fixes stretch issues 99% of the time.


Unit1126PLL your #2 Item is not correct.

"2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance."

What you should have written was Models move up to M". And once you reach that condition... end sequence, you move on.

 skchsan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You only track the movement of individual models as it relates to the movement of the model as a whole. No model's movement is complete until the move of the entire unit is complete, because it's only at that point that you know whether the move can be made.

This is not true because pre-measuring is legal. You can actually 'map out' the results of your move with placeholders, before you actually move the models in the unit, if accuracy is of upmost importance. Not sure if you were around, but there was a time when pre-measuring was illegal, and there was this whole discussion on the fairness of the rule because some people have better sense of distance than others, thereby creating an unfair advantage.

That doesn't follow. The question isn't whether you can plan out your movement beforehand. You can plan as much as you want, but planning isn't making a move. You don't actually know if the move you're making is legal until you make the move. You can premeasure to your heart's content, but if when you actually move, by mistake you move one of your models 1mm too little or 1mm too much, such that the next model can't be in coherency due to the "draw to 2 models" rule, all that premeasuring did nothing: you still ended up moving an individual model in a way that would result in an illegal move, so the unit as a whole "cannot make the move." Note the rule does not say "check coherency, and if the move you made was illegal, undo it." It says the unit cannot make the move. This means the move isn't actually made until the coherency check is passed.

You want to read into the rule a sub-rule that each model makes its own individual move that is finalized as soon as you take your hand off it, but that isn't what the rule says. The rule says the unit moves, and that it doesn't actually move until you declare you're done moving individual models, at which point you then check coherency, and if you pass the coherency check, the move happens. If you don't pass the coherency check, the move doesn't happen.

Ergo no movement actually occurs until you declare you're done moving all the individual models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have as much permission to move once as I do to move twice - that is, I have permission to move.

In order for that permission to mean "only move once" it would have to say "only move once" or something like that. But it doesn't. The word "once" is never once (haha) applied to models, only to units.

Here is the sum total of things you have to worry about when moving a model:
1) Make sure that model's unit is selected to move, and you haven't selected another unit.
2) Make sure the model hasn't already moved its maximum movement allowance.

That's it. Literally any other case (the model is on fire, the model's already moved a bit, the model's on the second floor, it's a Tuesday, the Soviet Union's reuinified, aliens have abducted the model, etc) is irrelevant.

And shockingly (*audience-gasps.wav*), moving more than once isn't on that list - how many times a model has moved (so long as its unit remains the only unit selected and it hasn't moved further than its maximum movement distance, i.e. those two conditions above are watched for) is just as irrelevant as the price of tea in China.

This is exactly correct. And I’ll add that since “moving twice” IS moving, implying the word “move” means something different in this case than it normally does requires a citation.

It isn't even "moving twice" per the rules. It's just moving. No moves are actually finalized until you declare you're done moving the models in the unit and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down models as many times as you want, it's still only one movement.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
What you should have written was Models move up to M". And once you reach that condition... end sequence, you move on.

I agree with you.

What happens if I move 3" with a 14" move model, and then take my hand off of it to, say, check line of sight or something? Have I reached M" yet? No? Good, then the sequence isn't over. I'll go back over to my side of the table, move it 10" forwards, then go look on the other side of the table, realize it's in LOS, and then come back and move 1" backwards to hide better.

Only then, after THREE WHOLE MOVES (!!!!!!!!!!), I've moved my model up to move M", reached its maximum movement allowance, and the sequence ends. At this point, I may end my movement phase or select another unit. At no time in the middle of that sequence of events is there cause for an opponent to tell me I have to stop moving, because I've neither:

1) Selected another unit to move
nor
2) moved my maximum move allowance

 Sazzlefrats wrote:

rbacus wrote:
I completely agree that moving a single model multiple times, like in the example of moving a tank around a corner, is one move. And moving model A, then B, then A (in the same unit) is two moves for model A. My argument is that, provided the total distance moved is not greater than its move characteristic, both situations are legal. And it isn’t “legal because it doesn’t say it’s illegal.” We are all aware (by now) that’s not how the rules work. It is legal because it says a model can move and specifically states when it is no longer allowed to move. Moving twice is moving. Moving once is moving. You’d have to insert more words that aren’t there to restrict the permission to make it say what you want.

I totally disagree with a single model moving at two distinct times. Moving once, implies you have made a models move up to M". Moving that model again... show me a rule that gives you permission to do that? Because you have already made a normal move, or an advance or a fall back and satisfied the conditions of those rules. I get that you want... demand your maximum move, but nothing in the book guarantees that, and the book doesn't even hint that you can split your movement up. If it did.. I'm all for it.

And please cite your source... I'm looking at page 206 - 207.

Moving at two distinct time is moving, just with more words attached. You haven’t satisfied the conditions of moving, because a normal move has only ended once the models maximum distance has been reached or another unit is selected. Limiting the definition of the word “move” to “move only once” requires us to add in what we think the writers meant. And that’s RAI, not RAW. I am looking at page 207, under Normal Move.

 doctortom wrote:
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.

There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.

Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.

There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.

Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?

There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Moving it in stages means you are moving the model at least two different times, which isn't moving it once.Sorry, that's just trying to use semantics to ignore basic math.

It is a good thing that you are allowed to move the model as much as you want up to its movement stat.

There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once.

Why are you arbitrarily restricting movement?

There's nothing in the rules that explicitly states you can move the model more than one. You are making an assumption that you can, one not explicitly stated. And, but "There is nothing in the rules that say you can only move a model once" is in actuality you saying "the rules don't say I can't", The rules don't say you can, either, so you're not allowed to assume that you can. That is what is restricting your movement, and there is no "arbitrarily" about it.

Rehashing discredited points doesn't make them true. Here's a summary for you of why you're wrong:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

rbacus wrote:
\
You have explicit permission to do this

Citation needed.

Reading threads before commenting on them is a good idea.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The rules 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.

In other words, just in case you're still confused:
1) The rules explicitly give permission for movement once I have selected a unit to move.
2) The rules only revoke that permission in two cases: a) I select another unit to move. b) I reach my maximum movement distance
3) If neither of those conditions is met, I continue to have permission to move.
4) Picking up a model, moving it a few inches short of its maximum move, and putting it back down again is a move.
5) Premise 4 does not meet either of the criteria in Premise 2.
Therefore, by Premise 3, I retain permission to move, and may continue to pick up my model and move it until such time as either of the criteria in Premise 2 are met.

Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.

I can get behind this interpretation too.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Again, it isn't moving the model more than once. No move happens until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass a coherency check. You can pick up and put down a model as many times as you want, it hasn't actually moved until you declare you're done moving all the models and pass the check.

The rules don't state "movement is done once all models in the unit has moved, or not moved, and the coherency check is good." This is an assumption. Is this a RAI? maybe. RAW? definitely no.

Like I stated multiple times, what I'm calling you out on are your ensuing assumptions that you're bringing up in defense of your stance - it's not about whether a model can be moved more than once, or if there is even a concept of 'moving more than once'.