|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 28, 2021 15:19:26 GMT
Generals compendium, page 139, shooting from a ship. One should think that is self-evident that the 6th edition General's Compendium, where "you will NOT find ANY official rules" (p. 3, in the side bar with the heading "NOT OFFICIAL" - caps in the original) has little value in a discussion of 8th edition rules. But let us assume, for a moment, that they are official 8th edition rules. In that case, they do contain specific rules for boats with various exemptions from the normal rules, and thus only serve to underscore what has been repeated almost ad nauseam: "unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply." Well, here is the short version again: - You have no argument in the rules whatsoever - Your other arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect |
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Feb 28, 2021 19:20:46 GMT
If the point was to prove that a unit in 8th that was moved by the HoG had a -1 penalty at shooting, then yes, the Generals compendium has no standing, but as so many times before you miss the actual point I'm trying to make so let me lay it out for you:
At one point in time someone other than me, who was an official emplyee at GW, had the idea to make a distinction between a unit moving and a unit being moved (by a boat). Yes, it was unoffical rules, but they were good enough for GW to publish them with thier logo on the front, so I think it's safe to say that those rules were not totally contradictory to GW's idea of Warhammer at the time. Now, GW may have changed their mind regarding this in later editions. They may have hated just that rule and loved the rest. Who knows? But the idea is still there and it shows exactly what I'm trying to say.
You seem to think that this whole discussion is a case of you saying "the rule is A" and I'm saying "the rule is B", when it closer to you stating in your original post that "the rule i A" and me responding "I'm not sure..."
So If I may borrow your summary:
- You have no argument in the rules whatsoever.
True, but neither do you. Your whole argument is based on assumption and all the ruletexts you provide is actually regarding something else than moving = being forced to move = being moved.
My assumption that moving and being move are not equal in the rules are actually merited by the lack of any text stating that it is so. (By your own words, if the rules don't say you CAN see them as equal, then you CAN'T). If that sentence on p. 40 had said: "Models that WERE moved for any reason..." instead of "Models that moved for any reason..." I would have no doubt, but as it is written and in conjunction with the distinction in the unofficial Generals Compendium that is enough for me to be uncertain and nothing you have referred to in the rules so far have convinced me otherwise.
- Your other arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect.
That's because you are looking for arguments that either disprove A or prove B, neither of which I've tried to do. If you try to let go of that for a second you may see it in another light.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 1, 2021 17:42:12 GMT
If the point was to prove that a unit in 8th that was moved by the HoG had a -1 penalty at shooting, then yes, the Generals compendium has no standing, but as so many times before you miss the actual point I'm trying to make so let me lay it out for you: At one point in time someone other than me, who was an official emplyee at GW, had the idea to make a distinction between a unit moving and a unit being moved (by a boat). Yes, it was unoffical rules, but they were good enough for GW to publish them with thier logo on the front, so I think it's safe to say that those rules were not totally contradictory to GW's idea of Warhammer at the time. Now, GW may have changed their mind regarding this in later editions. They may have hated just that rule and loved the rest. Who knows? But the idea is still there and it shows exactly what I'm trying to say. You seem to think that this whole discussion is a case of you saying "the rule is A" and I'm saying "the rule is B", when it closer to you stating in your original post that "the rule i A" and me responding "I'm not sure..." You are welcome to indulge as much as you like in fanciful speculations of what the rules could be, to adapt and invent house rules for friendly games, but in a rules discussion, the only thing that matters is what the rules are. Over the various editions, GW had a number of ideas which were turned into official and unofficial rules, but the fact that such ideas have been floating around have no relevance whatsoever for the current rules. There is, however, one thing all editions adhere to: unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply. To demonstrate this, let us turn to the General’s Compendium. Regarding the rules for boats, as I observed when you had brought it up as an example: After I had pointed out that those rules were from the unofficial 6th edition compendium, I added: To wit General’s Compendium p. 139: “Shooting from a ship works in the same way it does on land. The ship may move in the water, but the shooters do not count as moving unless they change position on deck. War machines may pivot as normal. “ Since the Compendium specifically states otherwise, normal rules do not apply here. Since the Hand of Gork does not specifically state otherwise, normal rules do apply there. So If I may borrow your summary: - You have no argument in the rules whatsoever. True, but neither do you. Your whole argument is based on assumption and all the ruletexts you provide is actually regarding something else than moving = being forced to move = being moved. My assumption that moving and being move are not equal in the rules are actually merited by the lack of any text stating that it is so. (By your own words, if the rules don't say you CAN see them as equal, then you CAN'T). If that sentence on p. 40 had said: "Models that WERE moved for any reason..." instead of "Models that moved for any reason..." I would have no doubt, but as it is written and in conjunction with the distinction in the unofficial Generals Compendium that is enough for me to be uncertain and nothing you have referred to in the rules so far have convinced me otherwise. - Your other arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect. That's because you are looking for arguments that either disprove A or prove B, neither of which I've tried to do. If you try to let go of that for a second you may see it in another light. There is so much wrong here. Most importantly, you really cannot seem to grasp the basic rule: unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply. Secondly, the rules do not need to specifically state that something is not a rule, or has no impact on the rules. The rules do not need to state that the term "model" and "figure" are synonyms, and that using one or the other has no impact on the rules. They would only need to state if there actually was a difference between the two that impacted the rules. Theoretically, "Monstrous Beast" and "Monster" could just be synonyms, but in Warhammer, they are not, and using one or the other has a direct impact on the rules. Hence, the rules specifically state so. The same applies to "move" and "being moved." Not only is there no rule specifying that and how they differ, you also simply ignore the fact that I provided examples that refute your assertion beyond any reasonable doubt. To repeat: Statues do move too, you know. This will be my last post on this matter. It is rather tedious to go into a discussion with someone who (by his own admission) cannot even be bothered to actually read all relevant posts. |
|
|
|
Post by padre on Mar 2, 2021 10:58:49 GMT
As you say, FvonSigmaringen...
It is this, basically, that has kept me in the hobby since 1st ed 1983. This and campaigns go together. I have never played in a 'league' kind of campaign, but always in roleplayed ones, attempting to simulate a little world, with a GM (me) who can try to incorporate all sorts of player ideas into the campaign.
But this indulgent statement is not why I am here, but for a related issue. I am very much in agreement with your last sentiment, Fvon Sigmaringen,
It can be tedious to read too!
|
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Mar 2, 2021 20:27:44 GMT
Let me see if I can do that quoting thing, but bear with me if I this looks funny. There is, however, one thing all editions adhere to: unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply. Yes, but if it is as I suspect, there is no normal rule for a unit being moved(transported by something that is out of their own control). All the texts you have quoted are in regards to units using their movement, M-stat, legs, wings or wheels to move by themselves or being forced to do so, which not the same thing as the transportation that HoG provides. For this reason, I cannot rely on "normal rules". We read this completely differently. This is the way I see the text: “Shooting from a ship works in the same way it does on land." means there is no difference between this rule and normal rules, they work the same. "The ship may move in the water, but the shooters do not count as moving unless they change position on deck." is a clarification which means that on a boat, just as on land, a unit does not count as having moved if it is standing still on a moving object - in this case a boat. And the reason I bring it up is because of the possibility that the HoG is just another means of transportation. I grasp it just fine. What you don't seem to grasp is that I don't think that there is a normal rule that covers this. See reasons above. Oh? Says who or what? And what happened to "if there is no rule that says you CAN do something, you CAN'T"? There is no rule that says moving and being moved(transported by something that is out of their own control) can be read as the same thing ruleswise, so we can't assume that they are. So now we need rule specifying that two things differ, and if there is none, those are the same? No, there is nothing in the rules that say a skink is not a piece of terrain, yet we can pretty safely assume they are not. And as none of your so reasonable examples adress the issue at hand, there still is very much reason to doubt. More on this below. So, these are examples of the text not distinguishing between "move" and "be moved? 24. Not sure how you read this, but to me the first "moved" is in regard to the player physically pushing the models forward, the second "move" is when the unit uses it's M-stat value to change positions. Looks quite distinct, even if it's the same form of the word. But sure, I may be missing something. 74. Same thing, the first "moved" is about the player, second is when the unit uses it's ability to move. 97. Yeah same again. It says; A unit can only move it's legs before a character joins, so have the character bounce in there only after you have pushed the unit forward with your hand. 197. Translated: If the unit doesn't use it's ability walk forward through a doorway, then you as the player pull the movement tray backwards with your hand. All and all, it's the same word but it's not really hard from the context to follow what is meant. None of these "beyond any reasonable doubt-examples" gives me any reason to think that a character standing on a moving object has a -1 to hit. Mainly that's because when I read the text on p.40, I read the "move" as "the unit using it's legs" and not as "using it's legs, being forced to use it's legs OR being transported by an external force while not using it's legs". If that was what the author had ment, he could just have written WERE MOVED instead of THAT MOVED. He didn't, and although you state that he didn't have to, that leaves us with a rule that may not apply to HoG, Boats or elevators. Again, may not. I'm perfectly willing to concede the possibilty that it's the other way around, I just don't see it as 100% certain. Um... not sure what this is about, but if you see inanimate objects moving then I compleatly understand that you also see rules that may not be there. And thank you for your time and effort. Although we may disagree, and while I still don't really know if you understood mine, I respect your point of view and I'm happy we had this chance to discuss it. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Mar 2, 2021 20:33:25 GMT
You are simply trying to infer a difference between moved and moving, where no difference exists. If something is moved, it has moved. Unless it has a specific rule stating otherwise it is therefore treated as having moved. Quite straightforward really
|
|
|
|
Post by padre on Mar 2, 2021 21:27:13 GMT
Your analysis of the word(s) 'move'/'moved', might be unnecessary specifically because the BRB does not address the difference you perceive, or see any real need to. The authors use various forms of language to describe real world and game world movement, but never in the sense of making a ruling regarding the differentiation of those two particular concepts of movement.
I think the BRB authors switch between the idea of game-world movement (marching, charging, etc) and tabletop movement (pushing trays or models around) not because they think there is a rules-need to differentiate, but just to let their language flow. Nor does it necessarily mean that they had in mind a third classification of movement - magical assisted movement.
The movement is both things moving in the game world and on the tabletop, at one and the same time, and the differences that do come into play concern the rules describing different types of movement - fleeing, charging, flying types of movement (etc). At great length, for clarity, all these are covered.
But the BRB does not seem to address the two kinds of movement you are describing. It doesn't clarify, address or tease out the issue.
A unit moving is both the game world unit moving and the real world toy soldiers moving. There is guidance on aligning to the enemy after charging, for example, which brings out a comparison between movement in 'real battles' and in the 'Warhammer' version. But that's not necessarily quite what you are referring to.
One might debate as follows, which I believe is loosely another form of one of FVon's arguments ...
Person X moved from A to B. Whether X walked, drove or was driven there by a taxi driver doesn't change the fact that X moved.
Unit Y moved from C to D. Whether Y charged, fled, or was pushed there by a player doesn't change the fact that Y moved.
Like I said, the BRB outlines all sorts of movements, carefully ruling on each of them. But it does not appear to rule on the difference between moving in the real world and moving on the table, beyond the example 'real battles' cf.'Warhammer'. The language interchanges, within sentences, between moving on the table and in the game world, but nowhere seems to suggest that this is because there is some rules consequences of being moved the player's hand, or the models' game-world legs, nor by magic. (Other than, perhaops, p.13's advice to "Give 'em an inch").
So, assuming "Unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply" and combining this with the lack of written rules differentiation to be found between moving on the tabletop and moving in the game world, especially in light of the fact that the authors use the two interchangeably, then I do not think one can use the authors' muddled use of language to suggest a rule that is not actually stated anywhere.
If a rule says it, you can do it. otherwise, not.
As I always say, such debates can be resolved by (a) playing friendly &/or (b) having a gamesmaster (as the first ed rules suggested)!
Or, do what the rules do say ..
P.13 Give 'em an inch!
P.3 The Spirit of the Game ... 'add your own ideas and sense of fun to the game'.
BTW, anechrome, Fvon's mention of statues make perfect sense if you read his posts. He went into quite some detail, even giving historical examples, which is always fun! I particularly liked his comment "... miracles aside but that would have been noted"! He may know why! BTW, FvonS, I have a 1650's book by Bishop Wilkins on Mathematical Magic in which the movement of statues is discussed several times. 'Tis fun!
(Edit) Jeez! I wish I could organise my thoughts as clearly and succintly as Horace. Everyone, skip my post (which might be too late) and read Horace's. Still, it was fun trying to organise my thoughts, and it gave me a chance to flick through the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Mar 3, 2021 0:39:47 GMT
Hi Padre!
For the record I think you organized your thoughts quite well and I felt it was quite easy to follow.
I must say that you make a very compelling argument and as I've said before, this may very well be the right way to interpret it. There are however two things that come to mind when I read this.
Clarify no, but tease, well... I think there are quite a few examples of this actually. One that springs to mind just because I read it earlier today:
From the BRB official update 1.9: Q: Can characters change position inside a unit as part of a normal move?(p97)
A: Yes, as long as they end up in the rank closest to the front of the unit that has a space in. It is also worth remembering that even if only the character moves the whole unit will count as moving that turn. Having a belligerent officer barge his way through the unit is not conducive to a good round of shooting!
Here we have movement within the unit when the player is not pushing the movement tray. Now, compare this to if a character would join a unit (BRB p. 97. A unit which has been joined by a character... ...only counts as having moved if it has itself moved...)
In both cases, the player moves the character and rearranges the models in the unit, but in the first scenario the unit counts as having moved, in the other they don't. That to me hints of a difference between the two and suggests that the -1 for shooting should be applied when the toy soldiers are running around, not because the player is touching them.
But then again, this is absolutely not hard evidence and as you said:
So why am I still critical of this way of reading the rules, as in If it wasn't written, it cannot be so? They clearly doesn't say there's a difference between the two (or three) types of "Move", but there is no text that says "moving is moving, nomatter who or what does it" either. You're reasoning is very solid here, the text use the meanings of the words interchangably, but "If a rules says it, you can do it. Otherwise not". So if the rules don't tell me that the meanings are interchangable, and I can also find examples of them not being so combined with noumeros other posts on different forumus having this exact debate seemingly because people read the same text in diffent ways - then I go to the Why instead. And this brings me to my second point.
Why did they write it like they did on p.40 in the BRB: "Models that moved for any reason during the preceding Movement or Magic phase will have less time to aim, making their shots less accurate and suffering a shooting modifier of -1."? There are a bunch of diffent ways to write this text so that it would beyond any doubt handle the HoG question, one of which I mentioned before; "Models that were moved...", and why did they need to include the thing about time to aim if it doesn't matter what the models are actually up to as long as anyone or anything has moved them?
Well, three possibilitys come to mind.
1) They didn't need to specify it. It's as you describe. It doesn't matter how or why a unit is moved, the same rules apply. No need to clarify, it's all the same and most people (exept me?) that read it will instantly understand this.
2) They didn't know they needed to specify it. Here I consider both that the BRB was released in 2009 and the O&G came the following year. I don't have access to the 7th ed BRB (if someone could check this it would be fun to know), but the HoG spell changed from 6th ed to 8th. They may not have had a reason to specify effects from moving objects (or spells that summon unitmoving hands) because there were no such spell before? And even if they knew about the hand, did they know it's rules actually caused the unit to physically move over the battlefield? I know many people understood the HoG as a teleport spell and it was only when the FAQ regarding the fanatics came that it was absolutley clear. I think there are 2 other spells in the game that move units, Walk between worlds which doesn't really have the same implications and one more that right now I can't remember. If these two don't have the same function as the HoG where it actually carries a unit AND were in the game at the time of writing, then there is just one single instance, the HoG, where the diffence between a unit moving and a unit moved by something not in the units control presents itself. That's quite easy to miss when you're writing a 500 page book. Sidenote, as far as I know, it is still not to this day, absolutly clear if that green hand moves in a straight line or if it can take detours to it's final destination.
3) They didn't want or care to specify it. We write fast, don't spend too much time on checking their texts, and then fix the kinks when GW gets enough annoying letters from annoying fans about it. Here we can just look at the size of the Errata and FAQ that followed the years after release. Not sure if it was just me, but when I bought the BRB there was already a small card inside it with a rule update regarding victorypoints. To support this, have a look at the first Q in the BRB FAQ: What happens when there is a conflict between two magic items
or special rules? (p2)
A: Use ‘The Most Important Rule’
Another way to phase that is -"Just figure it out for yourselves and stop bothering us 'cause there is no way in hell we're gonna adress every single possible conflict here. This FAQ is long enough as it is..." Yes, that cynical but it kind of makes sence from a financial perspective, right? Also, they killed my favorite game. I feel I have a right to be cynical to a certain extent...
Now, all of this is of course speculation, but let me leave you with this (and then I really need to go to bed): How sure are you, on a scale from Absolute Certainty to Holy Crap I No Longer Sure Im Not a Fish, are you that 1) is true?
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Mar 3, 2021 5:25:21 GMT
Stop trolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by padre on Mar 3, 2021 8:00:37 GMT
@ anechrome: I forgot the quote that you pointed out.
"Models that moved for any reason during the preceding Movement or Magic phase will have less time to aim, making their shots less accurate and suffering a shooting modifier of -1."
So yeah, there is no doubt about the issue. The answer is actually there. They literally write movement for any reason. That covers any kind of movement, and thus all three kinds I speculated.
I wish my perambulations through the rules had taken me to that spot but I assumed you guys had already checked the actual 'rule as written' out.
As a GM, as soon as I read that rule, or more likely had it pointed out to me, the matter would be decided.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 3, 2021 8:06:18 GMT
Well, it is just an issue of reading relevant posts  , like in my very first answer to anechrome: You are overthinking things again. A unit cannot be moved without also moving. Here are the normal rules ( Italics mine): BRB p. 40 (updated): "Models that moved for any reason during this turn will have less time to aim, making their shots less accurate and suffering a shooting modifier of -1." BRB p. 73: "A weapon with the Move or Fire special rule cannot be fired in the Shooting phase if the model moved earlier in the turn. This even applies if the model in question was forced to move as the result of a spell or other such compulsory action." As the spell that does not specifically state an exemption, normal rules apply. |
|
|
|
Post by padre on Mar 3, 2021 8:21:05 GMT
Yeah. Oops. I did actually read all the posts, but then time passed and the debate went on and I concentrated on the details of the current posts. Which made that rule really jump out at me when it was quoted again.
In a game situation, I would have read that rule first, as it directly apples to the issue, accepted it and moved on. Here it wasn't accepted, things didn't move on, and I got drawn into the details of several other issues!
Still, as a rambling, almost philosophical discussion, it was distracting in the middle of a pandemic lock down!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Mar 3, 2021 8:52:41 GMT
From the BRB official update 1.9: Q: Can characters change position inside a unit as part of a normal move?(p97)
A: Yes, as long as they end up in the rank closest to the front of the unit that has a space in. It is also worth remembering that even if only the character moves the whole unit will count as moving that turn. Having a belligerent officer barge his way through the unit is not conducive to a good round of shooting!Here we have movement within the unit when the player is not pushing the movement tray. Now, compare this to if a character would join a unit (BRB p. 97. A unit which has been joined by a character... ...only counts as having moved if it has itself moved...)In both cases, the player moves the character and rearranges the models in the unit, but in the first scenario the unit counts as having moved, in the other they don't. That to me hints of a difference between the two and suggests that the -1 for shooting should be applied when the toy soldiers are running around, not because the player is touching them. - Any thoughts on this? I mean in regards to p.97 seemingly contradicting p.40 if p.40 is to be understood as including the player moving the models? |
|
|
|
Post by padre on Mar 3, 2021 9:17:52 GMT
The answer to that is in the quotes themselves, RAW. A character moves to join a stationery unit. Compared to a character 'barging through' the unit, 'belligerently'!
The rules writers have apparently decided that, in a spirit of simplification which is the very nature of the game compared to real battles, the one action will count as far more disruptive than the other, because in the more disruptive action someone is barging through and causing a lot of models to move out of the way. Whereas when a character joins a unit it is possible that only one or two characters step aside.
You might be looking for a contradiction where the rules writers did not see one. Or, at the most, where they decided to state an exception to the generally applied rule. Nearly every special rule is an exception to the general rules. The book is replete with them. Here is another one.
So to me, this particular issue you have raised does not seem in any way to support an argument that there is an unwritten intention in the -1 to shoot &/or move or shoot rules to differentiate between units (not characters) moving in the game world, model units moving on the table top and units moved by magic.
All these kinds of unit movement are clearly covered by the phrase 'moved for any reason' and only RAW stated exceptions, such as when a character joins a unit, can alter this.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Mar 3, 2021 9:27:44 GMT
And stop feeding the troll.
He is obviously just trolling now and don’t care for any answers or reading the rules.
|
|
, like in my very first answer to anechrome: