2 hours ago, nashjaee said:

You are absolutely correct! It applies to all of the minis that move through.

In this case, “all of the minis” = the unit leader. ? Because it’s the only one that moves through anything. All other minis are picked up and placed.

I really don’t mean for that to sound snarky, just trying to make my point. To define a path for the other minis to move through, even hypothetically, is to introduce a new rule that does not currently exist!

It’s clear that movement is designed to be something of an abstraction when you start thinking about the distances the non-leader minis can actually end up from their original starting position, even in open ground. It is technically possible for a unit with range 2 movement to have minis that end the turn more than 7” further away than a range 2 movement would take them by themselves (7” being the combined distance of two cohesion placements, if they started and ended on opposite sides of the unit leader at maximum range).

All miniature games are full of abstractions, which is why you always have to look at RAW. In this case RAW seems clear that non leader minis don’t actually move.

1 hour ago, Orkimedes said:

It’s clear that movement is designed to be something of an abstraction when you start thinking about the distances the non-leader minis can actually end up from their original starting position, even in open ground. It is technically possible for a unit with range 2 movement to have minis that end the turn more than 7” further away than a range 2 movement would take them by themselves (7” being the combined distance of two cohesion placements, if they started and ended on opposite sides of the unit leader at maximum range).

All miniature games are full of abstractions, which is why you always have to look at RAW. In this case RAW seems clear that non leader minis don’t actually move.

If that were “clear” it wouldn’t specify that such a thing is clearly possible, as shown on page 25 under difficult terrain (emphasis added):

While performing a standard move, a unit that would move through or enter difficult terrain with any of its minis has its maximum speed reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

If that were “clear” it wouldn’t specify that such a thing is clearly possible, as shown on page 25 under difficult terrain (emphasis added):

While performing a standard move, a unit that would move through or enter difficult terrain with any of its minis has its maximum speed reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1.

Yeah, but that only means what I said above :

By RAW, I apply it as

"if at least 1 mini of my unit starts or ends in a terrain I apply movement penalty.
If minis were not in terrain and do not end up not in terrain, the leader not crossing terrain, then there are no penalties."

I won't teleport a mini in terrain when the leader didn't move in terrain and moved its full distance. The non leaders are basically "infinite distance movement" so limitations don't apply to them unless they cause a penalty that would apply to the whole unit. They could be running around the whole map, terrain excepted, it wouldn't make a difference.

Take your barricade example; The leader moves around the barricade. The other minis don't move in a straight line through that barricade: They actually do a 30" jog around the map and end up in cohesion with the squad leader. Or even better, they actually moved in a conga line on the path of the leader, then jumped over him to their new position. Never did they have to move through terrain, because the rules say that they don't actually move through a path.

The only time the other minis matter for movement is when they were in terrain at the start or end up in terrain, where it's clearly states "if they enter difficult" blahblah so they can't end up in terrain if the unit moved full speed (well, it states they have to move at -1 speed if they enter it, which ends up meaning the same).

16 hours ago, Deuzerre said:

Yeah, but that only means what I said above :

Take your barricade example; The leader moves around the barricade. The other minis don't move in a straight line through that barricade: They actually do a 30" jog around the map and end up in cohesion with the squad leader. Or even better, they actually moved in a conga line on the path of the leader, then jumped over him to their new position. Never did they have to move through terrain, because the rules say that they don't actually move through a path.

The only time the other minis matter for movement is when they were in terrain at the start or end up in terrain, where it's clearly states "if they enter difficult" blahblah so they can't end up in terrain if the unit moved full speed (well, it states they have to move at -1 speed if they enter it, which ends up meaning the same).

Again, the hypothetical language in regards to any mini in the unit belies your theory about it applying to only the leader.

It literally states that it applies to not leader minis that would; not do; would.

28 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Again, the hypothetical language in regards to any mini in the unit belies your theory about it applying to only the leader.

It literally states that it applies to not leader minis that would; not do; would.

I don't think the non-leader minis move at all, hypothetical or otherwise, by RAW. I think that is @Deuzerre 's point. It's sloppy sentence structure, but I think the in the bit that says • While performing a standard move, a unit that would move through or enter difficult terrain with any of its minis has its maximum speed reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1, which I think is the bit you are referring to, the move through part only applies to the unit leader. The enter difficult terrain with any of its minis obviously applies to the minis that are placed in cohesion and don't move, as well.

Let's suppose, for a minute though, they do move (which is debatable). How do you establish their movement path? Non leader minis already get from point A to point B in a way that is abstract and indirect.

Consider the below example.

In the first scenario, there is no terrain at all. I think we can all agree this is a legal move. However, the non leader mini ends up more than twice the distance of the leader mini from his original position (the range 2 tool is 5" and the range 1 tool is 3", so the leader moves 5" and the non-leader moves 11")

In the second scenario, the non-leader mini, if it moved in a straight line, no more than range 2, would have to pass over the barricades. However, if you teleport it around the barricades by moving 11", it doesn't have to cross terrain at all. How do you establish that this is it's "hypothetical" movement path and not the straight distance between the two?

The concept of a hypothetical movement path is far too nebulous and abstract to be applied clearly and consistently.

In any case, hopefully this will all be solidified in their first FAQ or an email from Alex.

5 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

Let's suppose, for a minute though, they do move (which is debatable). How do you establish their movement path?

@Derrault , this right here is the most important thing you need to address! Please show us something in the rulebook that defines a movement path for these minis. I'll save you some time:

The only thing that comes close is the cohesion placement. When you place the mini, you ensure it is within a 1-speed move of the leader using the 1-speed movement tool. This is the only thing you can point to that comes remotely close to being a "movement path" for these minis. The only thing that can be remotely debated. Which is why I submitted that question to Alex. I, for one, don't think that placement counts as a movement path but maybe I'm wrong. We'll see what Alex says.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

@Derrault , this right here is the most important thing you need to address! Please show us something in the rulebook that defines a movement path for these minis. I'll save you some time:

The only thing that comes close is the cohesion placement. When you place the mini, you ensure it is within a 1-speed move of the leader using the 1-speed movement tool. This is the only thing you can point to that comes remotely close to being a "movement path" for these minis. The only thing that can be remotely debated. Which is why I submitted that question to Alex. I, for one, don't think that placement counts as a movement path but maybe I'm wrong. We'll see what Alex says.

And, of course, when discussing this hypothetical 1-speed movement, we have to acknowledge that it says the move from leader position to placement position has to be such that it could be performed as a speed-1 move which, even across a barricade, it legally could be.

The language seems quite clear, to me at least. Why would anyone write "could be" when they mean "is"? They don't.

As always I look forward to these matters being put to bed by the rules staff. Sometimes players genuinely come up with situations the designers didn't consider.

1 hour ago, Orkimedes said:

I don't think the non-leader minis move at all, hypothetical or otherwise, by RAW. I think that is @Deuzerre 's point. It's sloppy sentence structure, but I think the in the bit that says • While performing a standard move, a unit that would move through or enter difficult terrain with any of its minis has its maximum speed reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1, which I think is the bit you are referring to, the move through part only applies to the unit leader. The enter difficult terrain with any of its minis obviously applies to the minis that are placed in cohesion and don't move, as well.

Let's suppose, for a minute though, they do move (which is debatable). How do you establish their movement path? Non leader minis already get from point A to point B in a way that is abstract and indirect.

Consider the below example.

In the first scenario, there is no terrain at all. I think we can all agree this is a legal move. However, the non leader mini ends up more than twice the distance of the leader mini from his original position (the range 2 tool is 5" and the range 1 tool is 3", so the leader moves 5" and the non-leader moves 11")

In the second scenario, the non-leader mini, if it moved in a straight line, no more than range 2, would have to pass over the barricades. However, if you teleport it around the barricades by moving 11", it doesn't have to cross terrain at all. How do you establish that this is it's "hypothetical" movement path and not the straight distance between the two?

The concept of a hypothetical movement path is far too nebulous and abstract to be applied clearly and consistently.

In any case, hopefully this will all be solidified in their first FAQ or an email from Alex.

If you are correct, the yes, that sentence structure is perversely wrong. As written the modifier “with any of its minis” can only apply to the whole binary premise (move through or enter).

As for the pathing, I already provided a pronged test using the structure of the existing tools: The length of a range 1 move (aka the speed of difficult terrain) at full extension is the same distance as a right angle on the range 2 movement tool (which the tool must be at in order to reach one side of a barricade from the other without going across it).

It follows that: If the leader is moving anywhere away from the barricade, it would force the mini on the other side of the barricade to traverse through it.

If the leader moves in parallel to the barricade, or towards the side the other mini is on, it wouldn’t.

6 minutes ago, Derrault said:

As for the pathing, I already provided a pronged test using the structure of the existing tools: The length of a range 1 move (aka the speed of difficult terrain) at full extension is the same distance as a right angle on the range 2 movement tool (which the tool must be at in order to reach one side of a barricade from the other without going across it).

Ok, but why do they have to follow that route? Why can't I say that they take this circuitous route around the barrier(s) and end up at this final position without ever crossing a barrier? Again, cite a rule.

And again I'll save you the time: the rule doesn't exist. They get picked up and placed.

I sense that you trying to add a bit of realism to the movement of the units? Sure, realistically there would have to be some sort of path that they trace. But the game mechanics don't care about that path. One of the selling points of this game is fast, smooth gameplay where we don't have to measure movement for every individual model. I think the rule you are trying to introduce undermines that.

Keep it simple, and all that.

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Ok, but why do they have to follow that route? Why can't I say that they take this circuitous route around the barrier(s) and end up at this final position without ever crossing a barrier? Again, cite a rule.

And again I'll save you the time: the rule doesn't exist. They get picked up and placed.

I sense that you trying to add a bit of realism to the movement of the units? Sure, realistically there would have to be some sort of path that they trace. But the game mechanics don't care about that path. One of the selling points of this game is fast, smooth gameplay where we don't have to measure movement for every individual model. I think the rule you are trying to introduce undermines that.

So, apart from hand waiving, did you have another explanation for why they specified in the Difficult Terrain rule that any mini in a unit if it would move through difficult terrain reduces the entire unit speed to 1?

The rule for exists, plainly. The only question was how to determine when it’s applied, not if.

The obvious answer would be to say if we did measure out movement for each mini, instead of using shorthand, would that obviously pass through difficult terrain. If yes, slowed. All it requires is a simple eyeball test, not laborious measurement, because, as previously established, it’s physically impossible to get any further than the immediate other side of a barricade (identical to a range 1 move through a barricade) using a range 2 movement.

33 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The only     qu  estion was how to determine when it  ’s app  lie   d

You have been asked that exact question more than once now. And you keep refusing.

At this point, I honestly think you’re just trolling...

50 minutes ago, Derrault said:

So, apart from hand waiving, did you have another explanation for why they specified in the Difficult Terrain rule that any mini in a unit if it would move through difficult terrain reduces the entire unit speed to 1?

The rule for exists, plainly. The only question was how to determine when it’s applied, not if.

The obvious answer would be to say if we did measure out movement for each mini, instead of using shorthand, would that obviously pass through difficult terrain. If yes, slowed. All it requires is a simple eyeball test, not laborious measurement, because, as previously established, it’s physically impossible to get any further than the immediate other side of a barricade (identical to a range 1 move through a barricade) using a range 2 movement.

Absolutely not. The only measure is from the leader.
The cases where it applies for the other minis is if they start or end up in terrain.
They do not have a path. YOu're making it overly complicated for nothing.

The obvious answer is actually the opposite of what you said. We already know the minis can move faster than the squad leader: So they basically have movement = Infinite, and take the path they WANT. Not the path you decide for them, as long as they physically end in cohesion.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

So, apart from hand waiving, did you have another explanation for why they specified in the Difficult Terrain rule that any mini in a unit if it would move through difficult terrain reduces the entire unit speed to 1?

The rule for exists, plainly. The only question was how to determine when it’s applied, not if.

The obvious answer would be to say if we did measure out movement for each mini, instead of using shorthand, would that obviously pass through difficult terrain. If yes, slowed. All it requires is a simple eyeball test, not laborious measurement, because, as previously established, it’s physically impossible to get any further than the immediate other side of a barricade (identical to a range 1 move through a barricade) using a range 2 movement.

How would you go about determining the path of the non-leader minis if you pick them up and move them to the side first, as the L2P manual suggests you do?

In any case, clearly there is some confusing wording in the RRG. I don't think this thread is getting anywhere further productive until we hear something from FFG.

The "with any of its minis" clause is because some minis in a unit may be in difficult area terrain while the leader is not.

"A unit that begins a move, moves through, or ends a move with any of its minis in difficult terrain has its maximum speed reduced by 1, to a minimum of 1." - RR 8

Non-leader minis don't "move through" anything, and they don't follow a specific path, but they do begin and end a move in a specific location.

16 hours ago, nashjaee said:

You have been asked that exact question more than once now. And you keep refusing.

At this point, I honestly think you’re just trolling...

It would probably help if you’d read the response I already provided 3 times now. I suppose one more time can’t hurt:

The obvious     a  nswer would be to say if we did measure out movement for each mini, instead       of using shorthand, would that obviously pass th  rough difficult  ter  r  a  in      .  If yes, slowed. All it requires is a simple eyeball test  , not labo  rious measurement, because, as previously established, it’s physically impossible to get  any fur  ther than t  he immediate other side of a barricade (identical to a range 1 m  ove through a barricade) using a range 2 movement. 

@Contrapulator If that is the intended meaning, then the sentence should be rewritten to make it clear that the moves through only applies to the leader of a unit.

56 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It would probably help if you’d read the response I already provided 3 times now. I suppose one more time can’t hurt:

The obvious     a  nswer would be to say if we did measure out movement for each mini, instead       of using shorthand, would that obviously pass th  rough difficult  ter  r  a  in      .  If yes, slowed. All it requires is a simple eyeball test  , not labo  rious measurement, because, as previously established, it’s physically impossible to get  any fur  ther than t  he immediate other side of a barricade (identical to a range 1 m  ove through a barricade) using a range 2 movement. 

I suppose I should copy-paste as well? Key parts are highlighted.

Quote

Ok, but why do they have to follow that route ? Why can't I say that they take this circuitous route around the barrier(s) and end up at this final position without ever crossing a barrier? Again, cite a rule .

And again I'll save you the time: the rule doesn't exist. They get picked up and placed.

I sense that you trying to add a bit of realism to the movement of the units? Sure, realistically there would have to be some sort of path that they trace. But the game mechanics don't care about that path .

That's just what the rules say, man. The measurements that you propose are not supported by the rules. In fact, they contradict the rules. You are creating a new rule . We are trying to get you to see that .

I apologize if my "trolling" comment was out of line, but you must understand why it appears that way.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

@Contrapulator If that is the intended meaning, then the sentence should be rewritten to make it clear that the moves through only applies to the leader of a unit.

This thread may be enough evidence that rewording it (or adding another sentence) would help. But the text currently does not contradict the idea that only the unit leader has a movement path and is the only one capable of "moving through" things. It just may be confusing to parse.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

I suppose I should copy-paste as well? Key parts are highlighted.

That's just what the rules say, man. The measurements that you propose are not supported by the rules. In fact, they contradict the rules. You are creating a new rule . We are trying to get you to see that .

I apologize if my "trolling" comment was out of line, but you must understand why it appears that way.

This thread may be enough evidence that rewording it (or adding another sentence) would help. But the text currently does not contradict the idea that only the unit leader has a movement path and is the only one capable of "moving through" things. It just may be confusing to parse.

Since we were attempting to quantify the abstracted movement of cohesion to determine if a non-leader mini of a unit would move through difficult terrain, aka a barricade, then the proposal was to imagine one of two possibilities as if it were that particular mini that movement was being measured from:

1) a direct line from the only position to the new. (The shortest path)

2) movement speed of the unit using the least circuitous route possible and see if that crosses the barrier or not.

It turns out that a direct route at speed 1 is also the same as a speed two maneuver using maximum bend (90) on the speed 2 tool. So, if we did measure every mini it would be literally impossible to go further than the immediate other side of a barricade without exceeding the speed 2.

Now, if we are to reconcile the rule about if any mini would move through difficult terrain (since we already know that cohesions abstraction doesn’t actually move them through it) the only remaining possibility is that we are meant to imagine a move by that specific mini using the speed of the unit.

And, to be perfectly clear, I’m adjudicating the rule as provided , not creating a new one.

20 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Since we were attempting to quantify the abstracted movement of cohesion to determine if a non-leader mini of a unit would move through difficult terrain, aka a barricade, then the proposal was to imagine one of two possibilities as if it were that particular mini that movement was being measured from:

1) a direct line from the only position to the new. (The shortest path)

2) movement speed of the unit using the least circuitous route possible and see if that crosses the barrier or not.

It turns out that a direct route at speed 1 is also the same as a speed two maneuver using maximum bend (90) on the speed 2 tool. So, if we did measure every mini it would be literally impossible to go further than the immediate other side of a barricade without exceeding the speed 2.

Now, if we are to reconcile the rule about if any mini would move through difficult terrain (since we already know that cohesions abstraction doesn’t actually move them through it) the only remaining possibility is that we are meant to imagine a move by that specific mini using the speed of the unit.

And, to be perfectly clear, I’m adjudicating the rule as provided , not creating a new one.

*Sigh*

I stand by my “trolling” comment...

52 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Since we were attempting to quantify the abstracted movement of cohesion to determine if a non-leader mini of a unit would move through difficult terrain, aka a barricade, then the proposal was to imagine one of two possibilities as if it were that particular mini that movement was being measured from:

1) a direct line from the only position to the new. (The shortest path)

2) movement speed of the unit using the least circuitous route possible and see if that crosses the barrier or not.

It turns out that a direct route at speed 1 is also the same as a speed two maneuver using maximum bend (90) on the speed 2 tool. So, if we did measure every mini it would be literally impossible to go further than the immediate other side of a barricade without exceeding the speed 2.

Now, if we are to reconcile the rule about if any mini would move through difficult terrain (since we already know that cohesions abstraction doesn’t actually move them through it) the only remaining possibility is that we are meant to imagine a move by that specific mini using the speed of the unit.

And, to be perfectly clear, I’m adjudicating the rule as provided , not creating a new one.

I think the would that is tripping you up is meant to convey that it’s possible once the movement is shortened, the unit might not actually make it to the difficult terrain in the first place (and thus the player would just decide to move somewhere else at the unit’s normal speed) This is common in other games and why it is worded that way.

Basically it’s worded that way to ensure the player understands if you want to try and move into difficult terrain, you have to shorten your move to do so.

I don’t think it’s meant to introduce some kind of hypothetical movement path for non leader minis, which doesn’t exist anywhere else in the game, would be impossible to adjudicate consistently in a competitive setting, and contradicts their treatment as glorified wound counters in nearly every other game mechanic. This treatment is reinforced in the L2P guide when it advises you to move the non-leader minis off to the side while moving, and when it says you don’t even have to place them down if you do a double move (in between the first and second move).

Regardless, it could be worded more clearly, like a lot of the other bits in the RRG.

It’s a brand new game and FFG will sort things out eventually.

2 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

I think the would that is tripping you up is meant to convey that it’s possible once the movement is shortened, the unit might not actually make it to the difficult terrain in the first place (and thus the player would just decide to move somewhere else at the unit’s normal speed) This is common in other games and why it is worded that way.

Basically it’s worded that way to ensure the player understands if you want to try and move into difficult terrain, you have to shorten your move to do so.

I don’t think it’s meant to introduce some kind of hypothetical movement path for non leader minis, which doesn’t exist anywhere else in the game, would be impossible to adjudicate consistently in a competitive setting, and contradicts their treatment as glorified wound counters in nearly every other game mechanic. This treatment is reinforced in the L2P guide when it advises you to move the non-leader minis off to the side while moving, and when it says you don’t even have to place them down if you do a double move (in between the first and second move).

Regardless, it could be worded more clearly, like a lot of the other bits in the RRG.

It’s a brand new game and FFG will sort things out eventually.

It’s the combination of if any mini / would move through . The first part means it applies to all minis, the second means it applies to the hypothetical movement we don’t measure for courtesy of cohesion.

The learn to play guide omits or waters down a very large number of rules, so I wouldn’t look to that for any guidance.

@nashjaee if you can’t defend your position and don’t bother to read what I have patiently tried to convey, please don’t bother to respond going forward.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

@nashjaee if you can’t  def  end your position and don’t bother to read what I have patiently tried to convey, please don’t bother to respond going forwa  rd 

Come on, man. We can say exactly this about your responses. I and others have clearly laid out the rules for you in addition to addressing your concerns. Yet, you consistently ignore the parts that undermine the point you want to make. I hope you can understand the frustration here. I have read your posts and made an attempt to understand your position as thoroughly as I possibly can. Anyway, I don’t want to engage in personal attacks. Let’s get productive:

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

The  learn to play guide omits or  waters down a very large number of rule  s, so I wouldn’t look to that for a  ny guidance  . 

The passage that you are dismissing here actually exists in the RRG. I referred to it in a post on the previous page of this thread. It’s on page 18 of the RRG if you’d like to check.

We have told you several times that the minis are picked up and placed without following a path. Why do you ignore this point?

I even engaged you in a hypothetical on your terms. Let’s say there is an implicit path somewhere. How do we determine that path via the rules ? Why do you ignore this point?

And to be clear, when I say “how” I’m not asking “what do you think would be a reasonable solution”. I was not under the impression that we are discussing house rules here. I’m asking “what do you think the rules say about the path they follow”. Please disprove my proposal that they can take a circuitous route that avoids barriers. Use citations where possible, please.

The bottom line that we have been trying to convey is that you are adding content to the rules to justify your position.

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

1  ) a direct line from the only position to the new. (The shortest path)

   2) movement speed of the unit using the least circuitous route possible and see if that crosses the barri  er or no  t  .  

These proposals right here do not exist in the book. You are creating them. Does that make sense?

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

the  only remaining possibility is that we are meant to imagine a move by that specific mini using the speed of the unit. 

Are you saying the left side of the diagram @Orkimedes created is not legal? That mini certainly moved more than speed 2.

And @Orkimedes eloquently addressed the issue you have with the use of the word “would”. You dismiss it without good reason.

Unless you have good answers to these, we really should just let this thread die until we get a response to the original question(s).

"I think it should work like this."

"Well it doesn't."

"Well it should."

"Well it doesn't."

Rinse, repeat.

Tl;dr - It still doesn't.

Just sit back and wait for the email, @Derrault