Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 84 of 84
  1. #81
    Destroyer of Worlds marijnh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seebs View Post
    See, now we have an actual difference of opinion as to what the rule allows.

    Because I think it's quite clear that you are allowed to move through a model if you had enough movement that, in the absence of anything else stopping you, you could move across it, and pretty obviously intended that you are then required to do so, rather than voluntarily stopping earlier.

    But I don't think that "something else stopped you" means you weren't allowed to start doing the thing. If they wanted to say that, I think the words are just plain wrong.

    Also, no, the "have enough movement" wording doesn't give us "specifics and consistency", because it's less specific than "unless you move completely through it" would be, and as you note, there's nothing else using that language except other identical wording used in the same way. So if all of them had said something simpler or more direct, it'd still be just as consistent, and more specific.

    If something else stopped you, you didn't have enough movement to move completely past, hence you are not allowed to do so.

  2. #82
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marijnh View Post
    If something else stopped you, you didn't have enough movement to move completely past, hence you are not allowed to do so.
    See, this doesn't make sense to me. How much movement you have is a number you can observe at the time when you start moving.

    If something stops you, and interrupts or stops your movement, or prevents you from continuing, that isn't "don't have enough movement", that's "got stopped part way through your movement".

    !

    Okay, I think I finally get it.

    I'm reading "movement" as "the distance you're allowed to move". You're reading "movement" as "distance actually travelled". So if you have SPD 6 and move four inches, I say you had six inches movement and used four inches of it, but it sounds like you think that the model had four inches of movement. And that would explain most of the terminology arguments.

  3. #83
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seebs View Post
    Okay, I think I finally get it.

    I'm reading "movement" as "the distance you're allowed to move". You're reading "movement" as "distance actually travelled". So if you have SPD 6 and move four inches, I say you had six inches movement and used four inches of it, but it sounds like you think that the model had four inches of movement. And that would explain most of the terminology arguments.
    Ooh; good catch. For what it's worth, I was reading "having movement" in the same way you are. The other hadn't even occurred to me, but while I can see "movement" referring to move that you have _used_, the phrase "has enough movement" seems like a really awkward way to say "has moved".

    Interestingly, Primal MkII _did_ seem to have the concept of "a model's movement" to describe the amount that it _could_ potentially move (but hadn't necessarily moved yet.) You could have "penalties to your movement" which reduced your potential to move. In which case the phrase "has enough movement" actually made sense in Mk II, not that anyone cares now.

    In Primal MkIII, they have almost completely removed the use of the word "movement" to mean potential movement (from actual rules, anyways.) Which makes the phrase "has enough movement" kind of nonsense. The exceptions are all the rules we've been discussing (Flight, Incorporeal, Obstacles, also Flags, which I hadn't noticed before) the wording of which are, as Lanz points out, essentially unchanged from MkII. My guess would be that they simply didn't update the wording going into the new version, and a minor tweak would fix them.
    Last edited by Dev Null; 02-20-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  4. #84
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Yeah, but it would explain the "terminology" thing, because it's true, nothing else in the game seems to talk about "movement" as a resource you have. And that would be a viable interpretation.

    I still think it's ambiguous, but now I can at least understand why someone would interpret it the other way and think that "have enough movement" referred to the distance travelled, not the amount of movement still available to travel.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •