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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.



The rules for Vehicle Movement say (rulebook, pgs 56-57): "As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull."

and:

"A vehicle that travels up to 6 [inches] is moving at combat speed...A vehicle that travels more than 6 [inches] and up to 12 [inches] is moving at cruising speed...Moving a maximum of 12 [inches] may seem relatively slow for a vehicle, but it represents a cross-country speed rather than traveling on a road."

and:

"Vehicle can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."




QUESTION: If a 'long' vehicle (such as a Dark Eldar Raider, for example) is deployed with one of its 'sides' parallel to the edge of its deployment zone, on its first turn if the vehicle model is first pivoted 90 degrees before it is actually moved across the table do you play that this allows the vehicle to essentially 'gain' bonus distance to its movement (with the longer the vehicle model meaning the more distance it technically 'gains'?

Note: The term 'gain' is being used here, but in reality, no movement distance is technically being 'gained' by the vehicle. However in game terms it does mean that the vehicle will be able to move to a position further than it would have been able to if it hadn't pivoted at some point during its move.



OPTION A. Yes, I do play that vehicles can essentially gain bonus movement by pivoting this way (with the 'longer' the vehicle essentially meaning the more 'bonus' distance gained), as the rules clearly specify that pivoting does not reduce the vehicle's move.


OPTION B. No, I play that vehicles measure movement distance from their centre-point or I play that the total distance a vehicle model ends up having moved in any direction (regardless of pivots) cannot exceed its maximum move. Regardless of the reason, the result is I play that vehicles are not able to 'gain' any bonus distance by pivoting when moving.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

Voted A.
As that was the way I was taught and I have never found a reason personal or otherwise to change that approach.

A, as its the way I was taught, and the way the game has worked for 3 editions - ample time to FAQ or just change the damn rules to something else if they didnt like it

A. Why would you penalize my tank driver for making a hard right?

A, it's allowed. I've certainly dragged my battlewagons across the table pointing their front armour towards the nest of heavy weapons threatening them, something quite impossible given the fluffy aspects. So I see nothing wrong with pulling this tbh, it's barely exploitative.

A. It works fine and is clearly allowed within the ruleset. Trying to break it for deployment without breaking it elsewhere is an unnecessary headache. Every single rectangular vehicle 'gains' distance this way every time it pivots and moves (often a noticeable inch or more), it's simply a part of the game.
Whether I'd personally pull it at deployment in a friendly game is another thing, but I certainly wouldn't throw a fit if someone did it to me.

Also, you might want to amend B if my addled 4am brain is working right. Measuring from the center of the vehicle still gains you the distance, as the center is closer to the edge at deployment than it would be normally... it moves exactly the same distance as any other point on the vehicle post-pivot. For normal turns the front of the vehicle extends the footprint no matter where you measure from, again the center moves the same distance post-pivot.
The only way to really avoid the 'issue' is to measure from the initial vehicle footprint and not let any part of the vehicle past that line.

Option A here.
It is allowed but more often I move like option B because it is a bit faster. Just measure 12" from the hull and put it in it's final position.

Option B. We play out here that you make your movement and pivot however the heck you want, however you cannot gain any additional movement. Its been played that way as RAW, but I personally havent looked into it.

We've just always assumed that if someone moved their vehicle 12" sideways, and then rotated to gain an extra 3" of movement, then deploying troops that much farther, that they were dirty cheaters, and we run them out of the store.

Hence unconscious houserules being bad - it was a houserule that you played, just didnt know it. SO when honest joe(TM) appears who doesnt know your local houserules and plays correctly according to the RuleBook, they get problems.

Natfka wrote:Option B. We play out here that you make your movement and pivot however the heck you want, however you cannot gain any additional movement. Its been played that way as RAW, but I personally havent looked into it.

We've just always assumed that if someone moved their vehicle 12" sideways, and then rotated to gain an extra 3" of movement, then deploying troops that much farther, that they were dirty cheaters, and we run them out of the store.

Glad to see more unfriendly and rude 'Not So FLGS' at least have the courtesy to advertise these days...

Seems I'm going with the norm on this one as I was also taught the way Option A is.

Just to add my own small gaming group ruled for option A on the grounds of RAW and because each side can use the trick.

I play it as A, for a number of reasons, the two main ones being this is how it has always worked and that it is what the rules say!

Option A is the way we play, not only because its clearly how the rules are written, but because of the clarity of the rules here its obviously how they meant it to be played. The free pivot is very clearly laid out, and to anyone who does it even once its very clear that a vehicle gains some movement this way....so clear that it had to be apparent even tothe person at GW who wrote the rule.

Because vehicles often have to move around obstacles, pivoting multiple times during the move, its very likely that GW wrote the rule this way to ease play. GW very often comes down on the side of ease of play vs realism (or complexity). It works consistently no matter what shape or path the vehicle takes, so it speeds game play. Yes it gives a move bonus to vehicles at times, but its a minor effect overall, and usually only happens once or twice per game.


Sliggoth

While I understand that the rules support point A, I have always chosen to use method B. I have always chosen to move my vehicles in such a fashion that the net movement for my raiders was never more than 12" as far as the relevant sides of the vehicle were concerned. I always felt kind of dirty gaining the extra 3" or so of deployment distance with my wyches if I did all measurement from the center post and pivoted freely before or after movement.

As long as you realize thats a house rule, and against concise RAW.

I voted option A, although I'd mark down my opponent a point or so for sportsmanship if they were playing, say, the DE and did this with all their raiders on the first turn. Conversely, I don't do this type of movement on the first turn either as a matter of honor (it simply is less fun to play when you have to imagine that all the vehicles start the game sideways and then GAIN MOVEMENT by turning, rather than being slowed down by turning. It breaks the suspension of disbelief)

After the first turn, I have no qualms about either doing it or having it done to me (unless it's an extremely long and thin custom made model, but I've never seen that sort of stuff actually tried.)

I would have no problem with people doing this during 'ard boyz, even on first turn, because it's completely clear that it's allowed by the rules (even if completely illogical on the first turn.)

We play B in my local group. Basically, no part of the vehicle may end up moved more than the specified distance from the vehicle's original location. It solves all sorts of potential issues (such as modelling extremely wide battlewagons that provide a huge frontage on turn 1, but that swing out gaining massive extra distance too)

Ludovic - marking someone down in a tournament for playing by a well known and presumably accepted by GW rule seems a little harsh, dont you think?

YOu may not like it, however it does not make it unsporting...

Ummm, I think it's unsporting, is that somehow disprovable? Are you saying it makes logical sense and is cool to imagine happening and does not give one side an undue advantage?

So far this poll is running just about what my experience has personally shown me. Most everyone I've played against seems to play the 'A' method although there are some people that refuse to use the pivot maneuver in the first turn due purely to their own personal ideals (as a few people have mentioned).

One thing that does get my goat a bit are people who play it 'both ways'...meaning they use the pivot in the first turn to gain a few inches of movement and then in later turns when they're measuring out from the front of the vehicle they'll measure to a spot and then move the vehicle to that 'max distance point', and then pivot the vehicle so its side is flush up to that 'max distance point'.

This isn't cool. If you're going to play for the 'free' inches at the start of the game then you need to remain consistent throughout the game and 'lose' those inches when you pivot the vehicle back to a sideways position.

Not agreeing with a rule, that has long standing (3 editions?) and is (as this poll shows) how most people plays it does not make that player unsporting for using it.

If both sides play the rule then neither side has an undue advantage; if you decide to artificially limit yourself out of what *you* consider "the right thing" does not mean the other player should get dinged sportsmanship for not agreeing.

Essentially - playing by the rules should not lower sportsmanship. Being an *idiot* about it should, howeer you would penalise regardless of it.

It's allowed in RAW, but it's pretty suspect especially if a player's whole strategy revolves around the idea. I personally never use this to get, for example, a first turn charge. Of course, in a mission like spearhead, you will want to deploy like this to snuggle up close to the edge of your table quarter if that's your goal.

Gwar! wrote:I play it as A, for a number of reasons, the two main ones being this is how it has always worked and that it is what the rules say!

This. It's the way I learned and i'm sticking to it.

yakface wrote:One thing that does get my goat a bit are people who play it 'both ways'...meaning they use the pivot in the first turn to gain a few inches of movement and then in later turns when they're measuring out from the front of the vehicle they'll measure to a spot and then move the vehicle to that 'max distance point', and then pivot the vehicle so its side is flush up to that 'max distance point'.

Agreed; you have to do it either one way or the other, not mixing which one works the best for you in any given situation. If you use the "max distance point" method, you "gain" an inch or two of movement relative to the model's center point if moving in line with the vehicle's prow, but lose an inch or two of movement if you move in line with the vehicle's side, so it should even out through a game.

If you use the measure from center point and pivot is free method, you should gain a slight amount of movement distance when moving in a line with the vehicle's side, but will lose some movement if you move in a line with it's prow.

(Both of these are under the assumption that the vehicle pivots before/during/after it's movement such that it's facing changes approximately 90 degrees.)

I play it A.

This is kind of a weird poll; I've never played it that way personally, or have had an opponent pull this. It's clearly allowed through the rules but I'm still not quite sure how to vote.

yakface wrote:
...then you need to remain consistent throughout the game...

Only even funnier because it's from one of the INAT people.

On-Topic: I've never had an opponent attempt to use this. RAW, legal.

RAP, I'd try to appeal to the good nature of my opponent on this one, especially because my armies have all relatively evenly-sided vehicles...so the option is both unshared, and a bit anticlimatic.

Well I would be fine with pivoting however you like during your movements. However, if you deployed sideways on the line and then pivoted for that inch or so, I wouldn't be playing you again.

Irdiumstern wrote:However, if you deployed sideways on the line and then pivoted for that inch or so, I wouldn't be playing you again.

Which actually says a lot more about you than your opponent IMO.