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.

The title and thread assumes basic vehicle rules without other interference from Fast rule, etc. Rules quotes are in Violet.

At the risk of being hugely unpopular, I have collated the rules and my thoughts on them here on this issue. It's something accepted and that people do which bugs me, and has done for a long time.

At a glance I didn't think these rules had changed in 7th. On further inspection in fact they have, and now I am able to build up a more conclusive picture. I realize there have been some mentions in passing to this on other threads, but maybe throwbacks from earlier editions are interfering.

For people who are not familiar with the tactic, it's in the vein of : Deploys sideways then pivots at the beginning of movement, then measures 6inches from the front of the hull to move at Combat speed. Or vice versa. Something I am very confident is now illegal (Or is Cruising speed rather than combat >6'')


*****

I will start then with the big one.

In 6th Edition, the rules stated 'turning' did not reduce the vehicle movement.

That sentence has gone. It has been changed to
''Vehicles 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.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary[''

In contrast, these were the 6th ed rules
Vehicles turn by pivoting on the
spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement. Pivoting
on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that
only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

Specifically it doesn't count as moving if your only pivoting. On the RAI side, this is not a copy and paste error, this line has been picked out and removed from the paragraph.

For anyone who is very familiar with these parts of the rules or saw any of my posts on this in 6th you can understand the implication of this and maybe just stop reading now, but I promised a complete picture...


*****


A note on Non Vehicle movement and why I'm talking about it.

We have to back track to the normal movement rules here. Some might point out at this juncture that Vehicles have different rules for movement - yes they do. However, Vehicle movement rules are not complete, they still draw from normal movement rules, and the importantly things like the rules for measuring movement distances, without using these you actually have no idea how to move the vehicle at all. It's best to think of it like so many other advanced rule sets in 40k - The baselines apply but any specific rules in the advanced section over ride those baselines. Vehicle rules do not override everything about normal movement, they do not contain their own rules for everything. This is mentioned early on..


''Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.''


Back to basics: How to measure movement

So what doesn't the vehicle rules override? How to measure movement.

Under the heading 'Movement distance' we have a diagram which I will badly replicate and the following text.

O'''''''''''''O
<----->
INCORRECT

O''''''''O
<----->
CORRECT

''It’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on
the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of
the model’s base to the distance moved. The diagram above shows correct and
incorrect ways of measuring move distance. For an Infantry model on its
relatively small base, this additive error isn’t so bad, but imagine what would
happen if this error was made with a vehicle 6" long!''

Imagine indeed!

So now we know, how you measure distances applies to Vehicles the same as any other model and this is:
From the front of the base, to the front of the base, up to the movement distance allowed.

Of interest, the restrictive part of movement is detailed in this passage,

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''


*****



How Vehicle rules interact with movement & measurement rules

Knowing the basic rules, we have to apply the vehicle rules to the situation. The ones that apply here are;

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

So everything we know about movement of models with bases and how they are measured, we change all instances of base to bade to be hull to hull.
To repeat part of a quote here:

if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.

Ah caught me out it says 6inches! - Please remember these are basic rule as pertain to infantry and advance rules will over ride how many inches, Jump can move 12inches etc, but in all cases no part of its base (Or hull..) can finish more than <movement distance> away from where it started in the movement phase.

This is now essentially no part of it's hull can finish the move more than 6'' away from where it started in the movement phase. I believe to squash this rule based evidence need to be brought forward that this somehow does not apply to vehicles.


*****


Turning Models, and Pivoting Vehicles.

I noted the major change early on, but to complete I'll speak in a little more detail.

''Vehicles 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.''
Non Vehicles
As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction,

Nothing different really, just clarifying the central point for a vehicle as their hulls are not normally a perfect circle.

More pivoting
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary
and non vehicle modes;
A model that only pivots on the spot in the Movement phase counts as
being stationary for all purposes, including subsequent shooting attacks.

Just repeating the same things now.

Last bit doesn't really add anything
Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it
from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed
Because if you pivoted from the front some vehicles could probably move quite far, some may even pass the intended point of 6inches if that's what you are aiming for.



Conclusion to this really long post.

All of that said, the points brought forward to disprove are.

1. Pivoting is done during movement. It's not a separate entity which sits outside of the movement barriers.
2. To measure a vehicle for movement up to 6'', no part of the hull can end it's movement more than 6'' from where it started. (Apply to different movement distances as appropriate).

Which means that (assuming the vehicle isn't a perfect square of course):

A Vehicle which start or ends it's movement with a pivot before or after measuring, where part of the hull is further than 6inches from where it started has traveled more than 6" and up to 12" - Cruising Speed.

As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

 grendel083 wrote:
As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

Incorrect, he and the rulebook says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"

Which means if all you do is pivot then it is not movement.

But if you do more than just pivot... like say moving your vehicle... then pivoting does count as part of the movement

''Vehicles 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.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary''

"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

I think he's actually found evidence that means you can't pivot to gain extra distance.

I'd buy it.

Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.

Let me see if I've got this clear. Hypothetical tank X is 4 inches wide and 6 inches long. This means 2 inches from center point to hull edge on each side, 3 inches from center point to hull edge on the front and back. If tank X is sitting sideways, you measure from the hull side, move the tank 6 inches legally sideways, THEN pivot the tank on the center point so the 3 inch radius side is now facing the direction you moved, and therefore you gain a inch on the movement?

It's been a thing for a very long time now. It's awesome with GA.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
Let me see if I've got this clear. Hypothetical tank X is 4 inches wide and 6 inches long. This means 2 inches from center point to hull edge on each side, 3 inches from center point to hull edge on the front and back. If tank X is sitting sideways, you measure from the hull side, move the tank 6 inches legally sideways, THEN pivot the tank on the center point so the 3 inch radius side is now facing the direction you moved, and therefore you gain a inch on the movement?

That is how it has worked since 3rd edition. But with the removal of the line "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." from the vehicle movement rules, this seems to be no longer the case because pivoting is part of the vehicle's movement. Since the rules state that the model's base (or hull) can not end their move further than the allowed distance, you can't use this tactic anymore.

I heartily applaud your reasoning and am happy that that single sentence was removed, changing everything.

Zimko wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

Incorrect, he and the rulebook says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"

Which means if all you do is pivot then it is not movement.

But if you do more than just pivot... like say moving your vehicle... then pivoting does count as part of the movement

''Vehicles 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.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary''

"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

I think he's actually found evidence that means you can't pivot to gain extra distance.

This wouldn't affect ghost arks, wave serpents and such since it states you measure using the base and therefore any amount of pivoting yields no extra distance?

If this is a statement please back up your assertion with rules quotes. If this is a question then yes it would apply as the hull rule would still apply.

We are never told where to measure movement from.

While the front5 of the vehicle may have moved more than 6" from the original placement, you would not be able to turn your vehicle around and move any additional distance.

If you measure your movement from the pivot point you have gained no additional distance. Also most guns gain no additional distance when a vehicle is pivoted to bring multiple weapons to bear.

The core concept of this thread is flawed.

If you move the tank, then pivot you are able to measure the way you speak of and can end up with the hull over 6" from your starting location.


However if you simply pivot first (which doesnt count as moving until you move) and then measure 6" from your hull (as you are supposed to do), then you have not moved over 6" from your starting location and your argument falls apart.

Eihnlazer wrote:
If you move the tank, then pivot you are able to measure the way you speak of and can end up with the hull over 6" from your starting location.


However if you simply pivot first (which doesnt count as moving until you move) and then measure 6" from your hull (as you are supposed to do), then you have not moved over 6" from your starting location and your argument falls apart.

Except that no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

So pivoting first does not matter as you need to measure from where the vehicle starts the movement phase.

Vehicles dont have a base.

You measure from the hull.


If you pivot first, and measure from the hull where is the issue?

Hull counts as base

Does it Specify where on the Hull you need to measure from?

If not, as stated above, you can just measure from a portion of the hull that is directly over the pivot point and this whole argument falls dead in the water.

As soon as any point moves more than the allocated amount it violates the rule so measuring from the point of least movement does not in fact change the fact that a part therefor the entire model has moved further than allowed. Saying it does is like claiming that you built your house on your property because your front door is on your property despite the fact that it now blocks the road and the entrance to your neighbors garage.

Interesting.

Would that mean that a razorback that move forward 6", and does a 180 to unload cargo can no longer unload?
The rear access has ended it's move ~10" from the starting location (while the front has ended only 2"). If this counts as more than 6" of movement, it pretty much kills most transports.

-Matt

I agree with the OP's interpretation

As stated by hawaiimatt, using this interpretation ruins most transports capabilities and is pretty much NRAI (not read as intended)

Movement during Tank Shock could help get perspective on RAI:

To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and, after pre-measuring, declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move, up to its maximum speed. The vehicle must move at least Combat Speed. Note that, because pivoting on the spot does not count as moving, this is not enough for a Tank Shock.

This describes a vehicle pivoting and then declaring movement up to its maximum speed. The example picture of Tank Shock in the BRB shows the "aimed" Tank Shocking vehicle measuring from the front of its hull. Further, in this mention of pivoting it simply says pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. The term "alone" is omitted. I'd say this wording and example pictures from the Tank Shock section does supports the RAI to be vehicle movement measured omitting pivoting.

What it looks like they are doing is attempting to make people think and plan as opposed to the general easy button that many meq armies have become. Since 5th left that appears to be the trend I have noticed.

When disembarking you are not unloading a load of your ex's belongings. You don't open the gate, floor it in reverse and slam the breaks on.

Land raiders were never meant to get you an additional 2" for the unload via a pivot.

Tank shock is a special move and trying to use it's rules are tantamount to claiming my infantry should move 2d6 during the movement phase because they can during the charge.

Gravmyr wrote:

Land raiders were never meant to get you an additional 2" for the unload via a pivot.

Tank shock is a special move and trying to use it's rules are tantamount to claiming my infantry should move 2d6 during the movement phase because they can during the charge.

This.

Don't be mad that you can't game extra movement. I think the OP has a pretty good arguement here that would hold up in a rules thread. The only nitpicks come from people who are like "It doesn't say hull! It says base! It doesnt say WHEN you measure!"

Those are the sorts that I snort at and roll my eyes then make a mental note not to play again.

The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

You think magically that they finally figured out how to word it to work like they intended after this long?


Nice wishlisting.


Of course assault vehicles were designed to get their troops into the fight faster. To think otherwise is completely assanine.

OP's argument seems to be built on the removal of the "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement" sentence from the rules, and the implication that a base == hull. That doesn't seem like a strong connection to me - vehicles have an entirely different way of moving (pivot and move), which seems to override the descriptions of how to measure movement from the beginning of the BRB. In particular, I don't think the section about moving models with irregular bases (bikes and MCs) really applies to vehicles.

And in any case, this interpretation would complicated vehicle movement in general, since it would imply that you have to always measure the move distance BEFORE you pivot. I would rather keep the quirky "deploy sideways to gain an inch" if it means that the rest of vehicle movement is simplified.

The model may pivot at any point of movement. Pivoting does not count as movement. Ergo, pivoting does not technically increase the distance traveled since the model has not moved any distance gained. Despite being further away, it has not actually counted as moving that distance.

Also:

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rules of measuring distance to or from a base CONNOT BE USED. Instead, for the distance involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull.

The section then describes movement for vehicles. Vehicles that TRAVEL more than 6" are counted as moving at Cruising Speed, but:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

These are two statements in and of themselves, just simplified into one sentence to save page space and sound more comfortable on the ears.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

Per conversations with the guys that wrote the rules. Never. So yeah, he's probably got RAI behind him as well.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

You think magically that they finally figured out how to word it to work like they intended after this long?


Nice wishlisting.


Of course assault vehicles were designed to get their troops into the fight faster. To think otherwise is completely assanine.

I think wishlisting is the wrong term.

And yea, Assault Vehicles are meant to get you into assault. If it was meant for you to get 2" extra movement, they would just have extra movement. I very much doubt RAI considers that all space marine drivers parallel park their rhino's and then do ice-rink 360's for extra movement when dropping people off.

I think OP is correct.

just to be clear.

you guys are not trying to find out how a specific rule works.

you have a particularly interpretation of a rule in mind and are trying to justify it by searching for 'supporting facts', no matter how far stretched.


those are two completely different things.

Op is incorrect for the reasons I clarify above.