topic says it all. My firend says they can since walkers pivot in shooting phase and it doesnt count as movement.

I'd say that movement counts as movement, regardless of what phase it is.

No one really knows when it comes to walkers. The answer is leaning towards "no", but some people feel that walkers can rotate without their legs. I disagree, but it isnt a 100% situation.

iamthecougar wrote:topic says it all. My firend says they can since walkers pivot in shooting phase and it doesnt count as movement.

Yes they can , im 99% sure its in the rule book ( but im usually wrong so... )

Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Technically, the rulebook has it correct, since this doesn't even need any arcane judgments of rules interactions to come to the correct answer

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Technically, the rulebook has it correct, since this doesn't even need any arcane judgments of rules interactions to come to the correct answer

Lies, Now that I am back I henceforth Decree that each question must have at least 7 contradictory rules interactions!

It was covered in 4th, but not specifically in 5th.
As walkers are different from vehicles, and vehicles can still rotate any turrets even when immobilized, there is some reasoning for them to be able to rotate. As an immobilised walker can still not be assualted in the rear armor even when immobilised, my thoughts are it must be able to rotate to defend itself, so turning to shoot would sound logical, and match the previous rules. As the rules for immobilized specifically state that an immobilized vehicle (does not say walker), can't turn in place, I'd be inclined to treat them as a turret, but whatever way they face to shoot with the upper body would as the rules for dreads state, affect what direction their rear armor is facing.

But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

@Daytona: What?? Walkers are not different from vehicles, they are simply vehicles with extra rules. The "walkers" section in the rulebook is a subheading under the main heading of "vehicles."

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

[sarcasm]Oh that's not conceited, narcissistic, or inflammatory at all.[/sarcasm]

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

Pish.

See my signature please

Canonness Rory wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

[sarcasm]Oh that's not conceited, narcissistic, or inflammatory at all.[/sarcasm]

Notice the Winky smiley. It was intended as a joke.

Sheesh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:See my signature please

My e-peen Signature is bigger!

So anyway, can we all agree Page 57 is clear, they cannot pivot?

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

But since you are obviously the most smarteerest player on dakka, I only need one quote!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

Because the "always attack front armor in CC" rule is completely independent of the walkers capability to move. It has a movement-based fluff justification, but as far as the rules go the two things are completely unconnected. Otherwise you'd be able to hit an immobilized walker's rear armor. The only time that it's represented in the game is the fact that if you ram a walker in the rear, you hit the rear armor, and it cannot DoG against the ramming vehicle.

You guys, please allow me to say something.

If you guys can work with just discussing the rules, everything would always be fine.

But it always end up with the sole purpose of trying to prove Gwar! wrong , and hence the fight starts.

LunaHound wrote:You guys, please allow me to say something.

If you guys can work with just discussing the rules, everything would always be fine.

But it always end up with the sole purpose of trying to prove Gwar! wrong , and hence the fight starts.

Im curious as to how you direct this towards people who disagree with him (while not me in this case, I have in the past), yet he's the one that comes out and simply says "youre wrong". How is that discussing rules? Atleast the person he quoted had other rules and was bringing something to the discussion, instead of just repeating the same things that have been said.

Who is trying to prove Gwar (actually me, in this case, since he just agrees with me) wrong?

Wait calm down guys , if my observation is wrong , then i apologize.

But if deep inside you do admit yes it turns out the way i described, dont forget what i said.

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

You cant simply dismiss other people's arguments as opinions when they have a few rules on their side, especially when the rules for your argument isnt clear either.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251302.page - A topic where a lot of people play it the other way because of the rule on page 72:

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

When you combine this with only hitting front armour in CC, and the walker models themselves, I can see where theyre coming from, especially when I dont think the way I play it is clear either.

Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

By RAW the rules on pg 57 prevent an immobilised vehicle from pivoting in the Movement phase.

Walkers pivot in the shooting phase, representing their "vastly superior agility". This throws enough doubt into the mix for there to be discussions about it. Preferably something more than "you're wrong" but we all know what we've had a vacation from recently...

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."


Seems simple to me, you try to pivot, but can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

Gwar! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

Dont twist words. If Im playing in the store and my opponent does this to me (my dreads are CCWs, so I would never do this), Im going to simply scream out "BUT GWAR SAID YOURE WRONG!"? No. It doesnt matter if its clear to you if its not clear to everyone else. That was my point.

Gwar! wrote:
"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."


Seems simple to me, you try to pivot, but can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

People get banned on Dakka for political reasons, not reasonable reasons.

Nice selective quote, classic Gwar.

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

Sorry to just jump in here, but Gwar is right. Pivoting is disallowed by vehicles that are immobilized. It has nothing to do with how they interact in close combat. It may not make sense to us in the real world, but GW does this kind of thing all the time.

I don't feel there is a need for discussion. House rule it if you want, but it's in the rulebook in black and white.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another thing, glad to see you're back Gwar!, YMDC wasn't the same without you. I for one appreciated your strict RAW interpretations.

I'm going to go with gwar on this one, but the rule of walkers pivoting during the shooting phase gave me some doubt. I thought it might override the "may not even pivot" since it specifies walkers pivoting in the shooting phase and being the only vehichles that can do movements of more than just guns during the shooting phase, but i'm going to go with they're stationary since it doesn't specifically say they can pivot while immobilized.
edit: grammer

Umm, wildstyle was the first one in this thread to give the correct answer, give him some credit.

Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

Halsfield wrote:Umm, wildstyle was the first one in this thread to give the correct answer, give him some credit.

Yes we know, I even said so myself


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Nice selective quote, classic Gwar.

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot).

Now now play nice, I didn't quote anything, I just copied what was already in the thread. In any case, it does not say "however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot in the movement phase only and no other phases in which a vehicle might possibly pivot" it just says "however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot".

Gwar! wrote:Yes we know, I even said so myself

I know you know, because I read the whole thread. The two people who posted above me didnt know however so I informed them.

Trust me Halsfield, it pays to say Gwar! is right...just look at his sig, a piece of immortality right there.

Halsfield wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes we know, I even said so myself

I know you know, because I read the whole thread. The two people who posted above me didnt know however so I informed them.

I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar. Also i the first thing he said was wildstyle was right its makes more sense to agree than needlessly repeat whatever he says. Also, wildstyle thanks for giving me the right answer immediately.

jab4962 wrote:Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

QFT - the act of pivoting, involves moving the entire vehicle to face another, new direction. As it involves the movement of the entire vehicle, it requires operational tracks/feet & legs. The Front of the Vehicle is now in an entirely new direction (I used to face north, I now face south). Pivoting, as quoted many times above is not allowed if you are immobilsed, as the tracks feet or legs are non-functional.

The act of either rotating a turret, moving a sponson or twisting at the waist (for walkers) is still available for Immobilsed vehicles (again, quoted above). This movement is represented by the arc of fire rule (whether it is 45 or 180 is a question for another time). In this event, you are able to utilise your entire arc of fire, but when shot at, your facing (and therefore your front/rear armour) is unchanged from the point in time you became immobilised.

Therefore, in my opinion on the reading of the rules (however fully allowing for a difference of interpretation should you chose to disagree) - It is my view that the answer to the question is "No. Immobilised walkers may not pivot'".

jab4962 wrote:Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

You cannot use previous versions of the rules to justify anything. That way lies madness. "I'm going to use some 4th edition rules in this game, kthx!" No.

So, with that out of the way...

Page 57 covers movement only.

Page 72 says that pivoting during shooting is not movement, thus rendering page 57 irrelevant, ANYWAYS.

Page 72 says to change the facing of the Walker towards the target when shooting, and that a walker's guns have a 45' arc of fire.

Thus, an immobilized walker cannot move or change facing during movement, but it CAN change facing during shooting.

Silly, but there you have it.

But page 57 also states that in the movement phase pivoting does not count as movement (but immobilizd vehicles still can't pivot).

Pivoting is pivoting regardless of which phase it takes place in.

The effects of "Immobilised' also prohibit it:

BGB p.61 wrote:An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place

Since you can't turn the walker when firing ("When firing a walker’s weapons, pivot the walker on the spot"), you are limited to the 45 degree arcs of its weapons in the direction it was facing when immobilised. Torso twisting is not part of this edition, except for the implication for assaulting.

The confusion here is obviously stemming from two completely different types of "pivoting".

1. There is pivoting where the entire vehicle or the entire walker (base included) pivots on the spot.

2. There is also for some walkers (dreadnaughts) the ability to pivot the top half of their body.

The rules are quite clear about the first type of pivoting. You can't do it while immobilised.

The second type of pivoting isn't clear at all. So many different walkers, so many different versions of the same walker. For example I have an old metal space wolves dreadnaught that rotates on top of its legs. But then I have a AoBR dreadnaught that doesn't.

In regards to this second form of pivoting I believe people are interpreting the FAQ answer about "if it looks like it can move that way then it can" as allowing the dreadnaught that is immobilised to rotate its top body half while keeping its legs and base still.

There are no rules for this kind of thing in the rulebook. And the faq suggests to us to just interpret it as it looks for each individual model. Obviously this doesn't answer the question yes or no. But I just wanted to highlight that there are two different types of pivoting.

NeoMaul wrote:The confusion here is obviously stemming from two completely different types of "pivoting".

1. There is pivoting where the entire vehicle or the entire walker (base included) pivots on the spot.

2. There is also for some walkers (dreadnaughts) the ability to pivot the top half of their body.

The rules are quite clear about the first type of pivoting. You can't do it while immobilised.

To me it is pretty clear what the big book says about pivoting as a vehicle. I also think basing rule intentions based on what models(especially older ones) can do is a bad way to go about things. I also don't agree that there are "types" of pivoting. There is one rule for vehicles, one type of pivoting. The only difference is that pivoting of this type does not count as movement for walkers. I believe the way the current rules are written (as wildstyle said earlier) it is not allowed because an immolized vehicle cannot pivot(note it doesnt even say walker, it says vehicle, meaning that the type of walker is unimportant).

iamthecougar wrote:

I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar.

I really hope you are joking...

Halsfield wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar.

I really hope you are joking...

-Points to Sig-

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

You cant simply dismiss other people's arguments as opinions when they have a few rules on their side, especially when the rules for your argument isnt clear either.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251302.page - A topic where a lot of people play it the other way because of the rule on page 72:

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

When you combine this with only hitting front armour in CC, and the walker models themselves, I can see where theyre coming from, especially when I dont think the way I play it is clear either.

Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

Respectfully, you can say "wrong" when the page cited is a specific on point rule point. Not everything requires detailed 7 pages of inference with no one actually coming to a conclusion. I know, its rare but there are always the exceptions that prove the rule. This appears to be one (don't have page in front of me).

Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

Well, does the BRB define what a vehicle is anywhere? I don't have it with me at this time.

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

They are a subset of vehicles. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise?

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

No, Walkers are not Infantry, but they most certainly are vehicles.

In fact, the very first line of the Walker rules, Page 72:

Walkers are a very unusual type of vehicle.

I’m afraid an objective review of the relevant rules data points, in conjunction with the standardized rules of logical analysis lead one to the statistical certainty that "A Walker is a Vehicle and thus follows all rules for vehicles except where otherwise stated" is the correct assumption. Tippy to and I’m off

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

To borrow a phrase:

lolwut?

They are Vehicle (Walkers) as listed in the codex.

Also under "types of vehicles" BGB p.65

EDIT: Ack! Ninja'd x2

Dopn't forget the smiley face Gwar to keep everything light

Frazzled wrote:Dopn't forget the smiley face Gwar to keep everything light

There's one at the bottom of my sig, it should be good enough!

the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

Demogerg wrote:the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

He iz copying da 'umiez!

Why is this thread still going on? Question asked:question answered. With a specific page reference and a very specific rule (IE immobilized vehicles cannot pivot). But then people start bringing up the fact that some models can pivot at the waist (despite the rules telling you how vehicles pivot) or walkers are not vehicles, etc. Srsly? Is this just because Gwar said someone was wrong? (Which, incidently, they were.)

jmurph wrote:Is this just because Gwar said someone was wrong? (Which, incidently, they were.)

As much as I would love to think it isn't, it happens far too frequently for it to be anything but

Walkers can pivot at the waist, but that's represented in their firing arcs, not an actual ability to pivot the model.

Demogerg wrote:the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

Doesn't even appear on my screen. The last line I see is only half visible and cuts off halfway through SsevenN's quoted line

Some people are assuming that their ability to pivot in the shooting phase represents their ability to turn at the waist or point their arms behind them. While I can understand their point I'm not sure that the I agree with them as the rules state that immobilized vehicles cannot even pivot and this would also allow a walker to never expose it's rear armor even when immobilized(which is a pretty significant change).

I think the line briancj is referencing on page 72 would be interest though. Can someone post the actual text. How does it phrase that pivoting during shooting is not movement? I don't have the BRB with me. That seems like the core of the otherside's arguement.

It does seem silly that a walker can engage attacks on all sides in assault, but can't do the same thing in shooting since most walker's CCWs and guns are mounted the same way, but that has nothing to do with the rules as written. As always you could house rule this anyway you want.

phillosmaster wrote:I think the line briancj is referencing on page 72 would be interest though. Can someone post the actual text. How does it phrase that pivoting during shooting is not movement? I don't have the BRB with me. That seems like the core of the otherside's arguement.

Page 72, under Walkers Shooting, "This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles."

I say it depend's on the model my Defiler has a sponson so i think it's fair it can turn and shoot, Where as a Sentinel could'nt ATST with it's leg's shot off can't really turn to shoot can it?

may be wrong though.

Shadowbrand wrote:I say it depend's on the model my Defiler has a sponson so i think it's fair it can turn and shoot, Where as a Sentinel could'nt ATST with it's leg's shot off can't really turn to shoot can it?

I suspect that the movement available to the different models is actually the reason behind the removal of the 'pivoting at the waist' rules from the 5th edition walker rules.

It's a remnant of 4th edition. There is no rule allowing the walker to turn at the waist, regardless of how the model is designed. The only rules governing turning the walker involve pivoting the entire model to face the target.

And the rules tell us that immobilised walkers can not pivot.

It makes no difference within the rules whether the walker has a turnable waist joint or not, since there is no such thing in the rules. The walker can only turn to face its target if it is not immobilised, and its weapons have a 45 degree arc of fire, again regardless of how they are actually modeled because the walker rules specifically state that they have that arc.

It makes sense to me that the whole extra agility in the fluff is represented by the 360 degree firing arc during the shooting phase, but once immobilized, the firing arc is cut down to an arc strait ahead from the gun, just like every other hull mounted gun on an immobilized vehicle.

My questions were answered by the 8th post. I don't know about you guys, but I'm certain that walkers can't pivot... Thanks for bringing it up however, I had the same question about my war walkers.

I have a follow up though: If one walker is immobilized the squad cannot move as it's a squad, I know that is true. However, if 2 out of the 3 other walkers are not immobilized would they still be able to pivot?

In squadrons aren't vehicles destoyed if immobilized?

Yup.

Yes indeed - squadrons gain the benefit of reducing stunned to shaken (cant fire but can keep up with the rest of the vehicles), but suffer the disadvantage of immoblising result meaning destroyed.

The short answer, no

The long answer, no because immobile units can't pivot, although an imobilized walker still has a 180 line of sight. Which is probably what your friend was refering to when saying they can pivot.

This rule should be represented in the walkers section of the BGB, I don't have it on me atm.

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

QFT. That pretty much sums it up.
But as to the "phase move" question, does being immobilized stop you from running? (I'm guessing yes)

Running is a form of movement, so yes.

obviously RaW preventss walkers from pivoting in the shooting phase, but wouldngt it make sense? I see immobilised results on walkers as the legs being damaged (but not destroyed, that would be wrecked). Most walkers have most of their armour and weapons on their torso, right? so it would make sense that they could pivot for shooting. This isn't RaW, but it would make a good house clarification.

Kreedos wrote:... although an imobilized walker still has a 180 line of sight...

Not in 5th edition they don't. LOS is measured from the guns now, which have a 45 degree forward arc on a walker.

spartanghost wrote: Most walkers have most of their armour and weapons on their torso, right?

Most, yes. All, no.

So rather than have two sets of rules (those with a moving waist, and those without) we just have one set of walker rules that apply to them all.

In that context, it makes more sense to confine them all to the same standard as the least maneouverable than to allow those that are incapable of such movement to do it anyway. Less confusing that way, at least for those who aren't used to walkers being able to turn in the middle from previous editions.

Going to have to jump on the board of yes they can pivot in their shooting phase if immobilized.

Yes, page 67 does state that immobilized vehicles can not pivot.

As noted above though page 70 states that for walkers can pivot in their shooting phase and not count as moving.

RaW these two ruling conflict with each other, but look into RaI. Why would they take their time to specifically write out that pivoting is not a movement? Combat speed and Stationary are the same when it comes to firing on a walker.

Stationary - Fire all weapons
Combat speed - Fire all weapons

RaI leans toward yes they can pivot due to the walker specific RaW entry, but if the issue becomes heated in a match just roll a D6 each and keep playing.

Blue, "Does not Count as moving" is NOT the same as "Is not moving so may do it if immobilised."

BlueDagger wrote:Yes, page 67 does state that immobilized vehicles can not pivot.

As noted above though page 70 states that for walkers can pivot in their shooting phase and not count as moving.

RaW these two ruling conflict with each other,

There is no conflict.

You have a rule that applies to all walkers, saying that they can pivot in the shooting phase.
You have a rule that applies specifically to immobilised walkers, saying that they can not pivot.

The more specific rule takes precedence. No conflict.

Why would they take their time to specifically write out that pivoting is not a movement?

It could be because they intended them to be able to pivot even when immobilised.
It could be just for clarity, without the writer realising that it was a superflous statement.
It could be just in case they decide to include Ordnance Barrage weapons on walkers again any time in the future.

That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

QFT

Just to bring up an interesting point, but the rules for pivoting non-walker vehicles says that the pivoting does not count as movement either (with a specific exception in the transport-vehicle rules for disembarking), but I've never seen anyone claim that an immobilized non-walker vehicle can pivot in the movement phase.

Also, while Dreadnoughts may have the ability to turn around 180 degrees (or may not, I don't know), Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Sentinels, Penitent Engines, and Soulgrinders aren't so lucky.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, while Dreadnoughts may have the ability to turn around 180 degrees (or may not, I don't know), Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Sentinels, Penitent Engines, and Soulgrinders aren't so lucky.

Dreadnoughts have no such ability, it is not written either in the space marine codex, nor is it written in the main rule book.

unistoo wrote:The effects of "Immobilised' also prohibit it:

BGB p.61 wrote:An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place

Quoting for relevant repetition.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

I didn't mean that as "Gwar! The Magnificent is always right so be it!" I meant it as "When people claim xyz is RaI, it actually means RaII, Rules as I Intend" rather than any sort of logical conclusion.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

I didn't mean that as "Gwar! The Magnificent is always right so be it!" I meant it as "When people claim xyz is RaI, it actually means RaII, Rules as I Intend" rather than any sort of logical conclusion.

It was a trollish post and shall be dealt with as such!


I kid. Seriously though, RAI is not just a "I says so" rule. It's trying to look at what the people who were writing the rules MEANT for it to happen, as opposed to a peice of paper. When the RAW fails, it's sometimes obvious to see what GW MEANT to happen when writing that rule. (Such as the "Banshee charge through cover" rule)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Such as the "Banshee charge through cover" rule

That, I am afraid, comes down to people saying "This is how it USED to work". It USED to be that Grey Hunters Could Charge out of 12" moving Rhinos, fire their Bolters then assault. Do I claim I can because they USED to be able to do that? RaI is clear after all, since that's how it was INTENDED to work wasn't it?

Same situation.

eh?
I don't know about any Grey Hunters (Spehz Puppehz), but I remember that people argued over the WORDING in the Banshee argument. As Eldar were made during late 4th ed, the rule said they ignored cover 'bonuses' when charging. Now with 5th ed, there are no bonuses, but 'penalties', it is clear that RAI by GW were that this should work in 5th ed, yet a simply ill-forseen piece of wording has led to much trollrage.

Gwar! wrote:

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

No, Walkers are not Infantry, but they most certainly are vehicles.

In fact, the very first line of the Walker rules, Page 72:

Walkers are a very unusual type of vehicle.

I’m afraid an objective review of the relevant rules data points, in conjunction with the standardized rules of logical analysis lead one to the statistical certainty that "A Walker is a Vehicle and thus follows all rules for vehicles except where otherwise stated" is the correct assumption. Tippy to and I’m off

Not that I disagree with you, but people on this board have argued that a tank ram is not a tank shock even though it states in the tank ram section that rams are a special form of tank shot.

ALL kidding aside, Gwar! HAS made an effort to change his ways.

GIVE him the benefit of the doubt.

Wow, this is a convoluted thread (and Gwar has beeen very well behaved) Please let me know if I have this right, cos I have game on the weekend... (please correct me if I state something wrong):

1) Walkers are vehicles. Page 56: TYPE
The different types of vehicle are: transport, tank, open-topped, fast, skimmer and walker.

2) There are three phases per turn - Movement, Shooting, and Assault. Page 9. These are capitalised as they designate the 'phase' something occurs in. That is movement (the physical relocation of a model from one spot to another) occurs in the Movement phase (normally the first order of action in a turn).

3) Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary. Page 56. this means i can face my LR to a different direction, to set up for a shot. Vehicles can turn (pivot) any number of times during the Movement phase. As such, I can place my LR facing the HiveTyrant. I also pivot with my Defiler to point at the same Hive Tyrant. Assume nothing else is in that direction to fire at as an alternative, but a Carnifex exists 180 degrees in the other direction (behind the LR and the Defiler).

Page 56 also says that Immobilised vehicles cannot Pivot, even tho it is not movement. This is a specific rule that applies to Vehicles and one arguement is that this rule applies only to pivoting in the Movement Phase.

4) Once the Movement turn is finished, I have entered the shooting phase. I decide to shoot at the Hive tyrant with my 4 Lascannon weilding Havocs - success, it dies! I then have my land raider and my defiler facing at empty space, with a carnifex behind them!

The Land Raider is restricted to firing in front or wherever the sponsons allow (arc of fire) - in this instance, not directly behind it. The LR cannot shoot this turn.
The Defiler is also facing this direction - yet due to its superior maneuvablity, it can pivot in the shooting phase, allowing it to turn around and shoot at the carnifex.

The question appears to be "Is the special pivoting rule that allows walkers to pivot in the Shooting phase affected by the immobilised result, despite it not being specifically restricted in the Shooting phase (i.e. as it specifically mentioned in the Movement phase)?".

My opinion:

- I consider that the use of the consistent word 'pivot' in both the Movement and the Shooting phase indicates an intent to represent the same action in both phases (this is consistent with legislative interpretation). Therefore all vehicles may pivot in the movement phase, walkers may undertake a secondary pivot in the shooting phase.
- As I have intepreted the word pivot to mean the same thing in both phases, and the rules clearly state that Immobilised vehicles may not pivot, I consider that pivoting is denied in both phases when a walker is immobilised. I consider also this is supported by the rules that state 'pivoting' is not counted as 'movement', and arguably is therefore not restricted to any particular 'Phase of Action".

If I have misinterpreted anything I would appreciate being corrected - Im by no means an expert on the rules! However without a good argument, I think this is how I will play it.

Kindest regards

Darkkt

Darkkt, that's pretty much the reasoning behind the "immobilized walkers don't pivot for shooting" camp.

It's slightly important to point out that a non-immobilized walker not only can but must pivot to face its target in the shooting phase.

That's spot on.

Emperors Faithful wrote:eh?
I don't know about any Grey Hunters (Spehz Puppehz), but I remember that people argued over the WORDING in the Banshee argument. As Eldar were made during late 4th ed, the rule said they ignored cover 'bonuses' when charging. Now with 5th ed, there are no bonuses, but 'penalties', it is clear that RAI by GW were that this should work in 5th ed, yet a simply ill-forseen piece of wording has led to much trollrage.

not true. check out the Stealth and Bolster Defenses special rules

@Spatanghost: I have no idea what you're talking about...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, wait. I shopuld probably swap 'bonuses' and penalties around...

willydstyle wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, while Dreadnoughts may have the ability to turn around 180 degrees (or may not, I don't know), Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Sentinels, Penitent Engines, and Soulgrinders aren't so lucky.

Dreadnoughts have no such ability, it is not written either in the space marine codex, nor is it written in the main rule book.

I was referring to the hypothetical abilities of an actual dreadnought. (Unless you were too?)

I concur precisely with Darkkt. Well written, sir.