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.

A.

It is the rule.
Tt has been that way for at least 3 editions.

The local groups I have played with all play option B. Though I doubt anyone would be too upset if someone was using option A, espescially if they knew the rules enough to point out "it says right here..."

Oddly enough we have a fair mix of WAAC players(the mostly friendly kind that just maximise every advantage regardless of fluff, opponet skill elvel or any other concern) that have not done this. I'm a little surprised that no one that I know of has tired using Option A to gain extra movement. Interesting.

This thread goes to show what having sportsman ship in a tournament is a bad idea. Most of us would be totally cool with using option A but a few bad eggs could take a best overall from you.

Sounds like I'm 'a bad egg' on this one. Never had an opponent do this against me and I suppose I would be ok with it. I definitely don't care enough to argue with 80% of Dakka. It kinda rankles though.

Riddle me this: To ascertain how to hit a vehicle you determine how far it moved in it's previous turn measuring actual distance covered from its original position (so you can't drive in circles to avoid being hit). If you pivot a vehicle and gain, say, 2" and move 12" you have moved 14" from your original position. Cruising speed (hit on 6+) is defined as more than 6" and up to 12" unless on a road.

I'd say that distance would be measured center-to-center, which wouldn't be any different no matter how much wheeling was done before or after the move.

A - it is permitted within the rule

bare in mind though people often have there tank/vehicles facing particular directions to offer themselves the best protection available (AV speaking)

often i will move direction and then turn the vehicle back to face the greatest threat.. so you gain an inch and you lose an inch here and there..

lets look at it the otherway also.. if i turned my facing away from your lines (essentially losing an inch) would you allow me to move my vehicle forwards another inch sideways to make up for it??

I would rather play B, measuring from the vehicle's start point to finish point, allowing it to change its facing along the way without gaining any extra movement... (Measuring centre point is too awkward, and too much of a deviation from the rules for me)

But from my experience most players go A, so that's how I generally end up playing.

Actually, on second thought, it is common sense to allow it so you don't end up with vehicles having to move sideways. As long as you always pivot around the centre (so you're not slaloming up the board moving 14" a turn) that's fine. Setting up to gain these inches on the first turn is playing for an advantage and I probably wouldn't do it myself but I suppose I wouldn't judge an opponent harshly for doing it.

EDIT: No, changed my mind again. You can't move more than 12" unless your on a road or fast or whatever. Play A if you want. I'll stick to B.

Does this fall under the scenario for B? Player A takes a 2" x 4" vehicle facing with narrow end forward, moves that vehicle 13" forward and pivots it 90 degrees so that the middle of the side is now 12" from where the front was. Player A now claims that the vehicle only moved 12" since the measurement from starting position to ending position is only 12".

The center of the vehicle moved can only move 12". The extra distance come from the idea that a vehicle can pivot before moving, so the nose of the vehicle being farther from the middle of the vehicle than the side...the vehicle ends up closer to its target than would happen if the vehicle could move sideways 12".

So long as vehicles are consistently moved from center point to center point, then the rules are being followed.

Always pivot on the center point of the vehicle, nothing else is allowed.



Sliggoth

in the end playing option A the centre of the vehicle will always move 12 inches - you are not actually moving it further then the allowed distances.. it is only a matter of perception

as i said eariler if i had a rhino facing forwards drive it straight at you lines.. turned it 90 so when the troops disembark it opens up LOS so the marine can all rapid fire.. would you allow me to move the rhino an extra inch to make up for the ground lost when pivoting??

as long as you make you opponent turn the vehicle to face the way it travels when moving, it will all balance out in the end

Tank drifting in the 41st millenia.

Voted A.

I voted B, although in my gaming group at least I can tell you that we don't really measure as precisely as we should, so it doesn't really matter. At the FLGS, option A seems to be more prevalent.

I voted B as A seems to violate the "No measuring from front to back". Not to mention the "not moving over its maximum distance". I'm a pretty hardcore RAW guy and I just can't make the jumpt to A without feeling like I have broken rules that are clearly laid out in the book. If my sideways raider moves twelve inches and then "pivots" to gain an additional 2", part of the vehicle is now 14" from where the vehicle started in the movement phase, so I can't see how by RAW I am allowed to shoot any weapons or disembark. As I see it the part about pivoting not reducing the vehicles move simplying meaning that you don't have to "pay" inches to change your facing (like you do in fantasy) or if all you do is pivot you aren't considered to have move (save for the purpose of passangers).

Of course until GW comes out with a ruling (fat chance of that) I don't see this getting settled.

C. (Well, it's basically B).

A vehicle moves in a straight line forward from it's front most edge to it's front most edge. Vehicles are pivoted around the central axis before moving and, if it need to turn during a movement, in mid-movement. Moving a vehicle by moving the front to where the side was isn't pivoting in my book, that's movement.
Essentially, measure from the middle of the vehicle.

I don't consider pivoting to gain extra distance to be fair to the rules, mostly because it allows the vehicle to cheat quite a bit.
To illustrate this point, you are free to pivot a vehicle in the movement phase without it "moving". Pivoting it so you gain distance is free of movement, then you pivot it back using the same mechanic. Purely objectively (a human wouldn't subjectively allow it) you could inch your way across the table without ever counting as moving.

Mahtamori wrote:I don't consider pivoting to gain extra distance to be fair to the rules, mostly because it allows the vehicle to cheat quite a bit.
To illustrate this point, you are free to pivot a vehicle in the movement phase without it "moving". Pivoting it so you gain distance is free of movement, then you pivot it back using the same mechanic. Purely objectively (a human wouldn't subjectively allow it) you could inch your way across the table without ever counting as moving.

Except that you cannot do this since all pivots are done from the EXACT center of the vehicle.

B.

As unrealistic this game is, I wouldnt stoop so low as to manipulate the wording of the rules to gain a couple inches of movement with my vehicles. Any opponent who tries this against me will get flak for it, I dont care if its RAW or not, its against the spirit of the rules for a vehicle to move faster simply because it was parked perpendicular the direction of travel. Logically speaking it should actually move LESS than its maximum movement because it had to pivot before accelerating.

Any opponent who tries A against me will hear my complaints about it, if they decide to do it anyways, I will not play them. If they choose to play B after the inevitable arguement I will still play them, but for the rest of that game I will keep my eyes open for any other dodgey rules, extra movement inches, etc. If in future games they continue to try to play A, then I will stop playing against that person entirely.

TLDR: A might be RAW, but B is how I play, and I wont allow someone to play A against me.

Demogerg wrote:Any opponent who tries A against me will hear my complaints about it, if they decide to do it anyways, I will not play them. If they choose to play B after the inevitable arguement I will still play them, but for the rest of that game I will keep my eyes open for any other dodgey rules, extra movement inches, etc. If in future games they continue to try to play A, then I will stop playing against that person entirely.

TLDR: A might be RAW, but B is how I play, and I wont allow someone to play A against me.

Brilliant! The rules aren't good enough. Everyone must play my way. Rawwwwwwwwwwwwwwr!

Overreact much?

It's not RAW. It says that you do not lose movement by moving, as if you would if you were wheeling. It does not RAW or RAI to give you extra movement. It still states clearly that you can not move more than your max movement speed. Why would anyone ever assume that you could?

It's really shameful play.. Gonna convert some extra long land raiders so I can pivot and assault on the top of turn 1.

blood angel wrote:It's really shameful play.. Gonna convert some extra long land raiders so I can pivot and assault on the top of turn 1.

At which point I point out that by the RaW, converted models cannot be used.

You wanna use RaW to be a dill-weed and I can do it right back!

Arschbombe wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Any opponent who tries A against me will hear my complaints about it, if they decide to do it anyways, I will not play them. If they choose to play B after the inevitable arguement I will still play them, but for the rest of that game I will keep my eyes open for any other dodgey rules, extra movement inches, etc. If in future games they continue to try to play A, then I will stop playing against that person entirely.

TLDR: A might be RAW, but B is how I play, and I wont allow someone to play A against me.

Brilliant! The rules aren't good enough. Everyone must play my way. Rawwwwwwwwwwwwwwr!

Overreact much?

I dont care how EVERYONE plays, I just care about how my games are played, and if someone is so adamant to gain 2" movement through shady rules interpretation, then they can play against someone else. I'm not going to get them kicked out of the store, I'm just not going to waste my time with TFG when I can play a reasonable game against opponents who want to play a game WITH me and not AGAINST me.

Gwar! wrote:

blood angel wrote:It's really shameful play.. Gonna convert some extra long land raiders so I can pivot and assault on the top of turn 1.

At which point I point out that by the RaW, converted models cannot be used.

You wanna use RaW to be a dill-weed and I can do it right back!

You use RAW to be a dill-weed in almost every post you make. I am certainly entitled to one or two. My point still stands. I also do not remember reading in any rules section that converted figures are not allowed to be used.

blood angel wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

blood angel wrote:It's really shameful play.. Gonna convert some extra long land raiders so I can pivot and assault on the top of turn 1.

At which point I point out that by the RaW, converted models cannot be used.

You wanna use RaW to be a dill-weed and I can do it right back!

You use RAW to be a dill-weed in almost every post you make. I am certainly entitled to one or two. My point still stands. I also do not remember reading in any rules section that converted figures are not allowed to be used.

You don't need to.

You need to find a rule saying you CAN use them, which there isn't. But anyway, that's not the topic of this thread, so I'll drop it now.

Fair enough. Please point me to the rule where it states you get to move your vehicle a distance greater than it's maximum move range?

Sorry.. you can't. All you, and the others have, is a slim word window to try and squeeze through to try and justify shady play.

Max move distance is just that. It's not max unless you pivot or max unless you dance a jig..

The max IS:

–noun
1.
the greatest quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, etc.
2.
the highest amount, value, or degree attained or recorded.
3.
an upper limit allowed or allowable by law or regulation.

The problem with you brits is that you don't speak english.

blood angel wrote:Fair enough. Please point me to the rule where it states you get to move your vehicle a distance greater than it's maximum move range?

Sorry.. you can't. All you, and the others have, is a slim word window to try and squeeze through to try and justify shady play.

Max move distance is just that. It's not max unless you pivot or max unless you dance a jig..

The max IS:

–noun
1.
the greatest quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, etc.
2.
the highest amount, value, or degree attained or recorded.
3.
an upper limit allowed or allowable by law or regulation.

The problem with you brits is that you don't speak english.

Firstly, read the rules of YMTC about using Dictionary Quotes. I think you will find you just broke them.

Secondly, I can point to the rules. The Rules for Moving vehicles. If you follow them, you appear to get "Extra" inches. The Problem is you are thinking of them as "extra", when they are not. They are simply how the vehicle moves.

You are, quite simply, wrong.

Please post where it says in the rules that you can move a vehicle farther than its maximum movement range.

The word Maximum in the rules is the hinge of the argument and therefore valid. Of course, it benefits you and those that wish to play that way to completely ignore the meaning of certain words.

blood angel wrote:You are, quite simply, wrong.

That's another rule of YMTC you just broke. I suggest reading them before you break any more.

Please post where it says in the rules that you can move a vehicle farther than its maximum movement range.

Nowhere. However, the rules for moving vehicles make it very clear how a vehicle moves. So, even though it may seem like I am moving more than my "Maximum" distance, I am not. The Maximum Distance is the most distance I can move with my model by following the rules. The rules say to move I Must (not may, MUST, I have NO choice in the matter) Pivot the vehicle around it's center point, and that this pivot does not use up any of my move. I then am told I am permitted to move a certain number of inches, measuring from the front of the hull to the front of the hull, as per the diagram (and the rules).

The word Maximum in the rules is the hinge of the argument and therefore valid. Of course, it benefits you and those that wish to play that way to completely ignore the meaning of certain words.

Actually, all it does is let us play by the rules and not have to spend 7 hours pre game discussing house rules. I don't know about you, but that to me is not fun.

The way I see it:

You set the point you want to move to, you measure from the closest point on the vehicle to the point your moving to and that is the "max movement distance" you can then pivot your vehicle as much as you want DURING the move, as long as your vehicle (any point on it) ends it's move within that maximum distance.

That is quite clearly RAW. Anything else is clearly absurd. Thanks GWAR for once NOT using RAW and instead your own personal RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

blood angel wrote:You are, quite simply, wrong.

That's another rule of YMTC you just broke. I suggest reading them before you break any more.

Please post where it says in the rules that you can move a vehicle farther than its maximum movement range.

Nowhere. However, the rules for moving vehicles make it very clear how a vehicle moves. So, even though it may seem like I am moving more than my "Maximum" distance, I am not. The Maximum Distance is the most distance I can move with my model by following the rules. The rules say to move I Must (not may, MUST, I have NO choice in the matter) Pivot the vehicle around it's center point, and that this pivot does not use up any of my move. I then am told I am permitted to move a certain number of inches, measuring from the front of the hull to the front of the hull, as per the diagram (and the rules).

The word Maximum in the rules is the hinge of the argument and therefore valid. Of course, it benefits you and those that wish to play that way to completely ignore the meaning of certain words.

Actually, all it does is let us play by the rules and not have to spend 7 hours pre game discussing house rules. I don't know about you, but that to me is not fun.

Why are you pivoting before you move? Or are you ending your movement outside the maximum distance by measuring from the center point rather than the hull as it details?

You can attempt to trivialize my statements but it's not working.

People seeking advantages in the rules will find them. You are choosing to ignore the words as printed and instead substituting your own favorable interpretations.

Which is a grander offense here? Breaking the rules of YMTC or breaking the rules of warhammer 40k like you're suggesting people do?

Just checking.

I'm out!

Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

The "other" option that you move a given distance in any direction from start point to end point regardless of pivoting also gives you gained movement. Just in a different way.

Say I'm that long Vehicle and I have access points at the side. Now I'd start forward facing move my 12" (or however far) and pit at the end so my side is now 12" from where my front started. My centre point has now moved about 15" and I've still gain movement just in a on-sensical way that is different to how the rulebook tells us to play.

Demogerg wrote:
I dont care how EVERYONE plays, I just care about how my games are played, and if someone is so adamant to gain 2" movement through shady rules interpretation, then they can play against someone else. I'm not going to get them kicked out of the store, I'm just not going to waste my time with TFG when I can play a reasonable game against opponents who want to play a game WITH me and not AGAINST me.

So a guy who plays according to what the rule book says is playing against you and therefore TFG? In order to play with you they have to play by your special set of rules? I think that's much more TFG behavior.

I have never played a game where someone got upset about the pivot rule. It's not a huge deal since pivots cut both ways. A rhino is 3"x5". Pivoting 90 degrees adds or subtracts 1" to the perceived distance moved. A pivot doesn't actually change the distance moved. The pivots I make and my opponents make are about armor facing and access point direction. For example, I move a rhino 12" straight ahead and pivot 90 degrees at the end so a side access point is now facing where I want the squad to disembark. I lose 1" of perceived distance in doing this. Can I now shift the rhino one additional inch forward even though the center of the vehicle is 12" from where it started?

Arschbombe wrote:For example, I move a rhino 12" straight ahead and pivot 90 degrees at the end so a side access point is now facing where I want the squad to disembark. I lose 1" of perceived distance in doing this. Can I now shift the rhino one additional inch forward even though the center of the vehicle is 12" from where it started?

No, as I stated, you move the vehicle to within the max distance and pivot it to the direction you want.

I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

solkan wrote:I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

Yes, that would. I wonder how many of the "You Can't pivot like that" will stand up for the "I can move AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way around that 69" line of grots, so long as my final position is 12" away" which their "interpretation" allows.

ihatehumans wrote:
No, as I stated, you move the vehicle to within the max distance and pivot it to the direction you want.

Right. But I asked the question in the context of the "extra movement" perception that drives this debate. If I can't "gain" any movement with a pivot then I shouldn't be allowed to "lose" any movement either.

Arschbombe wrote:
So a guy who plays according to what the rule book says is playing against you and therefore TFG? In order to play with you they have to play by your special set of rules? I think that's much more TFG behavior.

There is a difference between playing a concise and tight game of warhammer following all of the rules as written, and exploiting said rules by doing something that MAY or MAY NOT be RAW, and is most certainly against logic and common sense, (a race car doesnt start the race facing perpendicular to the starting line...)

Also, I agree with one of the above posters, that the poll option B is not really any better than A, but I dont really care about the semantics in this case, lets just call this what it is, an exploitation.

I marked "A" it's how I and my gaming group learned.

We all take the perceived loss if we move up 12" then turn to face the side.

I think it evens out, since I usually end up taking the perceived loss to turn to the side so I'm not exposing lower AV to their guns.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

Yes, that would. I wonder how many of the "You Can't pivot like that" will stand up for the "I can move AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way around that 69" line of grots, so long as my final position is 12" away" which their "interpretation" allows.

Well we were only discussing the rules in a certain context of simply moving, including obstacles means you have to trace the 6"/12"(etc) around the obstacles.

Vehicle movement has always seemed really simply to us in our gaming group...

Under YOUR context, can't any infantry model with a rectangular (or elliptical) base deploy with the long side against the deployment zone and then, when moving (or even shooting), pivot 90 degrees so as to effectively 'gain' an extra couple inches?

I can imagine this very handy for say, bikes with infiltrate pulling off a first turn assault!

@IHH: Yes, that is perfectly fine. (Almost?) all bikes with Infiltrate have Scouts as well, making it a non issue as they can move to 12" of the enemy anyway.

Demogerg wrote:
There is a difference between playing a concise and tight game of warhammer following all of the rules as written, and exploiting said rules by doing something that MAY or MAY NOT be RAW, and is most certainly against logic and common sense, (a race car doesnt start the race facing perpendicular to the starting line...)

Also, I agree with one of the above posters, that the poll option B is not really any better than A, but I dont really care about the semantics in this case, lets just call this what it is, an exploitation.

It's not an exploitation and it clearly is the RAW: vehicles can pivot freely around their center points before, during and at the end of their movement. Just because you don't like the effect the rule has of encouraging some players to deploy their vehicles sideways, doesn't make it not the rules.

Picking out this rule for its lack of realism strikes me as odd given how many other unrealistic things happen under the 40k rules.

Arschbombe wrote:

It's not an exploitation and it clearly is the RAW: vehicles can pivot freely around their center points before, during and at the end of their movement. Just because you don't like the effect the rule has of encouraging some players to deploy their vehicles sideways, doesn't make it not the rules.

Picking out this rule for its lack of realism strikes me as odd given how many other unrealistic things happen under the 40k rules.

Agreed, the whole game is an abstraction. Scale is a mess, we are effectively playing a battle on three football fields. Ten marines will not fit in a rhino or drop pod. Two thirds of the people play option A. I play option A. If I play a game I am aware that this is how it works, and I plan accordingly. This game requires flexibility, as GW is poor at writing rules, but in this case option A is the simplest way to do things without opening up an even bigger can of worms.

For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

Gwar! wrote:For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

And not from 45 feet?

i voted A
From front tip to front tip...

Gwar! wrote:For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

It's... it's... over 9000!!!

Exploit=/=breaking RAW

an exploit is gaining an unfair advantage in a situation, in this context I am almost specifically saying that it is within raw to play "A" however, it is against logic, its unsportsmanlike, and it may be against RAW. (I don't have my rulebook handy to check)

Me, I would choose Option A.

I would not necessarily use it, though, as my Battlewagons are long buggers, and are thus getting a bit of a "bonus" by doing it - add to that the extra 1" movement from a red Paint Job and we're talking quite a fast old transport there.
Probably best for tournaments, or against smug opponents.

Demogerg wrote:
an exploit is gaining an unfair advantage in a situation, in this context I am almost specifically saying that it is within raw to play "A" however, it is against logic, its unsportsmanlike, and it may be against RAW.

It is not remotely unfair. Both players can choose to use this rule to their advantage and plan for its use by each other; its net effect on the game is then zero. It is against logic to same extent that everything else in 40k is; it's all hooey from start to finish. It is absolutely RAW however much it may not jive with your expectation which, I suspect, is the real issue here.

A. This is how my area as a whole plays it.

Demogerg - given that this has been the movement rules for 3 editions you *cannot* state it is "unsportsmanlike" - unsportsmanlike is statnig someone cannot use a rule, perfectly legally, in the way it is INTENDED to be used (as they have had plenty of oppurtunity to alter it -this is nothing new!) against you, as you dont like it.

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

insaniak wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

Actually, Option A and B are the same, as detailed in my handy Diagram.

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

Actually, Option A and B are the same, as detailed in my handy Diagram.

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

And... Gwar wins the thread, as much as it pains me to say it. I would also like to point this thread out as an excellent example as to why I loathe sportsmanship scores.

Voted A.

I suppose in 6th Edition 40k they could make a rule that says no part of the model may be outside of it's maximum movement distance after the first movement phase or something. Then again, I like the idea of my Land Raider making sick drift turns...

Gwar keeps getting the drop on me. I had just made a similar diagram:



I'm still posting it as it shows how little distance is gained through this method - is it still worth the stigma of doing something "shady"?

Also, how do you get those deployment zone bars to show up? I'm not really knowledgeable about vassal.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Also, how do you get those deployment zone bars to show up? I'm not really knowledgeable about vassal.

When you start a new game, it should have the Spearhead and Pitched battle Zones up by default.

If not, then you need to upgrade your googlefu!

Last time I played we had to use a template to turn but as I am trying to relearn the rules I would go with A even though it does seem a bit cheap.

Why cheap? well lets say you just pivot and don't move, how come your vehicle is now over the deployment line without ever moving? But hell i didn't write the rules and they do seem to support A.

Option B:


If I were to use a Chimera as example; modeling it with a dozer blade would give me an even larger gain by rule A.


However I choose Option B; because if I measure from the dozer blade 6" the dead center of the vehicle will have moved 6" as well. If I move 3" the centre will have moved 3" as well; meaning I can pivot in any direction and move an addition 3".


That being done I am free to "turn to face" my target; meanin my vehicle has moved 6" total and is now facing its intended target as per the movement rule allowing me to "turn to face."



That ALL said I may be slightly confused on my end because it sorta reads like you say this in Option A; but at the same time you mention a bonus range. The vehicle should pivot on its centre; meaning that even if its a long vehicle it would still be the same; I mean if you had a vehicle 6" long; moved it 6" forward and turned it 180degrees at the centre it would have gained nothing in range at all. The same principal would be applied to any length vehicle based soley on the fact that it SHOULD be turning at its centre. Unless you have a further forward or back "pivot" point you really wouldn't gain anything on the pivot itself.

Dracheous, look at the battlewagon image I posted above. Even if you pivot and move the the center, you can gain distance on non-square vehicles.

Gwar! wrote:

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

Um its still only 5.5" between the two hulls in there placement there. So where is the gained range?


if you look at the distance between the hulls whether you measure from the front of the vehicle or from the centre; there is still 5.5 inches between them. The Front of the vehicle can not move any further than the centre of the vehicle unless its made like an acordian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Dracheous, look at the battlewagon image I posted above. Even if you pivot and move the the center, you can gain distance on non-square vehicles.

But the centre of the wagons are not at the same place there; one is an inch a head of the other.


Remember; the vehicle turns ON the centre of the vehicle; so the centre of the vehicle should not move anywhere.

If you deploy the vehicle facing across the deployment line the lead edge of the vehicle must be behind the line, therefore in most case you will be able to move 12" past the deployment line. If you deploy the vehicle sideways to the deployment line the side of the vehicle must be behind the line, then you may pivot on center, crossing the line an inch or more and move forward 12", moving to 13" plus past the deployment line.

So this isn't about gaining an inch EVERY turn but only on the deployment phase where you get to pivot once your turn begins; THAT I could see happening. And even then that's a risky move to get ONE inch closer to the enemy; especially if you loss or fail to take initiative; because then the enemy is shooting side armor.


But anytime after that; its still only moving its maximum range.

Even Master Slow Poke's shows it center to center.





Well if THAT's what this is about then my mistake; I had read this that people were getting extra movement distances every turn just by pivoting.

Dracheous wrote:Well if THAT's what this is about then my mistake; I had read this that people were getting extra movement distances every turn just by pivoting.

By the Allfather no! That would just be silly (and worth 5 points, if the Ork Codex is anything to go by). This is all completely about turn 1 and getting a whole extra 1 or 2" on the first turn.

Oh well then yeah I can agree to people making range doing that because there's a risk it can back fire on them as well; and I've been stealing the inititive a LOT lately so I've no problem opening up battle cannons at your side armor .

Wait, Gwar!, that first land raider in option A, is that ruler supposed to be further out than its hull?

Yes. The First ruler there is just to show that its the same position as the 2nd ruler to add perspective and scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracheous wrote:Um its still only 5.5" between the two hulls in there placement there. So where is the gained range?

Because some people think that Option ??? is correct, or that you cannot deploy the model sideways along the deployment zone.

A normally but I voted C for 1 main reason:

Models cannot move off board edge unless they are falling back. If my opponent wants to put his vehicle side wall touching boar edge I say "killer" and laugh as he cannot move away from the board edge and just moves along it while I shoot at the Side armor.

The second you can find me a rule saying I can't move sideways in the vehicle movement section.
Then sure try and pull that Gak.

I voted B, as thats what I do, but I have no problem with A.

ChrisCP wrote:The second you can find me a rule saying I can't move sideways in the vehicle movement section.
Then sure try and pull that Gak.

I cannot find you a rule stating you cannot move sideways, well not exactly. I can find you the rule stating you can move forward and in reverse, and that you can pivot at any point in your move, and that you can pivot as many times as you want during your move.

Now I also know that you cannot find me a rule stating that you CAN move sideways(because there isn't one).

Vehicles can only move forward and in reverse(walkers move like infantry so can move in any direction, sorta) and as you cannot move off board edge(which pivoting off the edge would be) you cannot make any pivot moves to move away from the board edge and are thus stuck there.

Yes I would pull this "Gak" in every game; but when my opponent is setting up I would also let them know that they are completely screwing themselves over.

True true
But once we solved all them issues I would point out that there is no way a table edge can be 'straight' in our physical world and proceed to make a 2^222 point turn ^_^

Kommissar Kel wrote:Vehicles can only move forward and in reverse(walkers move like infantry so can move in any direction, sorta) and as you cannot move off board edge(which pivoting off the edge would be) you cannot make any pivot moves to move away from the board edge and are thus stuck there.

Yes I would pull this "Gak" in every game; but when my opponent is setting up I would also let them know that they are completely screwing themselves over.

Would you then claim that your vehicle only moved "X" inches rather than "X" + the extra inches gained from pivoting?

Would you then claim that your vehicle only moved "X" inches rather than "X" + the extra inches gained from pivoting?

If you turn 180 degrees does the movement of you tank get reduced by the length of your tank? The centre of the tank would have moved X inches regardless of the pivoting.

You are told to measure from the same point when measuring distances and you ignore the pivots. So I turn my tank 180 degrees then move it forwards 12". The rear of my tank is actually now about 18" from the original starting point (assuming a 6" long tank). Or once pivoting 180 degrees have I used up 6" of movement despite the rulebook telling me I've used none?

Measure from eth centre of the tank at all times for movement and then you know the tank hasn't moved any further than it is alloowed and pivoting is ignored. For non-square tanks it will be possible for their nearest point to be closer to the enemy than a square tank due to the dimensions of pivoting. This is imply how the rules work and are meant to work and have worked since £rd edition!

I play a variation of option B, I use the center point of my tank, usually the turret and use it to measure the maximum distance and place it down leaving it turned whatever way I want. Whith this I do not get the bonus movement more then once per turn.

Technically with a raider you could get many inches of movement move forward an inch and turn it sideways, measure an inch and turn it forward and keep doing it until you are out of inches. kind of like this.

I
-
I
-
I
-

Technically with a raider you could get many inches of movement move forward an inch and turn it sideways, measure an inch and turn it forward and keep doing it until you are out of inches. kind of like this.

Not possible as you pivot about the centre each time. You only get te benefit in the direction the side of your tank is facing at the start of your turn. The effect of how you are playing is A.

B is poorly worded saying that measureing centre to centre you don't get any "bonus" for pivoting which is wrong as you still gain the benefit.

You know what unless you use different pivot points my idea does not work. (I just fooled around with it here) So I guess it can not be horribly exploited. If you use the front as your pivoting point you could get about two raider lengths extra out of a movement.

I am wondering if there is anything in the rules about a double pivot? Not sure if that would be allowed.

1. Start raider sideways
2. Pivot the raider forward and measure from the tip 12" (a couple inches gained)
3. Move and land sideways
4. Pivot again pointing the raider forward (again, gaining a couple inches)

Getting back to the original question - option B seems fair for everyone.

I have always played it as "B" and though I was familiar with "A" it didn't feel right - if my raider was on the 12" deployment zone edge and I move it 12" straight forward then I should be 12" away from the mid-board line.

And sure, if the opponent wanted to play it as "A" then I suppose I should be happy about that being a DE player.

*As for Gwars picture – “B” shows the Land Raider deployed sideways (putting the center point as close to the deployment edge as possible) and then pivoting (gaining the extra inches) when it is faced forwards at it landing spot – this is the same mechanic as in “A”.

Option "B" (which says no extra inches are gained) would entail The Land Raider facing forward (not sideways in this example) with its tracks behind the deployment line and the ruler measuring 12" from that line. The land raider would then move 12" (from front of its tracks to the front of its tracks) thus resulting in the Land Raider being exactly 12" away from the 24" mid-board mark – no extra inches are incurred.

So Gwar's picture shows a pivot move and compares it to another pivot move (the fact that both Land Raiders are placed sideways and then face forwards).

To correct the picture to the question being asked, the sideways Land Raider in option “B” would have you place the ruler on the side of the Land Raider (at the deployment line) and when you move it so no part of the Land raider hull would be sticking beyond those 12” inches from where you measured from the deployment line (as option “B” does not allow any extra movement).

I am not saying "A" is wrong, the rules allow it and if I want to punish myself with "B" then it really shows us DE players as masochistic looneys.

If only the rules specifically told us that pivoting didn't use up movement distance, or specifically told us not to represent 'wheeling' around and simply pivot the vehicle around the center point and measure distance from the hull. If only, in the rules, vehicle movement was perfectly described as choice A.

Oh wait, they do and it is.

Monster Rain wrote:
And... Gwar wins the thread, as much as it pains me to say it.

If only someone had pointed the problem with center point measuring out nearly two weeks ago on page one.
Hmm...

As noted, since pivoting is always done on the center of the vehicle, it's only physically possible to gain distance once per turn, only if the vehicle is longer than it is wide, and only if you're moving in a direction to one side of its starting position.

Not sure how this is hard to understand.

Gorkamorka wrote:If only someone had pointed the problem with center point measuring out nearly two weeks ago on page one.
Hmm...

Yeah, but I made a kick ass Diagram!

option A and B end up being the same - the centre point of the vehicle does not move more than 12 inches -irrespective of where it is measured from

it is only a matter of perception that there appears to be an advantage gained

If any part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from where you STARTED from, ie BEFORE turning, you're moving more than 6".

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Option B. No extra movement for turning.

Yes, it took someone drawing a picture for me to understand(even though I agreed with option A from the start.)

I'm not to proud to admit it.

Kommissar Kel wrote:A normally but I voted C for 1 main reason:

Models cannot move off board edge unless they are falling back. If my opponent wants to put his vehicle side wall touching boar edge I say "killer" and laugh as he cannot move away from the board edge and just moves along it while I shoot at the Side armor.

You read it wrong, they're putting it at the furthest point forward, not at the back of the deployment zone. Not to mention there is no rule saying you can't move sideways so either way you have no point.

Spellbound wrote:If any part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from where you STARTED from, ie BEFORE turning, you're moving more than 6".

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Option B. No extra movement for turning.

except, as has been pointed out many times that ISN'T what the rules say.

Norade wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:A normally but I voted C for 1 main reason:

Models cannot move off board edge unless they are falling back. If my opponent wants to put his vehicle side wall touching boar edge I say "killer" and laugh as he cannot move away from the board edge and just moves along it while I shoot at the Side armor.

You read it wrong, they're putting it at the furthest point forward, not at the back of the deployment zone. Not to mention there is no rule saying you can't move sideways so either way you have no point.

As I pointed out earlier there is rules that state you can move forward and in reverse, there is no mention of rules stating you CAN move sideways, so you cannot.

Let me make this very clear: Tanks cannot strafe, Skimmers cannot strafe(although at least it would make sense that they could), walkers are a little iffy as they move like infantry so possibly could strafe(but then they are almost all on circular bases)

Although you are right I did read into the initial question wrong and thought back edge instead of forward edge; but then I also said A as well, as anytime you turn before movement you will gain extra movement in the new direction, which is RAW.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:A normally but I voted C for 1 main reason:

Models cannot move off board edge unless they are falling back. If my opponent wants to put his vehicle side wall touching boar edge I say "killer" and laugh as he cannot move away from the board edge and just moves along it while I shoot at the Side armor.

You read it wrong, they're putting it at the furthest point forward, not at the back of the deployment zone. Not to mention there is no rule saying you can't move sideways so either way you have no point.

As I pointed out earlier there is rules that state you can move forward and in reverse, there is no mention of rules stating you CAN move sideways, so you cannot.

Let me make this very clear: Tanks cannot strafe, Skimmers cannot strafe(although at least it would make sense that they could), walkers are a little iffy as they move like infantry so possibly could strafe(but then they are almost all on circular bases)

Although you are right I did read into the initial question wrong and thought back edge instead of forward edge; but then I also said A as well, as anytime you turn before movement you will gain extra movement in the new direction, which is RAW.

Actually beyond saying that vehicles can pivot freely and are allowed to move forward and backwards in a turn the rules say nothing abut how to move vehicle models. Fowards as backwards can be read as either move in a straight line towards the vehicle's front, or towards or away from a position.

Spellbound wrote:If any part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from where you STARTED from, ie BEFORE turning, you're moving more than 6".

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Option B. No extra movement for turning.

Exactly, the rulebook tells us that "turning" does not reduce your move, but it also doesn't allow you to "gain" any extra movement. The rulebook does NOT tell us to measure from center point to center point when moving, only that a vehicle pivots on its center point.

Mannahnin wrote:As noted, since pivoting is always done on the center of the vehicle, it's only physically possible to gain distance once per turn, only if the vehicle is longer than it is wide, and only if you're moving in a direction to one side of its starting position.

Not sure how this is hard to understand.

It's not possible, because then you'd be moving more than how far you intended.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Spellbound wrote:If any part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from where you STARTED from, ie BEFORE turning, you're moving more than 6".

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Option B. No extra movement for turning.

except, as has been pointed out many times that ISN'T what the rules say.

Except, as I pointed out, that IS what the rules say. What you are describing (gaining extra movement) is not covered at all in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:A normally but I voted C for 1 main reason:

Models cannot move off board edge unless they are falling back. If my opponent wants to put his vehicle side wall touching boar edge I say "killer" and laugh as he cannot move away from the board edge and just moves along it while I shoot at the Side armor.

You read it wrong, they're putting it at the furthest point forward, not at the back of the deployment zone. Not to mention there is no rule saying you can't move sideways so either way you have no point.

As I pointed out earlier there is rules that state you can move forward and in reverse, there is no mention of rules stating you CAN move sideways, so you cannot.

Let me make this very clear: Tanks cannot strafe, Skimmers cannot strafe(although at least it would make sense that they could), walkers are a little iffy as they move like infantry so possibly could strafe(but then they are almost all on circular bases)

Although you are right I did read into the initial question wrong and thought back edge instead of forward edge; but then I also said A as well, as anytime you turn before movement you will gain extra movement in the new direction, which is RAW.

Actually beyond saying that vehicles can pivot freely and are allowed to move forward and backwards in a turn the rules say nothing abut how to move vehicle models. Fowards as backwards can be read as either move in a straight line towards the vehicle's front, or towards or away from a position.

Norade, you're exactly right. Except, the rulebook tells us that under normal circumstances, a normal vehicle can only move a maximum of 12" per turn. The contention is actually not about how to move the vehicle, it seems, but rather from where to where do you measure. If you measure center to center, you end up with a situation where part of the vehicle will be further away from where you started that you intended, (say you meant to go 6"), and the argument is whether or not that counts as 6", or 6" + the extra inche or 2 gained from the vehicle pivoting.

Would you say that such a vehicle would be allowed to shoot one weapon, as is the case with moving 6", or not?

Whitedragon- then prove it via the rules, not a statement. that it does not violate the rules HAS been proven, both linguistically and diagrammatically.

Norade: how exactly does forward and reverse now mean Sideways?

forward means exactly that; straight line, the rules specifically state there is no "wheeling about" which would mean that the movement is straight line only

nosferatu1001 wrote:Whitedragon- then prove it via the rules, not a statement. that it does not violate the rules HAS been proven, both linguistically and diagrammatically.

You have proven nothing. The rules allow you to pivot on the center of the vehicle. The rules make no mention of where you measure from, but they state that a vehicle cannot move more than 12". I contend that the left most battlewagon in the diagram provided has moved farther than it is allowed to, and would be an illegal move.

I would say that the issue comes from where you measure on the vehicle. Measuring from center point to center point gives you more movement in some cases, so I contend that it is not a valid way to measure. You need to prove that the rulebook says otherwise. (It doesn't, it makes no mention, only that you use the vehicle's hull in lieu of it's base.)

And the Rulebook states that pivoting does not count as movement, so the part of the vehicle that moved due to pivoting is ignored. So yes, it has been proven.

whitedragon wrote:The rules make no mention of where you measure from

Yes, they do.

Page 12, the handy Diagram that has a Rhino in it.

Read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the Rulebook states that pivoting does not count as movement, so the part of the vehicle that moved due to pivoting is ignored. So yes, it has been proven.

You're right, it doesn't count as movement, or rather as the rulebook states "no movement is lost due to pivoting". However, it doesn't allow you to gain movement either.

Gwar! wrote:

whitedragon wrote:The rules make no mention of where you measure from

Yes, they do.

Page 12, the handy Diagram that has a Rhino in it.

Read it.

Forgive me but I don't have my rulebook handy, I will have to consult it later.

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Please read the rulebook pivoting does not count as movement. By your reconning a Landraider pivoting 180 degrees has moved cruising speed, yet the rulebook tells us it hasn't moved at all...

"You prove I'm wrong!"

"No, you prove I'm wrong!"

Etc, etc, etc....

"You prove I'm wrong!"

"No, you prove I'm wrong!"

Etc, etc, etc....

Not really. Those of us advocating that you pivot round the centre and it doesn't count as moving are following exactly what the rulebook says:

"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. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move. This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving..."

I really don't see the confusion. Page 12 even gives yo ua helpful diagram to show how you measure (from the same point).

Maybe we should all re-read the OP. Particularly the red bits.

One must account for the "free" move in turning or potentially infinite moves are possible.

To illustrate why I have a diagram showing a simple setup of a DE transport, making 5 turns and 4, 3 inch moves in turn one. Look at the difference this makes.

It's clearly exceeding the maximum move allowed with only a 12 inch move, as it picks up 3 free inches (about half the vehicle length every time it turns on center for "free").

It's cheating to do that, seeing the example with multiple iterated really makes the point obvious.

I have a feeling you have doctored that image, as there is NO WAY for that to happen if you follow the RaW.
In fact, that has annoyed me so much, I am going to post my own version of that diagram.

Gwar! wrote:I have a feeling you have doctored that image, as there is NO WAY for that to happen if you follow the RaW.
In fact, that has annoyed me so much, I am going to post my own version of that diagram, with scales to not trick people with perception tricks.

He really obviously didn't follow the raw and measured from the front and then placed the vehicle sideways at the end, or pivoted around a point other than the center and compensated for it.

The fact that people still can't understand the really basic geometry behind rotating/measuring from a rectangle is completely baffling to me.
Thank god for vassal making these easily scaled and measured diagrams so people can't skew the results and make up fake 'infinite move' combos that have nothing to do with the raw.

The issue with Augustus's is that he is measuring from the front and then to the side. If he goes front to front even with the turn it makes no difference.I even tried using some angles but if you use the same measuring point you should only get about a half ship length.

Ok, I actually improved on that last diagram. Admittedly its only 9" of movement, but I ran out of space!



So, in short, the Diagram provided by Augustus is not following the RaW.

Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

Demogerg wrote:Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

You have actually read the RAW, yes?
"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. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move."

Stop making claims that pivoting counts as extra movement for some parts of the vehicle or somehow reduces or affects or counts as part of the total movement allowance of the vehicle.
You're, quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Personally I'd say B. Yes, it's allowed by the rules. Yes everybody plays that way. But it's like using the n00b tube (grenade launcher) in Call of Duty. Perfectly legal, plenty of people do it... but why? That's not how the game was meant to be played. Here, it's clearly taking advantage of poor wording in the rules. Net result being a vehicle moved more than 12" in a phase. Argue it all you want that you didn't TECHNICALLY move more than 12", you did. Thus, not how I'd like to play the game. I wouldn't call anybody on it (unless maybe in a tourney I'd bring it up before we start) but it's not how I'd like the game.

Pvt. Jet wrote:Personally I'd say B.

You know A and B are the same right?

Question: Why is it "not how it was meant to be played" when it has been like this since 3rd edition and what the rules say to do?

I voted A because there has the potential for turning your side to the enemy on turn 1 to problematic if they steal the initiative.

In general, I find that as long as you measure movement distance from the same point at the beginning and end of the move it isn't a problem, if you pivot a bit at the beginning and then measure from the front or center of the vehicle the move is 100% legal in my opinion.

Most players due this without giving it much thought, it is only real d-bags that try to pull off crazy questionable manuevers in my experience.

I personally know that its totally legal(rules wise) to start sideways, measure and then pivot(as pivoting is basically a free move that doesnt count) but personally it just seems like a nice way to cheat out a few inches. Kind of like how many people will measure from the front of the base and try to slip the BACK of the base to the end of the measurement.

I know that is actually covered as wrong in the rule book(the base measure part), but personally I chose B. It just seems wrong to me personally to gain a few inches because of the pivoting.

I've always played version B, due to not wanting to be the local jerk rules lawyer...and not seeing that as what was intended, even if the rules say so(GW never makes rules errors, right?).

As for knocking somebody sportsmanship for this, I don't see why you could argue that he doesn't have the right. Some lists are legal, but are still friggin' mental and made to be played by trained monkeys. Some people model their tanks with walls attached to them, mostly Orks obviously...extra bitz n' all. And people dock sportsmanship points for this all the time, legal or not.

It comes to if you feel the opponent is making the game enjoyable or clearly stretching as far as he can go to simply win, that's how I usually do sportsmanships(I know, I know...feel free to flame away).

Gorkamorka wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

You have actually read the RAW, yes?
"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. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move."

Stop making claims that pivoting counts as extra movement for some parts of the vehicle or somehow reduces or affects or counts as part of the total movement allowance of the vehicle.
You're, quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Stop trying to rules lawyer for something that is unsportsman like, against RAW, logically flawed, and quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Turning does not reduce a vehicles move, it doesnt allow you to gain additional distance either. In 2nd edition if you turned at all, your vehicles maximum movement forward or backwards was reduced (on top of being limited in how many degrees of turning you were allowed)

consider a land raider that is parked 90 degrees to the left, from that start point, it cannot move more than 12", if you pivot (which in itself doesnt count as movement) then move up, you can only move up as far as that no point on the vehicle has exceeded its 12" move restriction. You can rotate and pivot all you want, but you cannot exceed 12" from the start point.

Ok i have changed my mind. "A" is cheating

For starters it makes no difference where you measure you distance from front to front, back to back, centre to centre its all the same.

For the purpose of my argument I am going to measure front to front, not only that the "front" is going to be the "direction of travel" (you will see why later). I don't have any fancy pictures so I'm going to have to try to explain this.

The problem comes from "when" you measure.

If you pivot then measure your distance from the new position you will gain extra distance.

If you measure (in the direction of travel) then pivot to face that direction you gain no extra distance to movement.

So what should we do, measure > pivot/move. or pivot > measure > move?

So lets look at some vehicle movement rules.

"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, (which lets be honest is also like any other model)

Ok so lets look at normal (ie infantry) movement rules and don't forget to look at the rules for turning and facing.

"It is perfectly fine to measure a units move in one direction, and then change your mind"

"AS YOU MOVE the models in a unit a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover"

Both these sentences strongly suggest to me that the measuring should be done both before movement and more importantly turning.

So..... Measure > turn/move ie no extra movement A is cheating.

Now the naysayers are going to say a vehicle can turn/pivot with out using any movement distance, so what so can any other model, yeah sure unlike other models the turn/pivot can only be done in the movement phase but as far as I am concerned that is a moot point. Why? because although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Demogerg wrote:

Page 12 of the BRB proves you wrong here. It very clearly shows how to measure movement for vehicles.

Lorne wrote:The issue with Augustus's is that he is measuring from the front and then to the side. If he goes front to front even with the turn it makes no difference.I even tried using some angles but if you use the same measuring point you should only get about a half ship length.

Why is that a problem?

But even without that you get a free half ship length at the start.

It's just cheating for extra distance, if the vehicle's move is 12 there should be no way to get further on the board, or closer to the enemy or objective than 12 inches closer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:...although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Exactly the problem comes from models that do not have a footprint that is circular.

When you spin any non circular footprint then move you can pick up the distance of variance in the radiance from the shortest point to the longest.

This is moot with circular bases for infantry but makes a significant difference on anything else with a non circular foot print.

What ads to the problem is the part of the rule that says:

"any number of turns while moving"

There probably needed to be a caveat that the movement had to be forward, or the example I showed, of sideways to front movement after a pivot will add the difference between the radius everytime the user pivot turns for free.

Augustus wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:...although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Exactly the problem comes from models that do not have a footprint that is circular.

When you spin any non circular footprint then move you can pick up the distance of variance in the radiance from the shortest point to the longest.

This is moot with circular bases for infantry but makes a significant difference on anything else with a non circular foot print.

Why is it only moot with round bases. I think I over expanded on what I was saying so to sum up

1/ As far I can tell RAW suggest very strongly that you should measure before you move.

2/Turning/pivoting is movement therefore you should measure first.

3/"Pivoting on the spot ALONE does not count as moving" A vehicle pivoting and then moving is not pivoting on the spot alone, it is in fact moving the pivot is part of the movement and therefore you should measure before pivoting

This thread is amazing. I didn't realize so many flatearthers played 40k.

I don't know who's wrong... Someone's gotta be... Head... Swimming...

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know who's wrong... Someone's gotta be... Head... Swimming...

The real question is is shouldn't we have all followed the instructions in Yakface's OP

yakface wrote:

"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.

Augustus, your diagram is wrong, after the first move. You're showing the raider's center "teleporting" up to its front end, and pivoting around that point. That's not how pivoting works, and that's why you're getting infinite movement.

Gwar's diagrams are correct.

As I posted before, the rulebook's rules for movement do allow a vehicle to gain distance once per turn with a pivot, presuming they want to move in a direction not congruent with their longest axis.

I have Gwar on ignore, I'll never see his diagrams.

All the pivots in mine are on the center. I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that moving and measuring from front to side is illegal?

(My Red arrow and Ghost image.)

PS, if by wrong you mean illegal, then yes I agree. I don't think thats a legal move. I think it is what could happen in the A solution.

Augustus wrote:I have Gwar on ignore, I'll never see his diagrams.

All the pivots in mine are on the center. I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that moving and measuring from front to side is illegal?

(My Red arrow and Ghost image.)

PS, if by wrong you mean illegal, then yes I agree. I don't think thats a legal move. I think it is what could happen in the A solution.

How about you click the "Show Post" and have a look then? Then you will be able to see why your Diagrams are completely wrong!

Augustus wrote:I have Gwar on ignore, I'll never see his diagrams.

While I can't dispute your decision, it might be worth your time to hit "show post" on the one timestamped 2010/05/28 18:30:44

All the pivots in mine are on the center. I'm not sure what you mean?

They're clearly not. Only the first one is. You pivot the model around its own center. You measure the movement from front to front. This is exactly what the rulebook and its diagrams tell us, and what A is talking about. Mathematicaly and physically you can, once per turn, functionally gain distance by pivoting and moving in a direction incongruent to the starting direction of vehicle's long axis.

What your diagram shows is a Raider starting sideways, pivoting forward legally, then a red arrow showing where it's FRONT point moves to, and a black & white image of the CENTER of the Raider positioned sideways, centered on a point just behind the FRONT point of the red arrow. You've moved the black & white image laterally when it's just supposed to be pivoting on its center.

Yup, Augustus wrong. Bad geometry...

THINK ABOUT THIS PEOPLE

If a vehicle is deployed sideways on the deployment line.

Turn 1 Movement

Vehicle pivots, it is now a couple inches beyond the deployment zone yet has not moved. The vheicle now moves 12''. This is legal, done in the reverse order of what so many of you are argueing. Its not actually getting extra movement out of the vehicles, Its getting extra deployment range at the risk of the enemy stealing initiative and shooting your side armor. is it kinda shady? some may think so... is it tactically smart? yes, do i personally care? not really because if i seize im laughing.

"What is your vehicle maximum movement speed?"

"Uh, twelve inches, duh."

"So how far has your vehicle moved in total?"

"... fourteen inches? DOH."

This is how I picture the conversation going on the tourney table. I am unswayed by the diagrams and banter of geometry but very interested in the "when pivoting on the spot alone" portion of the pivot rules. When you move afterwards have you pivoted alone? Not in a social sense of course, pivoting on the spot alone in person is a sign of madness, something no one here could possibly be afflicted with.

Slackermagee wrote:"What is your vehicle maximum movement speed?"

"Uh, twelve inches, duh."

"So how far has your vehicle moved in total?"

"... fourteen inches? DOH."

This is how I picture the conversation going on the tourney table. I am unswayed by the diagrams and banter of geometry but very interested in the "when pivoting on the spot alone" portion of the pivot rules. When you move afterwards have you pivoted alone? Not in a social sense of course, pivoting on the spot alone in person is a sign of madness, something no one here could possibly be afflicted with.

Actually it goes like this:

"What is your vehicle maximum movement speed?"

"Uh, Cruising Speed."

"And how fast is Cruising Speed?"

"Twelve Inches."

"So how far has your vehicle moved in total?"

"Twelve inches, as detailed in the rules for moving vehicles, where I Pivot, then measure the distance from the front of the tank to the front of the tank as per the diagram on page 12."

"By Jove you are correct! I hereby concede the game to go learn the rules!"

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:"What is your vehicle maximum movement speed?"

"Uh, twelve inches, duh."

"So how far has your vehicle moved in total?"

"... fourteen inches? DOH."

This is how I picture the conversation going on the tourney table. I am unswayed by the diagrams and banter of geometry but very interested in the "when pivoting on the spot alone" portion of the pivot rules. When you move afterwards have you pivoted alone? Not in a social sense of course, pivoting on the spot alone in person is a sign of madness, something no one here could possibly be afflicted with.

Actually it goes like this:

"What is your vehicle maximum movement speed?"

"Uh, Cruising Speed."

"And how fast is Cruising Speed?"

"Twelve Inches."

"So how far has your vehicle moved in total?"

"Twelve inches, as detailed in the rules for moving vehicles, where I Pivot, then measure the distance from the front of the tank to the front of the tank as per the diagram on page 12."

"By Jove you are correct! I hereby concede the game to go learn the rules!"

I don't have that diagram handy right now, but I will pose this question to you:

While moving, where is the front of the tank? Is it the front armor of the tank? The facing of the tank pointed in the direction of movement (end point wise, not a circuitous route)?

I really don't like the argument of 'I moved 12 inches but my hull has actually moved 14'. Your movement speed is 12", to have moved (in total distance) any more than that at the end of the movement phase is... wrong?

I love how the no pivot crowd has only falsified diagrams and gut feels to say why it's bad while there is Gwar! with diagrams that can be tested and proved correct as well as diagrams from the main book and rules citations on the other side.

Slackermagee wrote:Is it the front armor of the tank?

No, it's the rear Armour. Haven't you been paying attention at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slackermagee wrote:I really don't like the argument of 'I moved 12 inches but my hull has actually moved 14'. Your movement speed is 12", to have moved (in total distance) any more than that at the end of the movement phase is... wrong?

You don't have to "like" it. The rules are clear as... something that is very clear, or something.

The rules say that you pivot, then move in that direction however many inches you want, and that Pivoting does not use up any of the move.

Norade wrote:I love how the no pivot crowd has only falsified diagrams and gut feels to say why it's bad while there is Gwar! with diagrams that can be tested and proved correct as well as diagrams from the main book and rules citations on the other side.

Gut feelings of, "you shouldn't really be able to move more than your allotted distance given the long and storied tradition of war gaming".

Slackermagee wrote:

Norade wrote:I love how the no pivot crowd has only falsified diagrams and gut feels to say why it's bad while there is Gwar! with diagrams that can be tested and proved correct as well as diagrams from the main book and rules citations on the other side.

Gut feelings of, "you shouldn't really be able to move more than your allotted distance given the long and storied tradition of war gaming".

How about "The gut feeling that you should follow the rules that have been the same for over 9000 twelve years"?

Seriously, the rules have been the same for moving vehicles since 1998, when 3rd ed came out. If GW didn't want you doing this, they have had 12 years and 2 edition changes to do it.

Post removed

Alrighty, so p57 details moving with the sentence lending credence to the Choice A camp being, "Turning does not reduce the vehicles move".

Unfortunately the sentence before states that "Vehicles can turn any number of times AS they move." Not before you measure for movement, not before you begin moving, as you move.

So here it is:
>You pick the vehicle in question to move
>You measure to where you want it to go
>You make any turns (pivots) you like on the way there
>You end your move with no part of the tank being beyond that point

Voila, the rationale for Choice B.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the thing on page 12 makes mention of moving from front to front expressly to avoid adding extra inches of total distance moved to the movement allocated, something left out in previous discussion I think.

Slackermagee wrote:Oh, and the thing on page 12 makes mention of moving from front to front expressly to avoid adding extra inches of total distance moved to the movement allocated, something left out in previous discussion I think.

I agree, it's to stop you getting extra inches.

The thing is, the distance "gained" from the pivot "trick" is NOT "extra" distance. Extra distance implies that it could not normally get it. However, the Rules make it clear that this is how vehicles move, so any distance "gained" is entirely subjective.

The thing is Gwar!, you have to pivot as you move. You don't get to pivot and then measure distance moved from the hull, you have to measure distance from the hull and then pivot. I don't think there's any extra distance to be gained.

Slackermagee wrote:The thing is Gwar!, you have to pivot as you move. You don't get to pivot and then measure distance moved from the hull, you have to measure distance from the hull and then pivot. I don't think there's any extra distance to be gained.

Except as shown on page 12, that is EXACTLY how you do it. You pivot. It doesn't use up any of your move, then you move 12" forward, measuring as per the diagram on page 12.

You are right in saying there is no "extra" distance to be gained, because that is how far the vehicle is permitted to move.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The thing is Gwar!, you have to pivot as you move. You don't get to pivot and then measure distance moved from the hull, you have to measure distance from the hull and then pivot. I don't think there's any extra distance to be gained.

Except as shown on page 12, that is EXACTLY how you do it. You pivot. It doesn't use up any of your move, then you move 12" forward, measuring as per the diagram on page 12.

You are right in saying there is no "extra" distance to be gained, because that is how far the vehicle is permitted to move.

But the diagram on page twelve doesn't mention pivoting at all, its mentioned on pg 57 as something you do during movement and not before nor afterwards!

In fact, the diagram only depicts the appropriate way to move in a straight line pointing out rather specifically that this is done to avoid tacking on extra distance via differences in a vehicles width v. length.

Slackermagee wrote:In fact, the diagram only depicts the appropriate way to move in a straight line pointing out rather specifically that this is done to avoid tacking on extra distance via differences in a vehicles width v. length.

Hold on there bub, it's nothing to do with Width vs Length. It's entirely to do with length. Nothing about width.

And yes, it tells you how to move it in a straight line.

Once you pivot, which does not use up any of the vehicles move, you then move in a straight line, up to your maximum move, measuring the distance from the front of the hull to the front of the hull as per page 12. This is how far the vehicle is permitted to move. Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:In fact, the diagram only depicts the appropriate way to move in a straight line pointing out rather specifically that this is done to avoid tacking on extra distance via differences in a vehicles width v. length.

Hold on there bub, it's nothing to do with Width vs Length. It's entirely to do with length. Nothing about width.

And yes, it tells you how to move it in a straight line.

Once you pivot, which does not use up any of the vehicles move, you then move in a straight line, up to your maximum move, measuring the distance from the front of the hull to the front of the hull as per page 12. This is how far the vehicle is permitted to move. Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Ah, but you must begin measuring before the pivot, as pivoting must take place as you move and not before or after! So you will measure the distance to be traveled from the front of the hull (I'll forsake my fruitless "which way is up arguement"), pivot, then finish the move. Pivoting before hand would violate the 'as' part on page 57.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm just a radical leftists; loving the moments when years old establishments are picked and prodded at!

Even if you measure before you pivot, Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move. So I can pivot all I want, and I have not moved a single inch. I can now move 12" forward, and have only moved 12", as pivoting does not reduce my move.

Here's my AHA moment:

I'm figuring that you measure total movement from the get go. You're measuring total movement as you move. I honestly don't know which one is more correct, pg 12 points to measuring once while pg 57 points to a segmented business... but neither one directly and conclusively.

And since I am now on beer number two, I will sit back and hope that someone else takes up the revolutionary banner. Forward leftists!

Well if you measure from the get go, why include turning at all? it doesn't make sense.

MasterSlowPoke wrote: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.

I agree with this. I don't use vehicles much being a Nid player, and most of the time my opponent's tanks never move. I cannot particularly vote for either, but I find myself leaning towards Option B.

hes saying if your vehicle is placed sideways and you intend to move forward...you measure from the hull of the vehicle where it CURRENTLY is, which would be the side of the vheicle...you can hold the tap thre, pivot the vheicle, and move to the max desired location PREVIOUSLY measured before pivoting, since pivoting is part of the move..

Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Hmm, I am going to go look at the rule book, though with moving it, are you supposed to do A or B?:

A)Measure distance, then pivot, then move.

B)Pivot, then measure distance, then move.

Gwar! wrote:Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Let me ask you a question here: Why are you turning your vehicle sideways to move? Why not go with the tactical decision to present the best armor facing to the enemy?

Option A for me.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Hmm, I am going to go look at the rule book, though with moving it, are you supposed to do A or B?:

A)Measure distance, then pivot, then move.

B)Pivot, then measure distance, then move.

The player who is moving the model gets to choose. So he can pivot his model, then move it and theoretically gain an extra inch. It's perfectly legal according to the rules. If you want to make a house rule about it that's fine, but don't expect that to fly in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pvt. Jet wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Let me ask you a question here: Why are you turning your vehicle sideways to move? Why not go with the tactical decision to present the best armor facing to the enemy?

People only do this when they have a vehicle with the same side and front armor. That's why you never see people doing this with Battlewagons; it's usually Land Raiders.

KingCracker wrote: I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

LOL. You know cheating when you see it even if the rules clearly permit this so-called cheat?

Ok, the side armor is the same as the front armor. Fine, all right. For the sake of the argument, Front armor is 1 higher than the side armor. It's a fictional armored raider loaded for bear with wyches. Why would you present your side rather than your front? Why are you moving your vehicle in such a way?

See, here's my logic. Draw a line across the field. Say it's your deployment zone. You want to move straight away from it. Now, logically, if your vehicle was on the line at the beginning of the turn, after cruising speed the farthest any part of your vehicle should be away from the line is 12" yes? That is the max any vehicle can move (that's not fast, etc.) in a movement phase. Now if we do the raider-turn, if you measured from starting line to farthest forward point of the raider, you are MORE than 12" off the line. Tell me how that's legal. Please.

Oh, and TopC makes a fine, fine point. You measure your distance BEFORE your move. Pivoting is part of your move. You don't measure, pivot, measure again, and move. It's all one continuous move from your initial measurement from whatever point on the hull you'd like.

Please though, answer me the question, somebody. Why are you moving like this? Your answers are necessary for the debate.

And arschbombe? Please refrain from the personal attacks and such. Mature people are trying to have a debate.

KingCracker wrote:Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Wait! You're claiming that you can cheat by following the rules?!? Please show me how that works?

We're arguing if it's the rules at all. So Norade, tell my why you would use this particular strategy of moving hm? What purpose does it serve?

Pvt. Jet wrote:Ok, the side armor is the same as the front armor. Fine, all right. For the sake of the argument, Front armor is 1 higher than the side armor. It's a fictional armored raider loaded for bear with wyches. Why would you present your side rather than your front? Why are you moving your vehicle in such a way?

See, here's my logic. Draw a line across the field. Say it's your deployment zone. You want to move straight away from it. Now, logically, if your vehicle was on the line at the beginning of the turn, after cruising speed the farthest any part of your vehicle should be away from the line is 12" yes? That is the max any vehicle can move (that's not fast, etc.) in a movement phase. Now if we do the raider-turn, if you measured from starting line to farthest forward point of the raider, you are MORE than 12" off the line. Tell me how that's legal. Please.

Oh, and TopC makes a fine, fine point. You measure your distance BEFORE your move. Pivoting is part of your move. You don't measure, pivot, measure again, and move. It's all one continuous move from your initial measurement from whatever point on the hull you'd like.

Please though, answer me the question, somebody. Why are you moving like this? Your answers are necessary for the debate.

You start sideways and pivot so you can legally get a first turn assault, though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given. Thus I will instead use an RPJ wagon for this. Pivot gains you 3", move forward 13", deploy out for 4" once you count a 2" base, and then assault 6" for a 26" assault range one the first turn 27"-32" if you get a WAAAGH! from a weird boy or are somehow doing this turn two.

Pvt. Jet wrote:And arschbombe? Please refrain from the personal attacks and such. Mature people are trying to have a debate.

Asking for clarification on an iffy position is a personal attack now? You must have tissue paper thin skin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pvt. Jet wrote:We're arguing if it's the rules at all. So Norade, tell my why you would use this particular strategy of moving hm? What purpose does it serve?

Have you missed the debate or something? These points have all been gone over many times in this thread so go back do some reading and then ask. Though I have been kind enough to explain why you would do this already I shoudn't have to state the obvious when you can do some research for yourself.

The flatearthers comment from arschbombe earlier got on my nerves, and his latest comment, well it didn't exactly raise my hopes that he would contribute much.

So may I quote you here?

"...though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given."

So you're using the rules to gain more than cruising speed in a single phase? Even if it's legal.. doesn't that seem a bit shady?

Pvt. Jet wrote:The flatearthers comment from arschbombe earlier got on my nerves, and his latest comment, well it didn't exactly raise my hopes that he would contribute much.

So may I quote you here?

"...though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given."

So you're using the rules to gain more than cruising speed in a single phase? Even if it's legal.. doesn't that seem a bit shady?

The flatearther comment was awesome, and the sort of joke I would love to see allowed around here. Then again I come from a board full of 'sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people' so I try to understand the be polite rule here. It does irk me when people refuse toreply to a good point on the grounds that the person who posted it was rude and how people here love to argue with no evidence.

No, I'm gaining nothing, the center of my vehicle, where I pivot and measure movement from has still only moved the 13" allowed by the rules, thus while part of my vehicle is further forward by the rules I have moved legally. So I have moved no further than cruising speed. It is legal, both sides can do it if they wish, so how is it shady? It can be countered by deploying 4" or so back from your maximum edge and thus has only limited uses anyway.

Play as A, but wouldn't mind them altering that in the future to have it play like WOTR formations and the rumored 8th edition formation movement = farthest point.

Dude, Norade, I think we may (a page ago) have boiled the argument down somewhat. You cannot (according to RAW) pivot before beginning the measurement of the move. The real question is whether you measure for each segment of the move or for the move in its entirety.

Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

Slackermagee wrote:Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

However, you can't ignore the diagram on page 12. The "pivot" crowd is claiming the diagram on page 12 proves their point, but actually, it's the exact opposite. Page 12 proves them wrong, because the vehicle is measured front to front, not center point to center point.

Even though you pivot around the center and don't "lose" any movement as the rulebook says, you don't ever gain any movement. Page 12 and page 57 must both be obeyed when moving a vehicle, and that's why the extra inches gained doesn't work.

Ugh; this thread is spiralling again isn't it?




Option A can only work once; at first I did not believe this as well because the truth of the matter is that I can rotate ANY vehicle as much as I want; but its center never changes! Also if I rotate a vehicle on the spot and then measure from the dozer blade ((example)) 6" and move the dozer blade forward the 6" the exact center of the tank will have moved 6"; UNLESS you have a vehicle that is modeled up like an accordian. Although it WOULD be funny to have one of those mechanical spring boxing gloves modeled on a tank.



The only reason Option at works is because of the relation to the deployment zone line. Typically vehicles in 40 are rectangluar in shape meaning the center of the vehicle would be closer to the deployment zone when placed side ways. The advantage to this is that now when you pivot the front of the vehicle is legally already over the deployment zone line; then you measure your movement as you would normally and thus gain the extra range determined only by the length vs. width of the vehicle in question. Example a Dark Eldar skimmer would likely gain more from this than say a Land Raider. While a Valk would also likely gain more from this than the Land Raider as well .


This disadvantage is that you are exposing side armor; sure some vehicles that wouldn't matter because they're poorly armored anyhow; but if you're going second this would mean you've opened yourself up to enemy fire at a weaker side unless you take the initiative; but thats a big gamble. If you're going first there is also the risk that the enemy steals the initiative as well.


Any following movements could NOT possibly gain any movement by simply rotating.

Pvt. Jet wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Let me ask you a question here: Why are you turning your vehicle sideways to move? Why not go with the tactical decision to present the best armor facing to the enemy?

How do you know I don't want you to be drawn to shoot at my AV12 Wagon instead of my multitude of other killy things? It's called psychological warfare.

Yea I know what I said sounds wonky, and believe me it was hard even trying to write it out


But this is how Im seeing it. Your vehicle is only suppose to move 12 inches, period. But since the rules for movement doesnt say "you cannot have vehicle facing this way, measure, move 12 inches, and then pivot as your gaining 2 or more inches" you can do it. But that is clearly a cheating move.

A tank can only move 12 inches, period. Not move 12 inches, and then pivot to allow it to actually move 14 inches. Thats cheating in my book. EVEN THOUGH the rules allow someone do legally get away with it.

Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

So cheatring is following the rules?

What you mean is you dont *like* the rules and want to houserule - which is fine.

Howveer the actual rules allow it, so if you dont come to an agreement on the houserule to do what some have suggested, and knock sportsmanship, should be penalised in return.

KingCracker wrote:Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

Not at all.

You became that guy about 7 posts ago.

And as I have said, the vehicle is NOT moving 14", it is moving 12". It might SEEM like it's moving 14", but it isn't, because the rules say it is moving 12". The "extra" distance is entirely subjective.

And of course, no-one is making you deploy your vehicles sideways. If you feel it's not "right", don't do it, just don't have the nerve to tell someone else, who is following the rules, that what they are doing is wrong.

For me, it's the "Firing from the hatch when smoked". I know it's legal, I Know it's been legal for 12 years, but I never personally do it. If my opponent does it, that's fine, he is allowed to. I just don't like doing it myself!

Before I get hit with a "way to completely miss the point" let me preface this by saying these rules are different but similar. The rules are tank shock and vehicle movement.

Look at tank shock. Yes, I know the rules say that tank shock is an attack and the tank makes this attack "instead of moving normally" but, a tank shock is conducted by turning the vehicle (pivoting?) on the spot and then declaring how far it is going to move. It then moves that distance.

So if my landraider is 13" away from your boyz, I can pivot it towards them, then declare I'm moving 12". I measure ffrom the front of the landraider and move forward 12" contacting and thereby tank shocking your boyz. This has been done exactly according to the tank shock rule.

But if I deploy my land raider sideways in my deployment zone, then in my movement phase pivot it on the spot and move it forward 12", this is cheating because the movement rules don't specifically say pivot first?

The movement rules say I can pivot any number of times as I move. This means that I can pivot, move x number of inches, pivot again, move x more inches, pivot again, etc. All of these pivot moves are part of my movement, including the first one.

Moving a vehicle like this is not cheating, cheesy or any other kind of adjective anyone would want to place on it. It is a kind of move that is allowed by the rules. It has advantages and disadvantages. It is called tactics and tactics are important in any wargame or warfare based game.

Gwar! wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

Not at all.

You became that guy about 7 posts ago.

And as I have said, the vehicle is NOT moving 14", it is moving 12". It might SEEM like it's moving 14", but it isn't, because the rules say it is moving 12". The "extra" distance is entirely subjective.

And of course, no-one is making you deploy your vehicles sideways. If you feel it's not "right", don't do it, just don't have the nerve to tell someone else, who is following the rules, that what they are doing is wrong.

For me, it's the "Firing from the hatch when smoked". I know it's legal, I Know it's been legal for 12 years, but I never personally do it. If my opponent does it, that's fine, he is allowed to. I just don't like doing it myself!

I loled. Dammit Im THAT guy. Maybe I can figure out how to add a members only jacket to my avatar then *ponders*

Timewizard - you know explaining it that way actually makes much more sense the just saying you can because the rules say so. I would allow someone to play it that way anyways, as I know the rules allow it, but Ill pull a GWAR on the shooting with smoke situation. Ill let others do it for sure, but personally it still seems a bit off to me to do that

Option A.

Norade wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Wait! You're claiming that you can cheat by following the rules?!? Please show me how that works?

By not allowing any models w/o eyes to shoot might be RAW, but it is clearly cheating.

The Bringer wrote:

Norade wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Wait! You're claiming that you can cheat by following the rules?!? Please show me how that works?

By not allowing any models w/o eyes to shoot might be RAW, but it is clearly cheating.

I don't have any idea what your point is.

Its easy, you're cheating... by following the rules!


Anyways, back to the actual subject, I would consider pivoting for possible better LoS to be more tactical than cheating, I pivot a little all the time to just get that extra needed distance. As stated by many, you aren't actually getting any farther, even if the pivot was on any other part than the center, you still aren't getting extra distance, unless you can actually change the point that you pivot on.

whitedragon wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

However, you can't ignore the diagram on page 12. The "pivot" crowd is claiming the diagram on page 12 proves their point, but actually, it's the exact opposite. Page 12 proves them wrong, because the vehicle is measured front to front, not center point to center point.

Even though you pivot around the center and don't "lose" any movement as the rulebook says, you don't ever gain any movement. Page 12 and page 57 must both be obeyed when moving a vehicle, and that's why the extra inches gained doesn't work.

Too true. The pivot does not counti as moving when the vehicle is only performing a pivot in the movement phase. Otherwise, the act of turning does not reduce the vehicles movement inherently (like wheeling or whatever it is in Fantasy) but may result in distance moved after the pivot is completed since you may only pivot during a move which you are measuring (from front to front or what have you).

And as I have pointed out:
PIVOTING DOES NOT REDUCE THE VEHICLES MOVE.

This is what the rules say. I can, therefore, pivot at the start of my move, which does not reduce my move. I have therefore moved 0". I now move it straight forward 12", as per the diagram on page 12.

But this is all just going in circles now.

Pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move but may result in the vehicle having moved.

You CANNOT pivot without beginning a move. At the beginning of the move you start to measure distance by placing the tape measure on the front armor (or what have you) of the tank. You pivot, then proceed to move the 12 (or whatever) inches from where the front armor began as per the diagram on page 12.

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move but may result in the vehicle having moved.

You CANNOT pivot without beginning a move. At the beginning of the move you start to measure distance by placing the tape measure on the front armor (or what have you) of the tank. You pivot, then proceed to move the 12 (or whatever) inches from where the front armor began as per the diagram on page 12.

Ok, so, tell me, how far has this tank moved:

To me, that's moved 0", because the rules very clearly state that pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move. If you count that as having moved however many inches, that's a pivot reducing the vehicles move, which is something the rules explicitly tell you is not the case.

By doing that though, you've moved one part of the tank further than it's maximally allowed move by segmenting the move (and the measuring) and not making it one continuous process.

The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

It can pivot about, dance on the spot, or whatever while it moves but that is something we never see as we are worried about the placement of the vehicle at the final destination being within its allowed move distance.

On another note, while it may say that you do not reduce the vehicles move by pivoting it does not say the vehicle may gain any extra distance during its move, a move of which the pivot is a part.

Edit: Alrighty, I think I understand the diagram now, I thought originally that you had simply been going over movement. Still, you must begin measuring from the front armor and then pivot, not pivot and then begin moving when the front of the tank has gained a little distance over the sides. Measurement begins when movement begins and the starting position of the tape shouldn't (according to page 12 RAW) change position once movement has begun. Static beginnings also allow for the forward and reverse movement on page 57, which is also said to not reduce movement. It's the destination that counts, not the journey.

So you're saying this should be illegal?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So you're saying this should be illegal?

Of course not. Look at the diagram on page 12 BRB. Your diagram is exaclty the "NO!" example.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So you're saying this should be illegal?

A cunning plan Mr. MSP, but alas, I am your Doom!

This is what page 12 instructs us to do.

By Slakermages logic, as you pointed out there MGS, pulling a 180° Pivot uses up like 6" of move, despite being explicitly told Pivoting does not use up movement.

Guys, I know it's legal. Just refuting this:

Slackermagee wrote:The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

Slackermagee wrote:By doing that though, you've moved one part of the tank further than it's maximally allowed move by segmenting the move (and the measuring) and not making it one continuous process.

The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

It can pivot about, dance on the spot, or whatever while it moves but that is something we never see as we are worried about the placement of the vehicle at the final destination being within its allowed move distance.

On another note, while it may say that you do not reduce the vehicles move by pivoting it does not say the vehicle may gain any extra distance during its move, a move of which the pivot is a part.

Edit: Alrighty, I think I understand the diagram now, I thought originally that you had simply been going over movement. Still, you must begin measuring from the front armor and then pivot, not pivot and then begin moving when the front of the tank has gained a little distance over the sides. Measurement begins when movement begins and the starting position of the tape shouldn't (according to page 12 RAW) change position once movement has begun. Static beginnings also allow for the forward and reverse movement on page 57, which is also said to not reduce movement. It's the destination that counts, not the journey.

Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Guys, I know it's legal. Just refuting this:

Slackermagee wrote:The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

Yes, I know, I was backing you up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

For those of you too lazy to Google, the Planck Units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants:
* Gravitational constant
* Reduced Planck constant
* Speed of light in a vacuum
* Coulomb constant
* Boltzmann's constant

What Norade is actually doing is moving it a Planck Length. In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.

Gwar! wrote:

Norade wrote:Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

For those of you too lazy to Google, the Planck Units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants:
* Gravitational constant
* Reduced Planck constant
* Speed of light in a vacuum
* Coulomb constant
* Boltzmann's constant

What Norade is actually doing is moving it a Planck Length. In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.

Sorry, I didn't post that as clearly as I could have. Thanks for making it more clear.

I am, if nothing else, a stickler for clarity!

Edit: So, we have 288 votes so far. 181 for A (which is RaW) 100 for B (which is ALSO RaW ) and 7 for C.

281 - 7. RaW wins!

Doesn't really mean anything, the poll is busted. Option B is correct but it drew the wrong conclusion.

Also, I do believe we're still arguing RAW.

With the 'tap the model then pivot' okay. Sure, do that. Just make sure that the front of the model hasn't moved more than twelve inches from where it began. You can pivot left, right, and sideways so long as you don't leave the 12" of maximum move that are given to you when you begin moving.

Again, it's not the journey, its the destination. 12" from location A to location B (or 6 to B and 6 to C... which by way of trig would be less overall distance traveled in the direction you want than if you just took a straight trip, but these things happen sometimes).

Measuring and manipulating the journey is NOT R.A.W. under page 57 which says to ignore all forward, reverse, and pivot movement without exceeding its maximum move. To quote "This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move".

Measuring to the destination (however curvy and convoluted that might be) is the RAW.

By your logic, you cannot pull a 180 and move 12" forward and that a 180 turn uses up about 5" of move. It really is that simple. That is not RaW.

RaW is that you pivot, then move 12" forward and that is your 12" move. It doesn't matter of the pivot is 1, 5, 35, 90 or 180 degrees, the pivot doesn't reduce the vehicles move.

Slackermagee wrote:Also, I do believe we're still arguing RAW.

With the 'tap the model then pivot' okay. Sure, do that. Just make sure that the front of the model hasn't moved more than twelve inches from where it began. You can pivot left, right, and sideways so long as you don't leave the 12" of maximum move that are given to you when you begin moving.

Again, it's not the journey, its the destination. 12" from location A to location B (or 6 to B and 6 to C... which by way of trig would be less overall distance traveled in the direction you want than if you just took a straight trip, but these things happen sometimes).

Measuring and manipulating the journey is NOT R.A.W. under page 57 which says to ignore all forward, reverse, and pivot movement without exceeding its maximum move. To quote "This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move".

Measuring to the destination (however curvy and convoluted that might be) is the RAW.

So you say my diagram (chimera and bloodletters) is illegal?

Gwar! wrote:By your logic, you cannot pull a 180 and move 12" forward and that a 180 turn uses up about 5" of move. It really is that simple. That is not RaW.

RaW is that you pivot, then move 12" forward and that is your 12" move. It doesn't matter of the pivot is 1, 5, 35, 90 or 180 degrees, the pivot doesn't reduce the vehicles move.

You don't have to measure from the 'front armor' front so much as an arbitrary 'this is the direction I'm moving in' front. You measure a distance from the 'front' to where you want to go then place your vehicle there so no part of it is more than 12" away from the 'front' you began measuring from. Thus a 180 pivot is perfectly legal and doesn't subtract from your movement at all as the length between the 'front' and 'back' can't change. When you pivot 90 degrees the distance between the 'front' and the 'back' changes as the actual orientation changes, but this does not magically give you x" of movement on top of what you already measured out.

Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

So if a 180 degree pivot doesn't use up move, why does a 90 degree one do?

Slackermagee wrote:Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

And again, by this logic, a chimera that rotates 180 degrees and moves 12" forward has suddenly moved 17" because of the pivot.

You can't have it both ways.

Gwar! wrote:So if a 180 degree pivot doesn't use up move, why does a 90 degree one do?

Slackermagee wrote:Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

And again, by this logic, a chimera that rotates 180 degrees and moves 12" forward has suddenly moved 17" because of the pivot.

You can't have it both ways.

No, it hasn't. You measure 12" from the hull in the direction of movement, you place the chimera there with not part of the hull beyond the point pre-measured but in whatever orientation you choose... just so long as NO part, in any way, shape, or form crosses that pre-measured line. I will agree (because my earlier points of contention were not terribly strong and you were right about it) that the pivot takes up no part of the move on the way to the pre-determined spot. However, in the case of the sideways rhino the rhino would have to pivot en route and arrive with its front end no more than 12" away from the 'front' which had been the side at the time.

You measure the distance, move the model, and orient it as you please within that distance and in that order. You absolutely cannot pivot on the spot and then start tape measuring from the most forward facing point, that just does not fit within the sequence of movement.

Edit: reading and re-reading page 12 again it never makes note of a 'front' or 'back', it simply insists that the model remain within the pre-measured distance however it ends up facing when it gets there.

I agree with slacker here. Again, for example, say you want to move left but you are facing up. There's an imaginary line at your left-most point which shows where you are now, and an imaginary line 12" left. No part of your vehicle can move past that mark. By pivoting, say, a trukk to the left, its front is now an inch or so over the line that you started on. Thus, you have advanced that far. Can you at least see what I'm saying? By turning and pivoting you end up more than 12" from your starting point.

Argh! But I totally see the option A group's point! I just don't know how to argue it one way without screwing with the other way! They're both right! Gnargh!

I think GW should take note of this and make future edition so that you move from the center of the vehicle. That way pivoting would still not be movement, and it would make the system straightforward. For now though? I think I'll play by option B merely because A doesn't seem right to me.

Oh, and the purpose of my earlier question Gwar was not so you could say "Oh, I might be luring you." It was to get you and everyone else to admit that you end up farther away from your deployment zone than if you didn't start sideways, thus proving my point that something is wonky. Blarg!

Because everyone should fear the horror that is spawned when I attempt graphics works, and I really don't understand the opposing position. Let me know if this should be moved to its own thread, even though I think it's a related question.

Rhino #1:

Rhino #2:


The rhino pictured in the diagram is Marneus Calgar's new Ultra-rhino which gets to go 27" (as fast as necessary for the diagram ). The red path and the dots show the position of the center of the rhino as it goes across the board.

In this situation, the blue rhino is starting out south of the monolith and attempting to drive around it. Each dot along the path is the vehicle moving one inch forward. So, as I understand it, in both diagram 1 and diagram 2, the rhino turns right, moves 5" forward, turns left, moves 12" forward, turns left, moves 5" forward, turns right, and then moves 5" forward, for a total of 27".

What I can't figure out is how far the opponents of "pivot over the deployment zone and then move an addition 12 inches forward" think that the rhinos in diagram 1 and diagram 2 have moved. (For simplicity, assume that rhino's a perfect 2x4, even though the diagram shows the rhinos slightly bigger than that.) Can anyone explain to me how the distance is supposed to be measured, and what the total distance is?

They ought to have both moved the same distance (27") as dictated by their movement speed (Marneus Calgar HUUUURRRRR :p).

If you were to move the rhino, pivot then begin measuring again from the front armor after pivoting then you would catch a few more inches due to the difference between side and front armor lengths.

This is not what we are supposed to do (in my opinion and from the rules on pages 12 and 57) since that would be counting the pivot for the purposes of movement, which it shouldn't be. Instead, simply measure the distance around the monolith (tracing out the path you desire) until you hit the maximum distance traveled, then place the rhino with no part of its hull past that point in any orientation you choose.

I'm still confused because as far as I can tell, the rules only provide for a vehicle to pivot on the spot and move backward and forward.

So, in order to execute the movement in diagram one in accordance with "pivoting across the deployment line and then measuring 12" forward is more than 12" of travel", the sequence breaks down to:

1. Rotate the tank 90 degrees right and then measure out so that the rhino's center moves forward 5 inches. At this point, the rhino's front has moved 6", so the rhino has moved six inches.
2. Now, rotate the tank 90 left, and measure out so that the rhino's center moves forward 12 inches. At this point, the rhino's front has moved an addition 13".
3. Rotate the tank 90 left, and again measure so that the center moves forward 5 inches. Again, six inches of movement.
4. Rotate the tank 90 to the right, and measure so that the center moves forward 5 inches. Again, six inches of movement because of the turn.

So, the rhino's speed in Diagram 1 would have been 31" to traverse the 27" path specified. To suggest otherwise implies that there's some distinction between intermediate measurements of distance and the final measurement of distance.

Otherwise, if I take the Monolith and the 5" detours out, both the forward facing rhino and the sideways facing rhino travel at the exact same speed in order to reach the exact same position (17"), despite the fact that in Diagram 2 the rhino's side in the initial position is 18" from the final position of the rhino's front.

Solkan, the issue is that non-circular vehicles can end up with portions travelling further than 12". Check out this diagram I made earlier:



Both battlewagons have been deployed along the Pitched Battle 12" line - the left one sideways and the right one frontways. In the Ork player's movement phase, the right one pivots forward and moves 12", and the left one just moves forward 12". Despite the fact that they were deployed the same distance "back", the one on the left moves "further". Pretty much everyone (besides Slackermagee) agrees this is allowable with the rules and are just disagreeing on if this is a dirty trick or not.

Slackermagee's position seems to be that no part of a vehicle can move more than 12", but that's not supported by the rules.

Your both measuring a bit wrong here, I think. Look at Page 12, you need to measure from one side of the tank and at the end of movement no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured.

Pivoting, turning, rotating, dancing, and prancing all occur rather ambiguously on the way to the destination. Final placement/orientation is up to you as long as you don't place the model farther than it can move.

Measuring center to center and front to front are the same thing. A 12" line is a 12" line, no matter how you displace it.

"no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured. " is something that I can't find in the rules.

Slackermagee wrote:Your both measuring a bit wrong here, I think. Look at Page 12, you need to measure from one side of the tank and at the end of movement no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured.

Pivoting, turning, rotating, dancing, and prancing all occur rather ambiguously on the way to the destination. Final placement/orientation is up to you as long as you don't place the model farther than it can move.

Can you quote a rule that says no part may move further than the part you measured from in the rules. You also fail to address the points on center to center measuring which is also supported by the rules.

Pivoting "ALONE" does not use up any movement, and pivoting does not COST you any movement, however, nothing in the rules allow you to gain extra movement.

you have a maximum movement allowed, and that is measured before you start your move. if any part of your vehicle is beyond its maximum move you have violated that vehicles movement rules in some way shape or form.



and here you have it, there is no penalty for pivoting, but there is no benefit either. Please show me in the rules where it says you can pivot before the start of your move.


Tank shock is a separate case where it specifically allows you to pivot before starting your move. This is because tank shock requires a specific distance moved to be declared before the move itself is made. You must pivot and declare before moving so that you run the risk of missing a key model, or accidentally running over the meltagun-guy who can DoG.

Actually your examples are exactly opposite of what the rules say. You pivot from the centre not the side or corner. Then you measure from the unit and move. Instantly giving you 2-3 extra inches of movement at the expense of exposing your side armor.

**edit**

oops sorry 2 is correct

in 1 you pivot then measure from the point
2 just a standard move
3 is correct you are just measuring from the middle of the unit to the front.

Technically I guess you could do this with calv and bike bases too as you can freely rotate it anytime during the movement phase.

@demogerg Your diagram simply doesnt work. To start with, vehicles pivot around their center point. Next, your second picture illustrates how NOT to pivot. What if that vehicle in your second diagrm then drove backwards? its already pivoted correctly according to your rules, so it should be able to drive either forward or backwards from that point........


We measure movement from the hull, at the moment we are moving the vehicle. Trying to pick some starter position to measure from breaks down as soon as we look at moevement that is not in a straight line.

Picture a cluttered table, units terrain etc scattered about. A vehicle is going to move in a curve around and through some objects to the right. It pivots slightly to the right and moves 3". It then pivots and moves 4". It then pivots har and moves 3" more, then pivots and moves 2". Wouldnt most people measure from the front of the vehicle just before it moves each time?

Yet the suggestions here are to measure from the original footprint of the model.


Take a land raider model, mark its position on the table. Pivot it a bit to its right, say 20-30 degrees. Notice that the fron of the vehicle is now behind the point where the edge of the right track was at the start. Following the normal rules we would measure from the current frobt of the LR....following the ideas some are expressing here we would need to start measuring from out where the corner of the LR was originally. So the LR could be shoved forward almost an inch before we would start measuring any movement for it.....



Sliggoth

Demogerg's red dots are not pivots but points to measure from and to

Norade wrote:

Can you quote a rule that says no part may move further than the part you measured from in the rules.

The diagram on pg 12! The only thing this diagram covers is that the model (any part of it) should not be placed past the point measured up to. This diagram does not say where on a vehicle you should measure from. The only rule I can find on where to measure from on a vehicle, is that because vehicles don't have bases you should measure from the hull

You can argue that the diagram shows measuring front to front just as well as I can argue that the diagram shows measuring from the hull in the direction of intended travel.

So my tank is on the southern deployment line facing east.

I want to move north.

RAW I must measure BEFORE I move. RAW Pivoting on the spot only counts as not moving when the pivot is done alone (ie without any other movement action). As I intend to move then my pivot counts as movement and I must measure first

So I measure 12" from my tanks hull in the direction of intended movement. I measure from the point on my model that face's the direction I intend to move (my tanks left hand side)

I then begin my move by pivoting to face north, then move up to the measured point.

Because of this no point of my tank is further then 12" away from the deployment line.

That as far as I am concerned is RAW. So option A would be cheating no extra distance can be obtained in this way because you must measure before moving.

But then.........

Because there are no rules that say you must measure from the pivot point, or that when changing direction you must measure before the pivot the following becomes possible.

Measure your Planck length in the direction your facing (east in my example) and move it, then pivot then measure the maximum distance allowed by the speed your moving at - Planck length, and move that.

Of course at the scale of table top gaming a Planck length becomes irrelevant, so you end up with paradox. A is impossible RAW, but something that looks exactly like A becomes possible. So screw it you might as well just play A, I have changed my mind again.

Bang, you were right at first, the reason why A is not possible is because you measure the entire path before you move.

IE, you do not measure, move, pivot, remeasure, move etc.

what you do is measure, then move+pivot as you need. So in this situation you would measure 1 Planck to the side and 11.99999999999999999999999999~ inches forward, mark that spot, then move the 1 planck, pivot 90 degrees, and move the remaining distance previously measured.

Demogerg wrote:Bang, you were right at first, the reason why A is not possible is because you measure the entire path before you move.

IE, you do not measure, move, pivot, remeasure, move etc.

what you do is measure, then move+pivot as you need. So in this situation you would measure 1 Planck to the side and 11.99999999999999999999999999~ inches forward, mark that spot, then move the 1 planck, pivot 90 degrees, and move the remaining distance previously measured.

I was aware and had considered this, as far as I am aware I was the first person who bought up the whole pivoting is movement and so you must measure first argument back on page 5 and have held an internal monologue with myself for a few days now about how pivoting mid move effects this.

I personal think A is filthy and cheating and I wouldn't do it myself (or the thing that looks like it)

Its just the rules for measuring movement are very vague. All they say on the subject is that you can change your mind about where your moving after you have measured. They don't say you have to measure the the whole movement path in one go, they dont even say that you HAVE to measure the path at all. Personally I think they should and it seems like common sense to do it that way but unfortunately they don't.

The "no pivot" side really makes no sense. By your logic, pivoting would actually be moving at combat speed because the front of the tank moves.

The rules have worked the option A way (or also option B, which is the same thing) for a long time. The only way to change it would be to make all measurements from the center point of the vehicle (sorry Demogerg, your method is incorrect and way too inconsistent to be supported under any rule set).

thebetter1: Your side makes no sense logically, how can a vehicle move faster by starting perpendicular to its direction of travel?

And no, my logic goes by RAW, pivoting ALONE does not count as movement, if you pivot but make no other moves then you count as not moving. the rules may or may not have worked as option A in 3rd and 4th edtions, but here in 5th, they work how logically they should, vehicles can move their maximum distance and thats it, no magical free inches for bending the rules.

and measuring from the center point would be option A all over again. I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of the movement rules.

and my "way" is not incorrect, its very consistant, and its completely supported by this ruleset. Your "way" is completely wrong, the rules do not say you can gain movement from turning, so you cant. Gwar!, dont try and interrupt with more perceved distance moved vs actual distance moved, that argument is flawed because you measure before you begin your move, and the pivot is done during the move, not before measuring.

Here's my final attempt to illuminate the issue under "discussion."




1. Example A shows a rhino moving straight forward 12". Everyone seems to agree that this is OK.

2. Example B is the exact same situation as example A except that the vehicle pivoted 90 degrees at the end of its move. It has magically "lost" an inch of movement. I think most people accept this one as well.

3. Example C is similar to example B except the vehicle slid to regain the lost inch. This violates RAW, but some seem to think this works because no part of the vehicle is more than 12" from the start position. Unless it pivots again...

4. Example D is the same as A. The rhino moved 12" and maintains facing. I see people moving vehicle sideways like this in order to speed up play when there is no intervening terrain that needs to be maneuvered around. By strict RAW you can't actually slide sideways, but by pivoting once at the start of the move and again at the end you achieve the same thing.

5. Example E. This is the same as D except the vehicle maintains its facing from moving. It stays rotated at the end of its move and "gained" an inch. E is functionally the same as D. The vehicle in D pivots twice. In E it only pivots once. If D works for you E must as well as they are the same. This one is the crux of the issue because it generates the perception of gained distance.

Arschbombe wrote:This thread is amazing. I didn't realize so many flatearthers played 40k.

^ This.

The fact that someone can say, with a straight face, "Sure, pivoting doesn't reduce your movement. But if you pivot then you can't move/measure as far!" just blows my mind.

@Arschbombe -Great diagrams!
I voted 'A' because each one of your movement diagrams is a legal move.
Good work on illustrating the various moves.

A. True, obviously.
B. True, as per pg. 12. You measured from your start point, and the ensuing pivots were part of your move. You didn't lose any move due to the fact that if you were facing forward you would still be on the front line.
C. False. To reach such a point, after you measured, the front of your vehicle would have had to end up MORE than 12" away, then pivoted back. Again, slacker and demo have it. Measure your move from your current position, then any ensuing pivots are part of that move. A pivot alone is not a move as stated by the rules. A pivot followed by forward or backward movement is movement.
D. False for the same reason C is. The vehicle should end in the same position as either A or B.
E. False for the same reason C is, but actually showing it.

Movement sequence:
1. Choose a movement path.
2. Measure it.
3. Move the vehicle, using any pivots desired at any point, as long as the vehicle is always moving either forwards, or backwards. No omni-directional wheels here. The move may end with a pivot as well, however you would end up behind the maximum move line as you arrived there moments before with the front of your vehicle.

Summary:
1. Demo's chart shows why option A is wrong (PLEASE note the red dots aren't pivot points, but points of reference for measurement.)
2. Pivoting isn't movement. Pivoting followed by forward or rearward mvoement IS.

Arschbombe wrote:Here's my final attempt to illuminate the issue under "discussion."




1. Example A shows a rhino moving straight forward 12". Everyone seems to agree that this is OK.

2. Example B is the exact same situation as example A except that the vehicle pivoted 90 degrees at the end of its move. It has magically "lost" an inch of movement. I think most people accept this one as well.

3. Example C is similar to example B except the vehicle slid to regain the lost inch. This violates RAW, but some seem to think this works because no part of the vehicle is more than 12" from the start position. Unless it pivots again...

4. Example D is the same as A. The rhino moved 12" and maintains facing. I see people moving vehicle sideways like this in order to speed up play when there is no intervening terrain that needs to be maneuvered around. By strict RAW you can't actually slide sideways, but by pivoting once at the start of the move and again at the end you achieve the same thing.

5. Example E. This is the same as D except the vehicle maintains its facing from moving. It stays rotated at the end of its move and "gained" an inch. E is functionally the same as D. The vehicle in D pivots twice. In E it only pivots once. If D works for you E must as well as they are the same. This one is the crux of the issue because it generates the perception of gained distance.

I think there's a gray area in the rules here. Deconstructing it:

#1 - "Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model."

Simple enough to understand.

#2 - "Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round."

Also simple enough to understand, and also leading to some interesting conclusions - for example, if you've got two vehicles that are touch each other front to back, neither can turn until they've moved forward enough to be able to turn without touching each other.

#3 - "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."

Here's where the issue rests, I think. Turning doesn't reduce the move. However, it doesn't say that it can increase the move, either. It doesn't say how to measure the "maximum move" either. We aren't told where to measure the move from or when to measure it. The issue is IMNSHO, quite conclusively a gray area not addressed by the rules.

#4 - "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)."

Not really applicable to this situation.

#5 - "Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

In conjunction with #2, leads to that interesting conclusion I mentioned.

The only other thing in the rules that applies is in the ramming section...and GW drew the diagram to make it useless in figuring out this situation (since the original position was done so that it was exactly the same distance from the target as the turned distance).

My conclusion: RAW doesn't help here, since the answer is gray. Default to the "give the action taker the least advantage."

FYI - this issue will be addressed in the next INAT, and I can't remember what answer we came up with. Still waiting for Yak to finalize the copy, so I can't remember if I was in the majority or not.

Consider the following:

1) Moving staright ahead 12"...and then pivotiing slightly to try and turn your front armor straight at an enemy. If this is only a slight turn, the front corner of the vehicle will now be further forward then 12". So the pivot isnt allowed under this interpretation of the rules? But pivots are always allowed specfically by the rules since pivoting isnt movement.

2) Pivot a rectangular vehicle slightly. Its front is now behind the point where its right corner was just a moment ago. Does this mean that the vehicle can move 12.5" straight ahead?

3) Expand on that idea. Pivot a necron monolith 45 degrees. The front end is now about 2" behind where the corner was.....how far can the monolith move and where are you measuring its movement from?

4) Move a BA rhino in a curve around an obstacle to get to the other side of a piece of terrain. It has to pivot 4-6 times during its movement. Somehow we are supposed to measure this movement all from its starting postion?


This idea of measuring from a starting position looks fine as long as only a 90 degree turn and then straight movement is considered. For other pivots and nonlinear movement this idea begins to create ridiculous situations.



Sliggoth

I voted B, but i dont recall ever getting onto people about measuring their movement. I generally just start measuring at a feature(sometimes a dozer blade or the turret) on the vehicle and move from there.

If it came down to it i would probably argue against option A simple because the vehicles isn't making "a hard right", it is literally pivoting on the spot and still traveling and impressive distance considering it was pointing the wrong direction to begin with. Try this in your own car next time your in the wal-mart parking lot, just rev a little and kick that 90 degree turn with no forward movement.

This kind of movement is wholly unrealistic and while i know some think its a game and logic shouldnt be taken into account, I still believe the rules that are written are done so they resemble how things actually could/should happen.

First, I will point this out. Even if RAW say this is possible, from a purely logical, realistic standpoint it doesn't make sense as a vehicle performing a turn before moving doesn't move farther than if it just gunned it off the line. (Though it would be funny to see someone in NASCAR try this. )

Sliggoth wrote:Consider the following:

1) Moving staright ahead 12"...and then pivotiing slightly to try and turn your front armor straight at an enemy. If this is only a slight turn, the front corner of the vehicle will now be further forward then 12". So the pivot isnt allowed under this interpretation of the rules? But pivots are always allowed specfically by the rules since pivoting isnt movement.

2) Pivot a rectangular vehicle slightly. Its front is now behind the point where its right corner was just a moment ago. Does this mean that the vehicle can move 12.5" straight ahead?

3) Expand on that idea. Pivot a necron monolith 45 degrees. The front end is now about 2" behind where the corner was.....how far can the monolith move and where are you measuring its movement from?

4) Move a BA rhino in a curve around an obstacle to get to the other side of a piece of terrain. It has to pivot 4-6 times during its movement. Somehow we are supposed to measure this movement all from its starting postion?


This idea of measuring from a starting position looks fine as long as only a 90 degree turn and then straight movement is considered. For other pivots and nonlinear movement this idea begins to create ridiculous situations.



Sliggoth

First of all, the corner of a vehicle gaining an inch or so on a final pivot is fine. IMO, we've finally distilled the subjective view of the situation down. If you measure from your initial point, move forward 12", then pivot, there's no problem. It's when you pivot first, take that new position as your starting position, and then measure that we see a problem.

You do bring up a good point though. The practicality of following this rule on complex movements becomes difficult to measure. But isn't that true of regular movement as well? Repeated measurements, pivoting, and movement will throw human error into how far you move. But, measuring multiple times during the vehicles movement is certainly no more complicated than doing the measuring beforehand before you have to start reaching your tape measure around your vehicle and the obstalce. So I'd say it's a moot point, even if we did throw practicality into this argument.

tanks on tracks can pivot on the spot - one side goes forwards the other goes in reverse and the tank is doing 360's without moving any where.

i decide to spin my Chimera on the spot 6 times - how far has it moved??

0

Pvt. Jet wrote:

First of all, the corner of a vehicle gaining an inch or so on a final pivot is fine. IMO, we've finally distilled the subjective view of the situation down. If you measure from your initial point, move forward 12", then pivot, there's no problem. It's when you pivot first, take that new position as your starting position, and then measure that we see a problem.

Except the position of the pro-B party cannot accept this, because it leads to exactly the same situation.

You start sidewise against the deployment line, move 12", then pivot. Your nose is probably 14-15" away from where you started. It's exactly as if you had pivoted first.

No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

whitedragon wrote:

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

So nobody wants to respond to my deconstruction of the rules?

Centurian99 wrote:
Here's where the issue rests, I think. Turning doesn't reduce the move. However, it doesn't say that it can increase the move, either. It doesn't say how to measure the "maximum move" either. We aren't told where to measure the move from or when to measure it. The issue is IMNSHO, quite conclusively a gray area not addressed by the rules.

My conclusion: RAW doesn't help here, since the answer is gray. Default to the "give the action taker the least advantage."

FYI - this issue will be addressed in the next INAT, and I can't remember what answer we came up with. Still waiting for Yak to finalize the copy, so I can't remember if I was in the majority or not.

Well yeah if there wasn't a grey area this thread wouldn't have ran to 9 pages. I look forward to see what you decided in your INAT out of interest what is your opinion on how it should be played?

Gwar! wrote:The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

Bangbangboom wrote:And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

As pointed out, all I have to do is move a planck length in the direction I am facing, and then pivot, so that argument doesn't hold any water.

Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

whitedragon wrote:Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

Measuring from the front gets you in the same exact position. This is basic geometry.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

Measuring from the front gets you in the same exact position. This is basic geometry.

Basic Euclidean geometry! Get it right silly! But yeah, measuring from center or from front doesn't change anything.

whitedragon wrote:

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

The diagram shows one thing, and the rules say simply 'hull'. We know that diagrams for 40k aren't always correct so we use both, in this case front to front was simply an example.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

As pointed out, all I have to do is move a planck length in the direction I am facing, and then pivot, so that argument doesn't hold any water.

Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

The vehicle doesn't lose anything it just seems it did that argument works both ways so is invalid.

I have supported both views as you can read yourself, the fact is until GW clarify whether you can measure > move > pivot > measure > move > pivot ...... or you must measure the whole path in one go we will never know.

The whole I can't be wrong because I have played it this way for 3 editions and GW have had 3 editions to tell me I am wrong so I must be right argument doesn't hold up.

It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A (which is the RaW), is not RaW.

You can, of course, House Rule to your hearts content, but it won't be the RaW.

And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A (which is the RaW), is not RaW.

You can, of course, House Rule to your hearts content, but it won't be the RaW.

And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

I think that is the best we're going to get here and the closest we'll come to an agreement would have to be based around it.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A, is not RaW.

So can you tell me where in the rule book it tells you how to measure the movement path of a vehicle, or any model for that mater. Because I don't think it has one and as both measuring systems produce separate results and both have valid arguments you have to have a house rule.

But I can see your not a man to change your mind so I feel I am probably wasting my time.

Bangbangboom wrote:So can you tell me where in the rule book it tells you how to measure the movement path of a vehicle, or any model for that mater.

Yes, page 12. That shows you how to measure movement. The rules also say you can rotate or pivot at any point during your move and that to do so does not reduce your move. You therefore measure 6" forward, rotate, then measure 6" forward again.

But I can see your not a man to change your mind so I feel I am probably wasting my time.

Not at all. I can, and do, change my mind.

You just have to actually show that what you are talking about is correct. So far, not a single one of your arguments have persuaded me otherwise, mainly because none of them follow the RaW.

Gwar! wrote:
And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Jesus you edit your posts loads after posting.

But the loss isn't real, you just perceive that way.

Bangbangboom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Jesus you edit your posts loads after posting.

But the loss isn't real, you just perceive that way.

It doesn't work that way though, any loss is real, any gain can't be real as the rules say that you are not supposed to lose any movement. They also say you may pivot as much as you like while moving. Thus anything over 12" is pivot and not actually movement. Where as anything under is a loss and you must move to correct it if you're going for full movement.

Bangbangboom wrote:
Well yeah if there wasn't a grey area this thread wouldn't have ran to 9 pages. I look forward to see what you decided in your INAT out of interest what is your opinion on how it should be played?

Out of respect to the rest of the committee, I'll let the INAT speak for itself when we release it.

Gwar! wrote:The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

As I said, the difficulty comes because the rulebook doesn't tell you when to measure, which is what makes RAW unable to resolve the question.

Gwar! wrote:
Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

Think of it this way. If you take a Land Raider and pivot it on the spot 90 degrees, how far has it moved? 0'' (counts as stationary as well). Nobody openly disputes this.

Now, move the Land Raider forward 1 inch. How far has it moved? The pivot crowd says 1 inch. The no pivot crowd says somewhere around 2 inches. Somewhere between the pivot and the forward movement people are arguing that an extra inch is added to the total distance traveled.

There is also the issue about moving sideways. The no pivot crowd makes their entire case based on the assumption that it is illegal to move sideways. However, the rules for moving vehicles inherit from those for moving infantry, and infantry are able to move sideways. Vehicles have no restriction against moving sideways, only reaffirmed permission to move forwards and backwards (note that it lacks a clause allowing "pivot movement" too). If the rules do not inherit in this way, the case is even more moot because the diagram on page 12 must not apply.

And the wonderful thing about the diagram on page 12 is that you can use it to argue for the ability to move forward seven inches and pivot to the right, resulting in only having moved 5.5". (Measuring from the center of the front of the rhino to the center of the front of the rhino.)

Centurian99 wrote:That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

What else are we meant to use? Bat-signals and Pudding? (Genuinely confused).

Gwar! wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

What else are we meant to use? Bat-signals and Pudding? (Genuinely confused).

Hmm...how to explain this. OK, try this. Here's the rule.

"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."

Horribly written rule, but that's what we've got to go with. Replacing it with symbology, we get:

"X" does not reduce the vehicle's "Y." This means that a vehicle may combine "A" and "B" "Y" in the same turn providing that it does not exceed its maximum "Y."

You wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

You're saying that because increasing Y isn't allowed by the rules, any apparent increase in Y is not really an increase in Y, or else it would break the rule. That's a logical fallacy, because it uses the rule to prove itself. Also known as "begging the question."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It's pretty clear that every vehicle has a maximum move. We know that pivoting does not reduce this maximum distance. We also know that we cannot exceed this distance. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to argue differently.

The only question is when do you measure Y? After or before pivoting? As far as I can tell, there's no RAW way to resolve this issue. The RAW doesn't say, and none of the diagrams help either.

Basically, there's two possible answers, each of which has its flaws.
A) You measure from the starting position of the vehicle.
B) You measure post-pivot, but before moving.

By the way...you used the word "subjective" earlier. Neither subjective or objective really applies here, because it all depends on when you calculate the maximum move of the vehicle.

And not directed to you...but whoever was trying to argue that vehicles can move sideways, the rules pretty clearly allow them to move forwards or backwards, but mention nothing about moving sideways. (Walkers, of course, excepted).

Centurian99 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

You're saying that because increasing Y isn't allowed by the rules, any apparent increase in Y is not really an increase in Y, or else it would break the rule. That's a logical fallacy, because it uses the rule to prove itself. Also known as "begging the question."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It's pretty clear that every vehicle has a maximum move. We know that pivoting does not reduce this maximum distance. We also know that we cannot exceed this distance. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to argue differently.

The only question is when do you measure Y? After or before pivoting? As far as I can tell, there's no RAW way to resolve this issue. The RAW doesn't say, and none of the diagrams help either.

Basically, there's two possible answers, each of which has its flaws.
A) You measure from the starting position of the vehicle.
B) You measure post-pivot, but before moving.

By the way...you used the word "subjective" earlier. Neither subjective or objective really applies here, because it all depends on when you calculate the maximum move of the vehicle.

And not directed to you...but whoever was trying to argue that vehicles can move sideways, the rules pretty clearly allow them to move forwards or backwards, but mention nothing about moving sideways. (Walkers, of course, excepted).

The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Norade wrote:
The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never found a rule allowing that, and I'd be interested if it exists.

Centurian99 wrote:

Norade wrote:
The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never found a rule allowing that, and I'd be interested if it exists.

"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 )ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements."

Thus you can measure from anywhere on the hull to anywhere on the hull provided the same points are used in both the beginning and the end of the measuring step.

Norade wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

Norade wrote:
The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never found a rule allowing that, and I'd be interested if it exists.

"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 )ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements."

Thus you can measure from anywhere on the hull to anywhere on the hull provided the same points are used in both the beginning and the end of the measuring step.

Do you really want me to point out the logical flaws in your reasoning there?

Catachan_Devil wrote:tanks on tracks can pivot on the spot - one side goes forwards the other goes in reverse and the tank is doing 360's without moving any where.

i decide to spin my Chimera on the spot 6 times - how far has it moved??

Pvt. Jet wrote:0

wrong according to the pivot gains inches clan - depending on which way i am facing i have potentially moved 1-2"

hear is another question - if i only pivot 90 degrees and then go to shoot i count as moving at combat speed beacause i have move an inch in a given direction?? and therefore can only fire one weapon (+ defensive) instead of all my weapons

where do you draw the line.. the BRB states that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement when shooting and you dont lose movement

but some people now want to make it count


Automatically Appended Next Post:
just keep it simple

Catachan_Devil wrote:
where do you draw the line.. the BRB states that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement when shooting and you dont lose movement

but some people now want to make it count

Drawing a line is pretty easy. The rule itself says so...and has an interesting inference:

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

The rule itself says when pivoting does not count as moving. As a correlation, it would imply that pivoting in other circumstances would count as moving.

Like I said, its a horribly written rule.

Agreed with Centurian. Here's how I see pivoting. I've been arguing you measure before you move, then follow that move with any pivots up to your measured point. If you ONLY want to pivot, well, draw your line at 0". Then feel free to pivot. No move incurred. However, if you want to move, say, 2" to the left and your facing up, the pivot becomes part of the move. As Centurian said, "a vehicle that ONLY pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary."

Frankly, something I missed but only proves my point.

Also! Whenever one of you says "any movement gained is subjective," it's not. I can easily point out to you the difference. Leave a vehicle pointing straight up, move it 12", easy. Start a vehicle left or right, then move it up according to option A, and you are MORE than 12" off your starting point. Objectively, there is a distinct change that gives a benefit to the use, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing this.

Again, any movement is forward to back, you measure before your move, and only if pivoting is the only thing you do in your movement phase does it not count as movement. The rule here being that a tank can swivel on it's spot and still shoot, NOT allowing defying of physics to move faster by starting in a different direction.

Sorry, but IMO, this is sliding more and more for me as I read the rules from a RAI that should be fixed to misinterpreted and poorly written RAW that needs to be REinterpreted.