NO. the rule is that if a vehicle pivots ALONE then it doesnt count as movement, so by deduction if a vehicle pivots AND moves then it DOES count as movement. To clarify that that vehicles are free to pivot without losing total move distance they clarify that you are free to pivot as much as you want. NOTHING gives you ANY permission to exceed your maximum move.

the rules say to measure from the hull, the most logical way to get the most movement out of the vehicle is to measure from the point of the hull closest to the destination, any other way would skew your movement and potentially result in an illegal move.

No you are free to measure from any point as long as you measure from the SAME popint for both start and destination. The easiest most consistent way to do this is using the centre. Using methods A or B from eth original example though would both work from any starting point where as your method gives different results depending on where you measure from which should tell you something of its validity...

Demogerg wrote:No, because he is still measuring BEFORE the first pivot, not after.

Ok, how about he moves (and measures) a single planck length forward first and then does the rest?

FlingitNow wrote:

No, its correct. All you do is rotate 180 degrees and then move.

But that is exactly what he is arguing against. If you can do that then you can pull the start sideways, pivot and move trick.

That is my point if he allows this then he has to allow the pivot trick he's arguing against he can't have it both ways as he is trying.

No, because he is still measuring BEFORE the first pivot, not after.

Then he isn't using the same point to measure the start and finish point which is against the rules. How are you not getting this. If the measure before the first pivot then you measure from the front to the front in which case the Rhino has moved about 11" (assuming it is about 5" long) not 6" as the diagram claims is correct. Only if you measure after the pivot has that Rhino moved 6". So which is it has the Rhino moved 11" or are you finally agreeing the pivot trick is correct?

Fundamentally it is the only way the rules can work. You measure movement for vehciles only in straight lines forward and back as per the vehicle rules. You are not allowed to measure a wheeled turn and pivoting does not reduce your movement. You have to measure from the same point to the same point. As soon as you try to implement your method you are measuring wheeled moves, pivoting is reducing movement and/or you have to start measuring from different points start to finish and where you measure from makes a difference to how far you've moved. Our method never breaks any of the rules and is consistent no matter what point on the vehicle you measure from as long as you use the same start to finish of each section (between each pivot)...

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, because he is still measuring BEFORE the first pivot, not after.

Ok, how about he moves (and measures) a single planck length forward first and then does the rest?

Irrelevant, because if he exceeds his maximum movement then its an illegal move, so he would need to measure out the entire move before moving through any part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:words

Maximum move is maximum move is maximum move. Exceeding this through pivoting is breaking the rules. Pivoting does not give you persmission to exceed your movement allowance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

@Demogerg So then lets walk through the following scenario:

Place a vehicle (rhino would be good, LR would make it easier to see...or for those of us with none of the above a playing card will still serve) on a piece of paper. Mark the corners of the vehicle on the paper...this is the premove measurement that you are suggesting is the only way to measure.

Now pivot the vehicle/ card a bit to the right. Say...20-40 degrees should work, depends on if its rhino or LR shaped a bit. Now look at the corner mark on the paper. Please notice that the mark is in FRONT of the card/ vehicle...by as much as an inch for something the shape of a LR.

According to the initial measurement camp, we can now move the LR 13" straight ahead and claim that we are only "moving" it 12".

It is absurd to measure from some starting position, because it ignores any angled movement problems.


Sliggoth

Demogerg - except you have still failed at providing a *rule* whcih states you must measure the way you keep stating.

If i choose the point to measure as the cenre of the vehicle, and end my move with that centre 12" away I *have*, by the definition of moving in the rulebook, moved 12".

the fact that another measurement, taken from another point, shows a different value is entirely irrelevant. You will in fact have at least 3 possible values - 1 greater, one less and one equal to the move. Your interpretation "requiring" you to take the highest value has no rules basis.

In other words: it is a houserule.

FlingitNow wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:It really isn't that hard to comprehend:

I'll go anti clockwise round the J of diagrams explaining why your interpretation is against what the rules say:

1st Diagram correct.

2nd Diagram correct, this is not allowed as you are measuring from 2 different points.

3rd Diagram Wrong. This is a no, you can not measure from 2 different points you are doing the same thing that you said you couldn't do in diagram 2!

4th Diagram not allowed, you are moving in a bend or wheel which is strictly forbidden. You can only move in straight lines and pivots with your tank as detailed in the tank movement rules.

5th Again wrong again you persist with the wheeled movement explicitely forbidden in the tank movement rules (tanks pivot on the spot rather than wheeling round).

So again re-draw these diagrams so that they are correct by the rules. That means you have to measure from the same point on the vehicle to the same point on the vehcile always and movement is only forwards and backwards or pivots. Then as you claim pivoting is costing movement (because the corner is moving as soon as you pivot) explain how the hell you measure that...

3rd diagram
It's not points on a base/hull it's points on the board. Otherwise you can measure from a model facing backwards and then turn it around to measure from the same point, getting an extra base worth of movement.

You do NOT measure from a point on the base/hull, you measure from a point on the board corresponding to a point on the base/hull.

As for 4th and 5th diagrams, do you know what a circle is made of? Infinitesimally small straight lines wit infinitesimally small angles... in simpler words, you move 1/12" then pivot 15* then repeat 12 times, so that at the end you have moved 12" and pivoted 180* facing the opposite direction a distance of 24 / pi inches (given by C = pi D).

Let me clear some things up:

You may only Pivot AS, or DURING your move, you measure your maximum movement BEFORE you move a unit, pivoting on the spot (without moving the vehicle at all) counts as that units 'movement' but does not count as moving the vehicle.

Show me rules where it says "A player may pivot a tank any time during the movement phase." and you can use those rules. The BRB I use has rules that explicity state that only as part of a vehicles movement may it be pivoted, but if it ONLY pivoted THEN it doesn't count as moving.

The corresponding rules from the BRB:

Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit.

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

As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover.

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).

Once a unit has completed all of its movement, the player selects another unit and moves that one, and so on, until the player has moved all of the units he wishes to move. Note that a player doesn’t have to move all (or indeed any) of his units.

If you exceed this 12" distance measured from the hull, then you have exceeded your maximum movement, no matter how you try and slice it.

Maximum move is maximum move is maximum move. Exceeding this through pivoting is breaking the rules. Pivoting does not give you persmission to exceed your movement allowance.

Given your "response" I think you are conceeding the point now.

But to persist What about measuring front corner to front corner? Actually your movement description of the bending moves equates to our movement method not yours are at each step you are measuring stopping turning and measuring again and not measuring the turning process as you claim you must do.

This is the crux of the issue do you measure the distance travelled whilst pivoting? If no you are following our method if so then you are following your method. The game then horrendously breaks trying to work out how to turn using your method, the distance moved will depend on which points you count movement from. The distance travelled will depend on whether you pivot before or after your move. Our method will produce the same measurement no matter where you measure from and whether you pivot and then move or move and then pivot...

Your method is:

a) a totally inconsistent way of determining distance moved (pivot that 180 degree rhino first and it could have moved move anywhere from 1", 6", 11" to 11.4"; assuming it is exactly a 5" by 3" rectangle).

b) logistically impossible when you start turning the tank.

Surely that should tell you something?

Ahhh, it IS a language problem! What one needs to remember here is that we have to use words are they exist in the 40k rules, also known as GWese.

Movement in 40k for vehicles is when the vehicle moves straight forward or backward. Since models have a movement limit we are thereby allowed to measure this movement to make certain that this limit is not exceeded. So we can measure as the vehicle goes forward or backward.

By the rules, pivots are NOT movement. If distance is covered by pivots, this is expressly not how we move vehicles. Other ways in which vehciles may appear to move are also not movement. Being moved from a tyranid popping oput of the ground or a BA dreadnought dragging your vehicle are two ways that come to mind. Pivots are another way in which vehicles can be moved that are not actually movement.

So we can only measure as vehicles move forward and backward. And for vehicles, we can only measure from the hull. We cannot measure from where the hull used to be, we have to measure from the hull. And for movement, we only measure as we move...which is forward or backward.

Yes, portions of a vehicle may end up at different distances from the starting point. Thats inherent in any turns, there is no way to avoid this if the vehicle turns.

Yes, the method GW uses for movement allows for this. Yes, its by no means perfect. And yes, by the rules some portions of a vehicle may end up farther from their starting point than the vehciles movement allowance. This is because of how GW defines vehicle movement.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Ahhh, it IS a language problem! What one needs to remember here is that we have to use words are they exist in the 40k rules, also known as GWese.

Movement in 40k for vehicles is when the vehicle moves straight forward or backward. Since models have a movement limit we are thereby allowed to measure this movement to make certain that this limit is not exceeded. So we can measure as the vehicle goes forward or backward.

By the rules, pivots are NOT movement. If distance is covered by pivots, this is expressly not how we move vehicles. Other ways in which vehciles may appear to move are also not movement. Being moved from a tyranid popping oput of the ground or a BA dreadnought dragging your vehicle are two ways that come to mind. Pivots are another way in which vehicles can be moved that are not actually movement.

So we can only measure as vehicles move forward and backward. And for vehicles, we can only measure from the hull. We cannot measure from where the hull used to be, we have to measure from the hull. And for movement, we only measure as we move...which is forward or backward.

Yes, portions of a vehicle may end up at different distances from the starting point. Thats inherent in any turns, there is no way to avoid this if the vehicle turns.

Yes, the method GW uses for movement allows for this. Yes, its by no means perfect. And yes, by the rules some portions of a vehicle may end up farther from their starting point than the vehciles movement allowance. This is because of how GW defines vehicle movement.


Sliggoth

but you forget, Pivots ALONE are not considered movement, you guys keep ignoring the word "alone" here. If you move any other way than just pivoting during your move, then you have not Pivoted alone, and thus it does count as movement.

Demogerg - so produce the rules stating you must measure the greatest distance. The rules only require that I measure from the hull - and I choose the centre. Show why this s agains tthe rules, this time with ACTUAL rules.

ihatehumans - sorry, no. Just no. Your argument now seems to be that you measure a point on the table, despite this being expressely against the rules for how to measure distances for models without a base.

Your last diagram is just laughable, really. I'd stop with the fake swearing as well, it isnt exactly clever and likely to earn a report or two if you continue...

Moving Vehicles in 40K:

In his turn, a player may move any of his units – all of them if he wishes – up to their maximum movement distance.

1) Declare the miniature you are going to move:


A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model’s hull or body instead.

2) Measure THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE YOU CAN MOVE from THE HULL OF THE VEHICLE:


A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size. A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases – this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase.

Difficult terrain slows down models wishing to move through it, and can sometimes be dangerous to models passing through it.

Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into.

2) a- To avoid moving through enemy models, impassable terrain, or difficult terrain (assuming you do not want to have to roll for it) you must follow the rules and measure the distance AROUND them:


As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover.

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 that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

When moving models, it’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of the model’s base to the distance moved.


3) You may now move your tank to any point within the measured MAXIMIMUM distance and turn it to face ANY direction, as long as no part of the model's base is outside of the maximum distance, otherwise it will have "exceeded its maximum move":


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). Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.

3) a- When you choose to move a unit, you may simply pivot it. In this case it will count as stationary:


Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit.

4) You now move on to the next unit you wish to move, you may NOT go back and decide to "change the move already made by a previous unit" including moving a tank which merely pivoted.


The problem CLEARLY arises as you try to move a unit TWICE, your pivoting it, then your measuring to move it. This is illegal, you measure for movement BEFORE pivoting, and you MAY pivot AS you move, not before, not after, only AS you move, ending your movement WITHIN THE MAXIMUM RANGE. You may also ONLY pivot, and then you count as stationary, but you have still declared the movement you have made for that unit (a pivot).

The RaW on this is clear, crystal as a wine glass, clearer than the desert sky, so clear it makes a vacuum seem like a fog!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...

Oh, and just so we are clear:



Are all legal moves.

Also, to clarify this line where you may have some confusion:

This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

Maximum move is considered as a distance measured from a point on the hull to a point on the board, as described here:

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model’s hull or body instead.

Where in this case it is between a model and a point.

Meaning that, yes, in the 40K universe, Vehicle drivers are quite good at parallel parking!

Which still, despite repeated attempts, require that you measure from any one spot.

So your argument still fails.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which still, despite repeated attempts, require that you measure from any one spot.

So your argument still fails.

"When measuring distances" you measure "the closest point of the model’s hull" to the point you wish to move to determine a "maximum move" and then move the model, you may "turn any number of times as you move" as long as your "vehicle does not exceed the maximum move" so, if you place any part of the hull outside of that 12" range, you are "exceeding the maximum move" and thus breaking the rules.

Show me EXACTLY where it says you can just measure from any spot on a vehicle and place that spot within range, it says the whole vehicle must not exceed the maximum move, not just some small part of it!



You simply can not exceed the maximum movement with pivoting. If ANY part of your vehicle manages to travel outside of the maximum range then you are making an illegal movement, at the same time, ANY part of your vehicle can be at the maximum movement range and you are making a legal move.

40K movement is about ranges, never exceeding them, and always reaching them, they are set numbers given by the rules, not abstractly determined by doing dodgy movement/pivot plays. That is WHY they made a Diagram entry showing NOT to exceed the maximum distance. Did they make a diagram showing how you are allowed to exceed it? NO! Why? BECAUSE IT'S BREAKING THE RULES!

@ ihatehumans I dont think you mean this...but it sounds as if you are argueing that a vehicle can move any distance it wants so long as it doesnt go more than its movement range from its starting point on the table.

@ Demogerg Please reread the rule. It is "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving". This is in reference to a vehicle that does not move at all, it only pivots. This is important for the ensuing fire phase. The part about pivots later in the move is that "turns do not reduce the vehicle's move"


If a vehcile moves its entire movement allowance straight forward, by raw it can then pivot. By the other interpretation it cannot then pivot if either front corner would end up farther forward. Which the raw stirctly allows by saying that pivots do not reduce a vehicles movement.


Sliggoth

ihatehumans - stop adding words to the quote
"A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model’s hull or body instead. "

The ONLY requirement is to "use the models hull...instead"

So still fail. good going though at making rules up!

You are neither measutring between two models (you are measuring how far one model moves) and even if you were that rule does not apply to models without bases.

So no, it is niot breaking the rules. It is following the rules, exactly.

Edit: LOL just spotted ANOTHER fail with your diagram - you have not folloewed the rules for movement *at all* - as you hav e not pivoted around the centre.

So not only do you not follow the rules you then make up diagrams to illustrate something not allowed by the rules anyway and seem to think it shows your point. Double fail. Amusingly so!

You haven't shown any rules supporting your point.

Do you want to know something?

There aren't any specific rules detailing precisely how you measure a vehicles movement.

It is a collection of:

1) How you measure ANYTHING

2) How you move units

3) How vehicles have different rules to units

So you can not say "that is the rules for measuring between two models" is not the rule to use. Because you have to make a Frankenstein of rules to move a vehicle.

Also, I have pivoted around the centre (or the close approximation since MS paint is not perfect) in every diagram, please indicate which one(s) you mean and I will describe the pivot in more detail.

@Sliggoth, I am unsure how you think I mean that? I am saying that you may draw a line from every point on your hull, those lines are your maximum movement distance long, they may not pass through impassable terrain, within 1" of an enemy model or through difficult terrain (unless you make a dfficult terrain test, in this case dangerous) you may then move your vehicle along any of those lines as long as it can fit (between impassable terrain, friendly models, outside of 1" of enemy models and difficult terrain, unless you roll for it) you may pivot your vehicle any number of times along that line, and you must end the vehicles move so that every part of the hull does not lay beyond the end of those lines, any part of your hull may also be at the end of any of the lines.

Simple really

ihatehumans wrote:Moving Vehicles in 40K:

In his turn, a player may move any of his units – all of them if he wishes – up to their maximum movement distance.

1) Declare the miniature you are going to move:


A model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases as your reference points. For models supplied without a base (like some large vehicles) use the model’s hull or body instead.

You've quoted the wrong rules here, the vehicle rules are more specific so we use those and they say to measure from any point on the hull. Failing at this point makes you fail at the rest.

ihatehumans wrote:2) Measure THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE YOU CAN MOVE from THE HULL OF THE VEHICLE:

Measure all your points from the center and measure all end moves at the center and you get a diagram that makes more sense. But you're clearly pushing an agenda and not trying to make sense anymore.

ihatehumans wrote:2) a- To avoid moving through enemy models, impassable terrain, or difficult terrain (assuming you do not want to have to roll for it) you must follow the rules and measure the distance AROUND them:

Measure the red line and the black line and tell me if one is longer than 12", I'd be willing to bet one is. Thus you fail.

ihatehumans wrote:As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover.

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 that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

When moving models, it’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of the model’s base to the distance moved.

Bolded the part where wheels can never, even while moving, reduce your movement thus making them free at all times.

ihatehumans wrote:3) You may now move your tank to any point within the measured MAXIMIMUM distance and turn it to face ANY direction, as long as no part of the model's base is outside of the maximum distance, otherwise it will have "exceeded its maximum move":

Please show where the rules say no part of your base may move further when at all other places it says you measure from one point on a hull to the same point on the hull. Other parts may be further, but as you may not measure them you can't say anything and thus as far as the game is concerned the vehicle has moved correctly.

ihatehumans wrote:3) a- When you choose to move a unit, you may simply pivot it. In this case it will count as stationary:

Hey even a stopped clock is right once in a while, I guess you're the same. This one works fine.

ihatehumans wrote:4) You now move on to the next unit you wish to move, you may NOT go back and decide to "change the move already made by a previous unit" including moving a tank which merely pivoted.


The problem CLEARLY arises as you try to move a unit TWICE, your pivoting it, then your measuring to move it. This is illegal, you measure for movement BEFORE pivoting, and you MAY pivot AS you move, not before, not after, only AS you move, ending your movement WITHIN THE MAXIMUM RANGE. You may also ONLY pivot, and then you count as stationary, but you have still declared the movement you have made for that unit (a pivot).

The RaW on this is clear, crystal as a wine glass, clearer than the desert sky, so clear it makes a vacuum seem like a fog!

Except that you may measure from the center of your model, tap it with your finger and claim it moved on planck length forward, and then proceed as normal. So you fail, that ignores the fact that you may pivot as part of your movement and thus you are flatly wrong. Please go back and try to make a better point next post.

ihatehumans wrote:Oh, and just so we are clear:



Are all legal moves.

No the second example is illegal as you measured from two different points. You need to measure to the place on the side of the rhino not from side to front which is clearly not allowed in the rules. Your third example also has a rhino moving sideways, also illegal.

I cut the rest as he's using the wall of ignorance style of debate wherr-by he simply repeats himself a ton and hopes you go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ihatehumans wrote:You haven't shown any rules supporting your point.

Do you want to know something?

There aren't any specific rules detailing precisely how you measure a vehicles movement.

It is a collection of:

1) How you measure ANYTHING

2) How you move units

3) How vehicles have different rules to units

So you can not say "that is the rules for measuring between two models" is not the rule to use. Because you have to make a Frankenstein of rules to move a vehicle.

Also, I have pivoted around the centre (or the close approximation since MS paint is not perfect) in every diagram, please indicate which one(s) you mean and I will describe the pivot in more detail.

@Sliggoth, I am unsure how you think I mean that? I am saying that you may draw a line from every point on your hull, those lines are your maximum movement distance long, they may not pass through impassable terrain, within 1" of an enemy model or through difficult terrain (unless you make a dfficult terrain test, in this case dangerous) you may then move your vehicle along any of those lines as long as it can fit (between impassable terrain, friendly models, outside of 1" of enemy models and difficult terrain, unless you roll for it) you may pivot your vehicle any number of times along that line, and you must end the vehicles move so that every part of the hull does not lay beyond the end of those lines, any part of your hull may also be at the end of any of the lines.

Simple really

Wow, you are so wrong, the book gives us rules which most of us can read clearly and that most of us use correctly to move our vehicles. They can be a bit unclear at points, but as long as you follow them strictly things work out.

You also fail to show with rules where no point of your hull may move further than the maximum distance allowed. I will take nothing less than a rules quote or you will have conceded the debate.

Except I DID quote the part of the rules that satisfies the reuqirements: that you measure from the hull (therefore ANY as no restrictions are given) and that turning does not reduce movement.

Those two items together let you know how to move. sorry if this is too difficult for you.

Your "absurd movement" deiagram is impossible: if you had moved the rhino forwards 12" and pivoted around the centre, the distance would not be 12" between but 12" - (length of rhino /2). remember this is the only bit you can measure - movement back and forth.

Norade wrote:
You've quoted the wrong rules here, the vehicle rules are more specific so we use those and they say to measure from any point on the hull. Failing at this point makes you fail at the rest.

The rules there say:

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).


So.. INSTEAD of measuring from a BASE you measure from the HULL.

A model is considered to occupy the area of its base(HULL), so when measuring distances between two models, use the closest point of their bases (HULLS) as your reference points.

Norade wrote:Measure all your points from the center and measure all end moves at the center and you get a diagram that makes more sense. But you're clearly pushing an agenda and not trying to make sense anymore.

Making sense? Your arguing 'making sense' as a rules quote for 40K. You know what 'makes sense' is a fence giving the same cover save from a lascannon as a solid rock does a lasgun. Come back with actual RULES QUOTES!

Norade wrote:Measure the red line and the black line and tell me if one is longer than 12", I'd be willing to bet one is. Thus you fail.

Since MS paint does not allow me to turn a picture by smaller then 90* angles I was forced to supply the 12" red line, to emphasize the point. The red line in my picture IS longer, but the idea is that the vehicle itself would have to be slightly askew, something I can not easily portray in paint.

Norade wrote:Bolded the part where wheels can never, even while moving, reduce your movement thus making them free at all times.

Indeed they are. I have never said they weren't, in fact other have claimed you will lose a movement distance by pivoting.

Norade wrote:Except that you may measure from the center of your model, tap it with your finger and claim it moved on planck length forward, and then proceed as normal. So you fail, that ignores the fact that you may pivot as part of your movement and thus you are flatly wrong. Please go back and try to make a better point next post.

Show me WHERE in the rulebook, QUOTE and EXACT LINE from THE BRB that it says "you may measure from the center of your model" just one quote from the BRB please, in your entire post!

Norade wrote:No the second example is illegal as you measured from two different points. You need to measure to the place on the side of the rhino not from side to front which is clearly not allowed in the rules. Your third example also has a rhino moving sideways, also illegal.

Once again you are making up some rule about measuring point to point, I already showed what happens if you are allowed to move from a point to a point, it's absurd. Also, the Rhino does not move sideways, you are discounting pivoting, and you are refusing to accept what is commonly known as parallel parking, both methods used for that kind of movement.

Norade wrote:No you are free to measure from any point as long as you measure from the SAME popint for both start and destination. The easiest most consistent way to do this is using the centre. Using methods A or B from eth original example though would both work from any starting point where as your method gives different results depending on where you measure from which should tell you something of its validity...

Show me where in the BRB it mentions measuring "the SAME popint for both start and destination" anywhere at all? My method, if done correctly, gives you a set area in which you may place your vehicle as determined by it's current location, surrounding obstacles, and it's maximum movement distance. Read it carefully, it seems complicated but really isn't that difficult to understand.

Considering you didn't quote a single part of the BRB for any of your rules statements leads me to believe you simply have an opinion with no actual grounding in the rules. Any posts from now on that do not use actual quotes I will simply ignore for ease of argument

I'm going to ask everyone involved at this point to take a breath and remind themselves that they're talking about toy soldiers here. Enough with the shouting and the swearing... let's keep it civil, folks.



Meanwhile:

ihatehumans wrote: This is illegal, you measure for movement BEFORE pivoting,

Even though the tank shock rules say otherwise?

I'll let Gwar! handle this, I don't need another time out over this...

Wow, Dash's battle reports have a use besides just the batreps themselves.

As stated in that thread and the subsequent YMDC thread - I'm an Option A sort - it's the only way that makes sense within the rules.

Norade wrote:I'll let Gwar! handle this, I don't need another time out over this...

I'm not coming near this one with a 10 foot pole mate, I know it'll just end badly!

insaniak wrote:I'm going to ask everyone involved at this point to take a breath and remind themselves that they're talking about toy soldiers here. Enough with the shouting and the swearing... let's keep it civil, folks.



Meanwhile:

ihatehumans wrote: This is illegal, you measure for movement BEFORE pivoting,

Even though the tank shock rules say otherwise?

Tank shock rules explicitly detail otherwise... they are separate rules for tank shocking.

There are different rules for many things, for example with most random movement you MUST move the maximum distance, as compared to normal movement where you can move less.

To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the
spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare
how many inches the vehicle is going to move. The
vehicle must move at least at combat speed. Note that
because pivoting on the spot does not count as
moving, this is not enough for a tank shock.

Notice how it does not say "as you would for a normal move" at all. While this exemption is not proof, I take it as an indication that a tank shock is completely different. Especially since it explicitly states that the above rules are "additions and exceptions" so should be assumed to be different.

Tanks follow the normal rules for vehicles, with the
additions and exceptions given below.

**as a side note, thank you insaniak for your civil tone, please correct me if I at all address you rudely **

Gwar! wrote:

Norade wrote:I'll let Gwar! handle this, I don't need another time out over this...

I'm not coming near this one with a 10 foot pole mate, I know it'll just end badly!

Same, here. There are only so many times we can say the same things before it gets upsetting.

ihatehumans wrote:Tank shock rules explicitly detail otherwise... they are separate rules for tank shocking.

So, essentially, a vehicle limited to 12" movement can move 13" (or more, depending on actual shape) when tank shocking.

Are you putting the inconsistency there down to some characteristic of tank shocking, or just writing it off as 'one of those odd things' in the rules?



Because, to my mind, where there are two different ways being presented to read the rules, and one of those interpretations results in a related rule working in an inconsistent fashion, I start to wonder if that interpretation may not be the correct one. YMMV, obviously.

+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Slackermagee wrote:+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Except that his diagrams were wrong as he often measured to different points on the model and even broke his own rules once.

Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

I could also see how some might simply say that to prevent people having to needlessly declare tank shock on tanks they simply want to be able to pivot and move, they would CHANGE the rules (house rule) so that movement allows for pivoting and then measuring distances.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

ihatehumans wrote:On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Nice strawman there.

How "consistent" GW Rules generally are has no bearing on this discussion. The vehicle movement rules are clear and they are consistent.

ihatehumans wrote:Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

I could also see how some might simply say that to prevent people having to needlessly declare tank shock on tanks they simply want to be able to pivot and move, they would CHANGE the rules (house rule) so that movement allows for pivoting and then measuring distances.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Go soak yourself for that backhanded insult,

"I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players."

Reported for rudeness.

Slackermagee wrote:+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Even then my diagrams are not perfect, apparently to get a point accross you need to have mad photo shop skills!

I made a poor diagram trying to roughly explain how it works, I fear it may do more harm than good, but alas I shall post it anyway:



That kind of 'Red Zone' is how I envisage all 40K, movement, shooting, threat range (movement, shooting and assault ranges combined). It's something I believe I picked up from playing games like DotA and LoL, in which it is called "Zoning" apparently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kxGQ3gWdrM

ihatehumans wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:+1 to ihatehumans for making a diagram of my point several pages ago. You did a heck of a better job explaining it than I did.

Even then my diagrams are not perfect, apparently to get a point accross you need to have mad photo shop skills!

I made a poor diagram trying to roughly explain how it works, I fear it may do more harm than good, but alas I shall post it anyway:



That kind of 'Red Zone' is how I envisage all 40K, movement, shooting, threat range (movement, shooting and assault ranges combined). It's something I believe I picked up from playing games like DotA and LoL, in which it is called "Zoning" apparently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kxGQ3gWdrM

Zoning has no relation to how 40k is played. Please stick to the actual rules.

Gwar! wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

Nice strawman there.

How "consistent" GW Rules generally are has no bearing on this discussion. The vehicle movement rules are clear and they are consistent.

insaniak wrote:Because, to my mind, where there are two different ways being presented to read the rules, and one of those interpretations results in a related rule working in an inconsistent fashion, I start to wonder if that interpretation may not be the correct one. YMMV, obviously.

I was responding to his comment on rules and consistency in general, I was in no way trying to "strawman" the argument.

I could just as easily call you out for strawmaning my comment about consistency, since it was in no relation to any exact rule, but I understand that you did not mean to, I'll assume you simply were agitated by what appeared to be an attempt to argue badly.

Norade wrote:Go soak yourself for that backhanded insult,

"I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players."

Reported for rudeness.

Please do not see it as an insult, I was just saying that I saw it as strategic depth, while others do not. I mean to say it is clearly not a shared interpretation as can be noticed by the poll and discussion. Insaniak is right, please calm your temper, there is no need to be so jumpy! I would rather you threw the proverbial book at me (with rules quotes from BRB), so to say, than take offense at piddly little comments about my opinion on GW rules.

Here's the thing. I'm not saying that the measure after pivoting school of thought is wrong. I'm not saying that the measure before pivoting school of thought is wrong (as long as you're not trying to tank shock/ram).

I'm just saying that the RAW is unclear in this situation.

ihatehumans wrote:Indeed, tank shocking is quite different to regular movement.

The reason I see it as different is for several reasons:

1) You do not measure before moving.

2) You MUST move the FULL distance you declared (which is a minimum of combat speed).

3) You MUST move in a straight line, and can not pivot during your movement.

Therefor, if you are tank shocking, you suffer several drawbacks to your movement.

...but in exchange can move further than a vehicle moving in exactly the same fashion without trying to run someone over?

I do, of course, understand that this means that people may, with the intent of gaining the extra movement, declare to tank shock... absolutely nothing.

While not in line with the fluff, I consider this a good use of the rules, it adds a layer of strategic depth if you will.

Sorry, you've lost me. How does allowing a vehicle to move further simply by declaring a tank shock add 'strategic depth'?

If anything it removes a layer of strategy, since it means that it's going to be preferable most of the time to simply declare a tank shock instead of moving normally.

I personally prefer strategic depth in my games as compared to simplification of rules, but it is a personal preference clearly not shared by the majority of players.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

On a note of consistency, I find GW rules to generally be more inconsistent than consistent. I would assume that one look at the INAT, and the need for a YMTC forum, not to mention the thread of "Fun List of RAW Fun" that has all kind of absurdities within it, would be a good indicator of just how bad GW rules can get

The point wasn't that the rules are normally consistent. It was that, when there are two possible interpretations and one of them creates an inconsistency in the rules, the possibility should at least be considered that the inconsistent option is incorrect.

@ ihatehumans Hmmm, isnt the rhino in position A illegal under this interpetation of the rules tho? Because in order to get into the final position is has to move over your line and then pivot back inside the line. Or are you saying that a vehicle can move farther than its movement allowance and then can move back inside that line so its now less? Because the nose of the rhino has definitely crossed over your 12" line before the pivot...which would mean that its pivot gives it extra movement during its movement phase. Its this inconsistency thats causing people to not agree with this line of reasoning.

Remember, we can only measure movement. For a vehicle we can only measure from the hull, and if we are going to move a vehcile 2" forward and then pivot we need to measure 2" from where the hull is at that moment. Then we pivot and move another 3"...so we measure from the hull at that moment and move 3" ahead. And so on. Because movement for vehicles is only straight ahead or back, we are only allowed to measure at that time.


Sliggoth

I'm just saying that the RAW is unclear in this situation.

RaW is pretty clear on this though. The 2 interpretations 1 results in consistency not only with the Tank shock/Ram rules but also with determining how far you have/can move the other results in movement being dependant on what part of the vehicle you measure from, requires you measure wheels for turning (which is not allowed) or creates movement ranges which are never mentioned in the rules (the idea of an area exactly 12" around you vehicle that you can move to and end on facing in any direction). We are told that it doesn;t matter where on the model you measure as long as you keep it the same. Our method results in the measurement always remaining the same for the same distance moved and whenever the pivot is made (in the case of a 180 turn) the other method gives dramatically different results depending on when you pivot and which part fo eth vehicle you measure from. Yet they remain silent on exactly how you choose which part of the vehicle only that (arbitrarily) you can't choose the centre...

Something we were doing that I don't think is specified: measuring from one place one a model to the same place on that model after movement.

Pg12 just tells us not to move any part of the model beyond where we measured to, though the diagram does hint at front to front.

Even when moving multiple times in a turn its as simple as:
>Measure from the edge of the vehicle most directly facing the direction of movement
>Place the entirety of the model in any position you desire (having pivoted during movement) within the distance measured
>Measure in the new direction from the appropriate armor facing
>Place the model in whichever orientation is desired within the new distance measured
>Repeat as necessary

(refering to the OP) I would play option B in this case, since the vehicle is a skimmer and clearly has a base. Battlewagons? option A. The thing for me that changes it is the base. But to be frank, if i was playing with someone who uses option A for skimmers with a base, i really really would not care and would be happy to still play.

i am over this and is not an issue within my gaming group which play it like this - you point the vehicle in the direction you want to travel in and measure the move forward or backward.. edge of the hull to edge of the hull

this method actually allows you to show the path actually travelled.. and not the magical "it can reach there.. pick it up and plunk it down however i want"

my gaming group like our method as much as we like making broooom, brooooom sounds when moving the vehicles in question

The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, tends to prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Edit: One minor correction: Ramming only doesn't directly prohibit passengers from getting out. However, most of the time moving at the greatest possible speed does since so many of the vehicles involved are fast. So ramming just tends to prevent passengers from getting out in the situations where the extra inch would matter.

solkan wrote:The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Solkan has just won the thread.

No Seriously. End. Now. 99.9% of Vehicles you want to do this with are Tanks or have the Ability to Tank Shock. All you have to do is declare a Tank Shock turn 1 instead of moving normally.
Not that you need to, but if you do, you kill off any of these ridiculous arguments that cause pivoting to reduce move.

Good Show Solkan. Good Show. I owe you a Pint of your preferred beverage should we ever cross ways.

Oh, and Solkan, Eldar tanks can take Star Engines, allowing them to re-face themselves in the shooting phase if they need to.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:The great things about Tank Shock, as discovered so far:

1. It specifies to do the controversial method of measuring--pivot the tank and then measure from that position to the final position.
2. Tank shocking still allows the tank to fire.
3. Tank shocking doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking. Vehicles that ram, in contrast, prohibit their passengers from getting out.
4. Almost every vehicle that someone would want to use the controversial deployment mechanism with, either is a tank or has a cheap upgrade allowing it to tank shock.
5. The only vehicles negatively impacted by the inability to pivot at the end of movement are Eldar vehicles and rhinos. Open topped vehicles and Land Raiders don't need to turn at the end.

So you convince the other player to measure the vehicle movement before turning for regular vehicle movement, because that pivot across the deployment line thing sounds cheesy. In response, that player who was going to place his land raider sideways next to his deployment zone, pivot and drive forward for some "extra distance" is now instead going to place it sideways, and then declare a 12" tank shock for exactly the same position. Or as an Dark Eldar player, he goes out and models Torture Amps on all of his raiders; or as an Ork player goes out and models rams on all of his transports; and then does the exact same thing using first turn 12" tank shocks.

Solkan has just won the thread.

No Seriously. End. Now. 99.9% of Vehicles you want to do this with are Tanks or have the Ability to Tank Shock. All you have to do is declare a Tank Shock turn 1 instead of moving normally.
Not that you need to, but if you do, you kill off any of these ridiculous arguments that cause pivoting to reduce move.

Good Show Solkan. Good Show. I owe you a Pint of your preferred beverage should we ever cross ways.

Oh, and Solkan, Eldar tanks can take Star Engines, allowing them to re-face themselves in the shooting phase if they need to.

I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

Slackermagee wrote:I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

I believe it begins with "H", and ends with "umble Pie".

Slackermagee wrote:

I have no words to properly convey my disgust with this new tactic...

How is this a "new" tactic? It has been around as long as the 5th edition rulebook.

Edit:

Furthermore, why/how are you disgusted with it?

No, we fairly well figured out that it didn't work the old way people were using it (or at the very least made a huge big stink about the RAW).

With tank shock... blegh, what a way to exploit a attack to do what RAW cannot.

insaniak wrote:
...but in exchange can move further than a vehicle moving in exactly the same fashion without trying to run someone over?

Yes. I'm not sure what your alluding to with your question, as the answer is clear. If it's something about the nature of having a rule where you can only travel in a straight line giving you some extra movement length when compared to one where you may turn and judge a distance... then again the answer is simple, yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

Sorry, you've lost me. How does allowing a vehicle to move further simply by declaring a tank shock add 'strategic depth'?

If anything it removes a layer of strategy, since it means that it's going to be preferable most of the time to simply declare a tank shock instead of moving normally.

Having to make a choice, each choice having positive and negative effects, adds strategic depth. We could all be restricted to playing vanilla space marine tactical squads, but instead there are several codices with many unit choices and equipment choices, these extra options, each with negative and positive attributes adds strategic depth. Anything that forces you to make a decision between two unequal options, where one of them is not always obviously better, adds strategic depth.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I speaking only in reference to THIS PRECISE RULE. Indeed the two are not mutually exclusive, and rules that satisfy both are always better IMO.

The point wasn't that the rules are normally consistent. It was that, when there are two possible interpretations and one of them creates an inconsistency in the rules, the possibility should at least be considered that the inconsistent option is incorrect.

Indeed it has clearly been considered that the inconsistent one is incorrect. But I direct you to the Doom from the codex Tyranids, I'm not seeing consistency. Of course that isn't a proper representation of these rules and should be disregarded, but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Slackermagee wrote:
With tank shock... blegh, what a way to exploit a attack to do what RAW cannot.

What sorry?

ihatehumans wrote:... yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

But turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can should get you the same distance as turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can with the intention of running someone over, surely?

Because that's where your interpretation leaves us: The driver being keen on running someone over makes the vehicle go faster, but only when the target is off to the side of the tank...

... but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Er... no, I didn't...

Insaniak, i play blood angels and i'm pretty sure my dudes ONLY drive at "intending to run somebody over" speed.

P.S. I'm lost, who is winning? are there still different sides?

I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

The pivoting counts as movement side lost a long time ago, no matter how many inaccurate graphs they made.

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

So you dislike people playing by the rules? That seems an odd stance to take.

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

You're reading a different thread: the pivot isnt movement side won ages back, this is just showing how rediculous "your" side is - that despite all your attempts at saying how "silly" or "illogical" it is [in a game about space elves and xenophobic knights] the rules for tank shock do exactly what yo9u say is illogical - that a tank can turn and travel further than if it was simply moving straight ahead.

Your disgust is quite funny, really.

Are people actually trying to disguise an intent argument by trying to make the 40K rules logical or consistent?

Yep, I think its silly. But RAW often leads you to some whacked out conclusions. This one's a little less whacked out, because it's not a case of the rules contradicting each other, its a case of rule a not talking about the subject at all.

insaniak wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:... yes traveling with the intent to only go straight forward often gets you further, faster, than traveling in a path with curves and worrying about how far exactly you go.

But turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can should get you the same distance as turning 90 degrees and then travelling straight ahead as fast as you can with the intention of running someone over, surely?

Because that's where your interpretation leaves us: The driver being keen on running someone over makes the vehicle go faster, but only when the target is off to the side of the tank...

Firstly, since when does RaW, or even RaI have anything to do with how you or I imagine a Science Fiction Future to work?

Secondly, when you move at cruising speed you are not going to be moving with as much abandon as when tank shocking, as such, yes tank shocking is unsurprisingly faster in this example. If you truly think that driving at cruising speed is the same as tank shocking, compare bumper cars where you have the intent of hitting the other cars (or wall) as hard as you can, with bumper cars where you STRICTLY DO NOT HIT ANYONE (remember, RaW and RaI are clear that you never 'hit' enemy models or impassable terrain, EVER), I guarantee your moving around A LOT faster in the former than the latter.

Finally, let's clear this up, you ONLY gain bonus movement distance compared to regular movement IF your tank shocking in a direction AWAY from your current facing (except directly 180* away). Compare this to the other interpretation where deploying with your vehicle to the side of deployment means you move closer to the enemy than if you were front forward. I know which is more realistic, since race car drivers don't start the race side on for that bonus pivot move rofl.

I mean, the obvious rebuttal is that by the opposite RaI you have vehicles that are moving faster BY TURNING than vehicles that just move straight forward. Don't make this an argument about realism because clearly the opposite school of thought is the most absurd.

... but you asked if in my experience I found that rules are done consistently.

Er... no, I didn't...

insaniak wrote:Because, to my mind, where there are two different ways being presented to read the rules, and one of those interpretations results in a related rule working in an inconsistent fashion, I start to wonder if that interpretation may not be the correct one. YMMV, obviously.

I'm sorry insaniak, can you reword exactly what you were conveying by this statement, since I clearly misinterpreted it? I was trying to say, indeed my mileage DOES vary, where related rules do work inconsistently with the correct interpretation, even though the incorrect one would have them work consistently. Perhaps I should have expressly said that rather than going on about how inconsistent GW rules are in general, I apologize.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

This is YMDC anyway, essentially if we played a game together and you tried setting up your vehicles side on to your deployment zone, I would call you out on it as being 'cheesy', if you said it was completely RaW of you declared them as tank shocking, I would probably smile and allow you to move that way, forcing you to not be able to pivot during our move, and declare the distance before measuring, moving that full distance etc. If you didn't mention tank shocking and tried to say it was RaW, then I would either let it fly with a casual game, telling you that we can play your way this time, then my way the next game or never again. If it was a tourny, then we'd call the TO and he could making a ruling, which I'd stick to no matter what (even if it was that dodgy 27" movement BS some guy tried showing earlier in this thread). If it ruined my games enough, I wouldn't attend that tourny, simple, I don't like the rules as they see I don't have to play with them.

This argument passed well out of what may or may not be RaW in to what level of arguing you please to take, I highly doubt any of us in this thread are really TFG so I'm happy to drop it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:I don't think there are sides anymore...

I agree that tank shocking will perform as per option A, even on turn one with no enemies in sight.

The tactic as a whole probably just lost a lot of player credibility though. It went from something that was assumed to be RAW, to maybe-not-really RAW, to exploiting the rules for tank shock. Again, ick.

You're reading a different thread: the pivot isnt movement side won ages back, this is just showing how rediculous "your" side is - that despite all your attempts at saying how "silly" or "illogical" it is [in a game about space elves and xenophobic knights] the rules for tank shock do exactly what yo9u say is illogical - that a tank can turn and travel further than if it was simply moving straight ahead.

Your disgust is quite funny, really.

Tank shocking rules are completely separate from movement rules, they have to be, they are of a different nature. To PRESUME that you can use part of the tank shock movement for your normal movement and not the rest is to basically say DH assault cannons are heavy 4 rending, and that DA cyclone missile launchers fire 2 missiles.

I understand his upset at the rules, there are MANY rules that are unfortunately open to exploitation, and many players refuse to play with people who wantonly exploit them. There is a big paragraoh about house rules in the BRB that can not be ignored, it is there because the rules are often hard to agree on. For tournaments there are FAQs and TO's that make rulings, and players make the choice to play by those rulings.

To be condescending towards someone who objects to exploiting is very immature.

um.. moving normally at cruising speed is >6" & <12"

tank shocking at cruising speed is >6" & <12"

i dont see the difference that would allow one to be further than the other

CD - because tankshocking lets you pivot then measure from where the tank is now pointing.

ihatehumans - So a tank driver moving faster when running someone over, but only when someone is off to one side, is realistic? Why doesnt it move faster when moving straight ahead?

You also mistook condescension for incredulity. Firstly for how one person can think they have "proven" that pivoting reduces your movement, despite the poll AND the last few pages showing the exact opposite (including your incorrect diagrams - seriously, try it out - move a rectangular object so the front is 12" away and pivot it around the centre. The front will NOT be 12" away from the starting position) and then finds tank shocking, a move that is entirely legal, a disgusting move when it accomplishes the exact same thing that is already legal?

Baffling.

ChrisCP wrote:

Is that meant to make no sense?

I think so ... i got absolutely nothing from that but shoom shoom im a raider ... lol.

ChrisCP wrote:

Ok I get it. It is stating the ridiculousness of pivoting taking up movement. In the first step, the Raider is facing front and moves forward 2" as measured from the front, and still facing frontwards. Then after moving the 2" it rotates 90 degrees to go left. The controller goes to measure again for the Raider's movement at the same spot as before and has now discovered, solely by rotating, that the same measurement spot on the Raider is now 4" away from where it ended the 2" movement, hence the move 4" line (The red line connecting the two yellow dots on the straight Raider and the now turned Raider). Then the game explodes because that is a WTFOMGBBQ moment as by pivoting movement was somehow expended which is explicitly not allowed by the rules.

B

There is no free pivot if you are also moving any distance at all.

you get to pivot as you move, but there is nothing in the rules that give you an additional free movement and its actually cheating. so measure distance from before you pivot in a direction and make sure no part of the vehicle is further from its starting position than allowed.

anything is is explicitly against the rules as written. very clear very simple, free pivot in place only if not moving,

Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

This thread hurts my brain. I'm still wholeheartedly B, even more so with the graphs (that are mostly right. I'm tempted to try and redraw them nice and pretty and always measuring from the same spot with step by step analysis so there's no confusion.)

However, what makes me shudder is the amount of vitriole from people who disagree with the 'B-ers.' I look up and ihatehumans and Slacker are just being peppered with back-handed abuse. At least they've been spending this thread actually trying to make their point with direct rules quotes and diagrams, putting in all the effort. As for the thread being won 'a long time ago' you think maybe all the argument from B's side popped up because of the mass of votes for A? Now, suddenly that people have actually taken "A doesn't feel right" to "A is illegal due to such and such rule" the poll is lopsided, the people having voted before new informations and views were presented.

Also, I'm kind of disgusted by the Tank Shock tactic too... I GUESS the only downside is no pivoting after 'movement' but still. Renders all 13 pages of this moot, makes my head hurt, and makes me regret having an opinion in the first place because someone always can find a way around it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

You don't get it do you?

You don't just measure from one spot, it's any spot going outside of movement range.

You measure the movement, then pivot, you don't suddenly 'lose' any movement.

It doesn't really matter anyway, by the sounds of it I doubt you will ever play a game with any of the people who do movement in a way opposite to you, and if you do you'll be TFG if you act like this in a casual game. At a tourny, it will be their word versus yours to a TO and I have strong faith in my personal skill at explaining to your average TO that ANY part of your vehicle that ends over the maximum movement range is breaking the rules. If you feel you would have an easy time telling a TO that the RaW says it's fine to pivot and then move, even though it means part of your vehicle is over the maximum movement, then go ahead and play in those tournies

No, YOU dont get that you are breaking many, many rules.

You mean all the UK tournies I have ever been to, including the biggest in the country - UK GT?

Sure, you try to explain it. meanwhile the perplexed TO, who has played this way for the last 3 editions, will go "uhuh?" and rule against you.

Also, where are you getting permission to repeatedly change where you measure from? You are told to measure, singular. I am fulfilling those rules, you are not. So you break *at least* two rules (by reducing movement due to pivot, and by measuring when not allowed to) whereas i break *none*

Finally - why would I be "TFG" for wanting to follow the rules? Surely the person who wants to play by a houserule and DEMANDS that their opponent plays it that way is TFG?

Edit: also I am NOT pivoting then moving. I start my movement by moving 1 planck length forwards. I then continue my move by pivoting. I then move forwards. If you cannot understand this I dont know how to more simply explain it...

I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

It's using the rules for a specific motion (tank shock) for something other than its intended purpose. Also, before this no one (at least no one I've ever heard of in any way, shape, or form) has ever used tank shock without there being some kind of target to 'shock'. Hence, exploiting a lack of definition in when tank shock may be used.

This would work for straight line movement (i.e. the first turn charge people want to get out of land raiders) but if you wanted to do any kind of turning at all (i.e. moving around obstacles) you'd have to revert to the previous arguements.

^ Also, it's possible to exploit something and remain 100% within the rules. I'm not saying that this IS within the rules, but merely that its RAW status is irrelevant.

Pvt. Jet wrote: Now, suddenly that people have actually taken "A doesn't feel right" to "A is illegal due to such and such rule" the poll is lopsided, the people having voted before new informations and views were presented.

Which isn't really a problem, since the poll was asking about how people actually play it, not how they perceive the RAW.

Also, I'm kind of disgusted by the Tank Shock tactic too...

The point with the 'tank shock tactic' wasn't that it was something that people should actually do. It was initially presented as evidence that that particular interpretation of the rules didn't make a great deal of sense, as if that's how the game is supposed to be played there is little reason to not just declare a tank shock every time you want to move in any direction other than directly forwards.

insaniak wrote:

The point with the 'tank shock tactic' wasn't that it was something that people should actually do. It was initially presented as evidence that that particular interpretation of the rules didn't make a great deal of sense, as if that's how the game is supposed to be played there is little reason to not just declare a tank shock every time you want to move in any direction other than directly forwards.

And the odd thing is, the fact that the "tank shock tactic" works is in itself evidence that it doesn't work in normal movement procedure, because otherwise it would not need to be spelled out in such a specific manner.



....and /thread.

Sorry, you might need to explain that...

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

Easy...Exploitation is simply wanting to play by any rule that I don't like.

ihatehumans wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

You don't get it do you?

You don't just measure from one spot, it's any spot going outside of movement range.

You measure the movement, then pivot, you don't suddenly 'lose' any movement.

It doesn't really matter anyway, by the sounds of it I doubt you will ever play a game with any of the people who do movement in a way opposite to you, and if you do you'll be TFG if you act like this in a casual game. At a tourny, it will be their word versus yours to a TO and I have strong faith in my personal skill at explaining to your average TO that ANY part of your vehicle that ends over the maximum movement range is breaking the rules. If you feel you would have an easy time telling a TO that the RaW says it's fine to pivot and then move, even though it means part of your vehicle is over the maximum movement, then go ahead and play in those tournies

Except that you're wrong and the rules and diagrams specifically say you must measure from one point to the same point, as you are never allowed to measure to any point other than the one, using only game terms how do we tell that any part of the vehicle is farther away?

If I go a tourny I may print out a diagram from GWAR! and use it and the actual rules to show how things should go.

Norade wrote:
Except that you're wrong and the rules and diagrams specifically say you must measure from one point to the same point, as you are never allowed to measure to any point other than the one, using only game terms how do we tell that any part of the vehicle is farther away?

If I go a tourny I may print out a diagram from GWAR! and use it and the actual rules to show how things should go.

You shouldn't have to, as noone I've ever played with or seen play has ever attempted to pull this 'pivoting reduces your measurable movement range' shenanigan, nor has anyone I've ever heard of in any sort of tournament setting.
I think the general tournament playerbase is mostly smart enough to understand that 'pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move' means 'pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move'.

Too bad some people keep ignoring clear examples and rules quotes though, and even when shown multiple clear BRB examples of how the rules work despite their arguments just decry it as an 'exploit'. Guess this thread'll just keep going.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, YOU dont get that you are breaking many, many rules.

You mean all the UK tournies I have ever been to, including the biggest in the country - UK GT?

Sure, you try to explain it. meanwhile the perplexed TO, who has played this way for the last 3 editions, will go "uhuh?" and rule against you.

Also, where are you getting permission to repeatedly change where you measure from? You are told to measure, singular. I am fulfilling those rules, you are not. So you break *at least* two rules (by reducing movement due to pivot, and by measuring when not allowed to) whereas i break *none*

Finally - why would I be "TFG" for wanting to follow the rules? Surely the person who wants to play by a houserule and DEMANDS that their opponent plays it that way is TFG?

Edit: also I am NOT pivoting then moving. I start my movement by moving 1 planck length forwards. I then continue my move by pivoting. I then move forwards. If you cannot understand this I dont know how to more simply explain it...

Good, I'm glad all the UK tournies you played in, and the previous rule sets, allowed you to play in a manner your used to. Good to see TO's catering to their specific crowd. Are you saying that all the tournies that run comp scores must have that right too? And all the ones that don't and haven't for years? Custom scenarios and scoring systems? Tournies differ greatly between each one, and just because the majority of tournaments you have attended have played it one way, does not make it the right way.

Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

You would be TFG because you insisted that only your interpretation of the rules could possibly be correct and that anyone else is clearly inferior to you in comprehension and is trying to make you play against the RaW. I don't know about your casual games, but in mine we hold it open that GW RULE WRITERS ARE AMATEURS and that each person has differing comprehension of the same language, for the sake of enjoyment you play rules that best suit everyone, or take turns playing alternating interpretations.

It's pretty clear by now that because you are so used to playing it YOUR way, you see anything else as absurd. You refuse to give any ground on the actual rules, you rarely back up any of your statements with rules quotes, you just say "this is how it is" without referencing where it says that. I have quoted the rules so many times I could recite them in front of an audience, but it doesn't matter because you ignore them. The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules. If that means you have to play movement differently, then god forgive GW.

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

ihatehumans wrote:You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

Except that you must measure multiple times to move around a large circle as many arguing side B have shown. You could also measure from the center, to where you want to go using a string, that has a very slight bend at one end and is held tight out the rest of the way, then tap, pivot and move. No rules broken, not being a TFG by jumping through hoops to play within the rules.

ihatehumans wrote:You would be TFG because you insisted that only your interpretation of the rules could possibly be correct and that anyone else is clearly inferior to you in comprehension and is trying to make you play against the RaW. I don't know about your casual games, but in mine we hold it open that GW RULE WRITERS ARE AMATEURS and that each person has differing comprehension of the same language, for the sake of enjoyment you play rules that best suit everyone, or take turns playing alternating interpretations.

Except unlike you we have proof and when brought up among my group they all agreed that the pivot move works after reading the rules and having me show them at the table. They never thought of doing it, but they will gladly allow it as, for most vehicles, it can have drawbacks large enough to make it useless. Also, by definition GW writes are professionals as they get paid for their work, lease get a better dictionary before throwing out definitions you don't seem to understand.

ihatehumans wrote:It's pretty clear by now that because you are so used to playing it YOUR way, you see anything else as absurd. You refuse to give any ground on the actual rules, you rarely back up any of your statements with rules quotes, you just say "this is how it is" without referencing where it says that. I have quoted the rules so many times I could recite them in front of an audience, but it doesn't matter because you ignore them. The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules. If that means you have to play movement differently, then god forgive GW.

It's pretty true that you have shown poorly drawn diagrams that were, by the way, wrong and continue to argue with no rules backing you. You attack posted for how they play with the TFG label and are more inflexible than even GWAR! who has been shown to change his mind when soundly proven wrong.

ihatehumans wrote:You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

The rules never actually require you to complete your measurement before moving the model. They simply require that the model does not exceed it's maximum movement distance. So it's perfectly acceptable to measure as you move.

The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules.

The RAW is different in that it's been re-worded slightly and speed bands have been added in... but the actual mechanics of vehicle movement and pivoting are exactly the same as they were in 3rd and 4th edition. All 3 editions have worked on the premise that vehicles turned on their centre as they move, and that this does not affect their movement distance.

For what it's worth, people had this exact same argument during those two previous editions as well. But from my experience, most players have gone with being able to pivot and then measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

How about we steer clear of the derogatory names... particularly of people who are ostensibly older than you are, hmm?

insaniak wrote:

Norade wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

How about we steer clear of the derogatory names... particularly of people who are ostensibly older than you are, hmm?

Mind telling him to not paint me with the TFG brush then? Besides, how is using kid to describe a man acting like a child worse than what the F in TFG stands for?

If I may point it out again, we're not saying pivoting REDUCES move... it's just part of it. Assuming that you measure your distance beforehand (using a string, or laying a tape measure on it's side to get the bend) you only get to move to the 12" from a point on your hull, as stated by the rules. If you'd like, I can pull the relevant quotes back out again.

However... if I may suggest such a thing, may we boil the argument down into one question? WHEN do we measure movement?

If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want. (However, this prevents you from ending at a position where, if you were at a horizontal line, and wanted to move to a horizontal line 12" up, from moving to it and pivoting to present your entire side along said line. The final pivot you'd make at that point would leave you a bit behind the line, due to length vs width considerations. This also prevents starting sideways and moving 12", using the initial pivot to 'gain' an inch or so on the move, because that initial pivot is part of your move to get to the 12" line.)

If we decide you measure each piece of your movement individually, option A works. This allows us to pivot, measure, and move/pivot an unlimited amount of times until we've moved (forward and backward) the full 12". This would allow the appearance of moving more than 12" (as you'd end up more than 12" away from the edge of your own deployment zone, to use an example.) It also simplifies the process of moving around large things, as you can measure the distance due to the current position of your vehicle rather than measuring it all beforehand.

So where do the rules say when we measure in the movement phase? I can't find a single quote.

The only one worth mentioning is the: "Once you have started moving a unit you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit." This is worth mentioning because if we decide that all movement is measured beforehand, it means that we can't do the "move planck forward, pivot, measure, and move" (which correspondingly wouldn't change your move any under option B anyway. But that's besides the point.)

All other mention of measuring is done in the context of "any unit may move up to it's maximum movement distance" or summat. Not much help there.

So... what say you thread? I personally think all 13 pages come down to this decision. What say you?

Pvt. Jet wrote:If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want.

Here's the thing: If you have to measure before moving the vehicle at all, there is absolutely no point in the rules telling us how the vehicle pivots, as it will make no difference.


The fact that they tell us to pivot the vehicle on its centre point says very strongly, to me at least, that the intent is for us to move the vehicle however far, pivot on the spot, and continue the movement. So for a 6" movement around a corner, you would measure 3" and move the tank that far, pivot on the spot, and then move a further 3".

If you have to measure the 6" before moving, you would just measure the 6" and them shift the tank to the final location. You would never have to worry about how the vehicle actually turns the corner.


Just some food for thought...

insaniak wrote:

Pvt. Jet wrote:If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want.

Here's the thing: If you have to measure before moving the vehicle at all, there is absolutely no point in the rules telling us how the vehicle pivots, as it will make no difference.


The fact that they tell us to pivot the vehicle on its centre point says very strongly, to me at least, that the intent is for us to move the vehicle however far, pivot on the spot, and continue the movement. So for a 6" movement around a corner, you would measure 3" and move the tank that far, pivot on the spot, and then move a further 3".

If you have to measure the 6" before moving, you would just measure the 6" and them shift the tank to the final location. You would never have to worry about how the vehicle actually turns the corner.


Just some food for thought...

The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand. Also, they could have simply meant for the 'does not cost movement' clause to address concerns from fantasy players who are used to a more complicated system of turns, twists, about-faces, and other things.

Also, with the tap, pivot, move crowd -
It would actually work out to: measure, tap, measure, pivot during movement, placement.

Also, you can measure three inches forward, place the tank in its 'final' position, measure three inches upward, then place the vehicle in its final position (position also being your favorite orientation).

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

Slackermagee wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

No, they showed there measuring to the same point on the hull not to the furthest point. Your camp seems to advocate using the example they showed and measuring from one point to a different point.

ihatehumans - you have shown diagrams that were proven to be wrong. Id advise not bringing them up as "proof" of anything.

The reason I am so sure on this is because, well, its what the rules say....

Anyways:

Measure from centre point of hull, pivot, continue move. Easy. 100% following the rules.

Slackermagee wrote:For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point.

I was thinking more along the lines I mentioned before, with measuring however far, pivoting, and then measuring the next part of the movement, rince and repeat as many times as necessary... which is the way I've always played it, and the way I've always seen it played.

After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

I start the measurement from the vehicle's front, and finish at the vehicle's front, exactly as it shows in page 12 of the rulebook.

Let's do a couple thought experiments:

Forget for a second everything you know about 40K, you are now your average first time 40K player. In the real world we define movement as such:



A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Now lets read the rules for pivoting:

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 that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse
movement in the same turn providing it does not
exceed its maximum move.

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

So, when a vehicle can move 12" and pivot as it moves, it can move as in A, B and C. It "does not reduce the vehicle's move" so it is not limited to moving as in D, and it can only pivot "providing it does not exceed it's maximum move" so it can not move over 12" as in E.

Still not convinced? Here's another:

Firstly, how regular models with round bases move:



The model may be placed anywhere within the red circle.

Now, say that you couldn't pivot vehicles, the facing they start with is the facing they keep, their movement would like this:



The vehicle may be placed anywhere within the red rectangle.

Now, you ARE allowed to pivot vehicles, they have the following 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, 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.

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

In other words, pivoting does not, should not and can not reduce or increase a unit's movement.

Now let's look at our previous picture where you couldn't pivot. This picture does not, should not and can not change, since pivoting doesn't effect movement, only facing.

Let's compare the picture with the two schools of thoughts:




The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point.

I was thinking more along the lines I mentioned before, with measuring however far, pivoting, and then measuring the next part of the movement, rince and repeat as many times as necessary... which is the way I've always played it, and the way I've always seen it played.

After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

I start the measurement from the vehicle's front, and finish at the vehicle's front, exactly as it shows in page 12 of the rulebook.

The way I always see it played is that you measure how far you can move, and leave the measuring tape there, you may then play your models within that range. This is why the bendy red sticks are bendy, this is why measuring tapes are bendy, so that you can measure around obstacles or along a path, rather than having to move the measuring tap allowing for added error in having to measure several distances instead of one.

ihatehumans wrote:A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Within a certain context, that would be true. Within the context of the rules, not necessarily.


And I would be curious as to how you determine your 'average' gamer's habits...

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

That second quote is referring to the game turn, not the act of turning the vehicle. Telling you that you can combine forward and reverse movement while turning makes no sense... the vehicle pivots on its centre, so it's not moving forwards or backwards as it turns.

The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.

The reason there is an argument over it is that, while the way you are suggesting it should be done is arguably how it possibly should work... it's not what the rules say to do, it causes the fact that pivoting is even mentioned in the rules to be nonsensical, it's inconsistent with the Tank Shock rules, and it's simply not (going by my own experience over the last 15 years playing 40K in several different cities and clubs, and the various discussions that have popped up online over this in the last 3 editions of the game) how it is generally played.

insaniak wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Within a certain context, that would be true. Within the context of the rules, not necessarily.


And I would be curious as to how you determine your 'average' gamer's habits...

Well what other descriptions on movement do we have, and by that i mean, what actually moving a model constitutes, all it says in the book is that you can move your models a certain distance, it doesn't define exactly how this works. Since it doesn't define it, the ONLY description we can use is the everyday usage of the phrase "move it X distance" which I defined.

insaniak wrote:

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

That second quote is referring to the game turn, not the act of turning the vehicle. Telling you that you can combine forward and reverse movement while turning makes no sense... the vehicle pivots on its centre, so it's not moving forwards or backwards as it turns.

Sorry, I accidentally clipped the 'turn' part in my copy/paste, I meant only to grab the "providing..." part. I was trying to elaborate that pivoting can not grant extra movement. Unless you are arguing the rules say that it can?

insaniak wrote:

The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.

The reason there is an argument over it is that, while the way you are suggesting it should be done is arguably how it possibly should work... it's not what the rules say to do, it causes the fact that pivoting is even mentioned in the rules to be nonsensical, it's inconsistent with the Tank Shock rules, and it's simply not (going by my own experience over the last 15 years playing 40K in several different cities and clubs, and the various discussions that have popped up online over this in the last 3 editions of the game) how it is generally played.

So the way people have done things previously in previous rules and the way others do things in the new rules, means the 'others' are wrong?

Why wouldn't pivoting be mentioned in the rules?

It is specifically mentioned under the tank shock rules AS being inconsistent (I already pointed this out to you) in the same way as measuring after you declare the distance you move and having to move that full distance, or are you going to be convinced that is how normal movement works too, for consistencies sake?

Finally, please PLEASE provide me with (or point me towards) a clear step by step explanation as to how the rules say to do movement. With specific rules quotes for all actions/restrictions and diagrams where helpful. I haven't thoroughly searched all 14 pages, but so far I haven't seen anything better than GWAR's diagrams and various people simply stating that is the rules, end of story. Having an actual grounds for an argument would go a long way in convincing me

Except that we cant simply measure a circle of possible movement range and say that the vehicle can move anywhere in that circle. Movement is defined in the BRB as moving straight forward or backward, and limited by no being able to go at all in some place (impassable, within 1" of enemy models) so the only time that we are given the ability to measure is when we are actually moving. In other words, when the model is going forward or backwards we can measure from the hull.

We cant measure from where the hull sued to be btw, we measure from the hull.

We are told that the vehicle can move forwrds and backwards, and that it can pivot which doesnt affect the moevement range.

So we can measure when the vehicle goes forweard and backward, that implies that we MUST measure from the hull as the vehcile goes forward and backwards. Not from some point on the ground where the vehicle was at some time in the past.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Except that we cant simply measure a circle of possible movement range and say that the vehicle can move anywhere in that circle. Movement is defined in the BRB as moving straight forward or backward, and limited by no being able to go at all in some place (impassable, within 1" of enemy models) so the only time that we are given the ability to measure is when we are actually moving. In other words, when the model is going forward or backwards we can measure from the hull.

We cant measure from where the hull sued to be btw, we measure from the hull.

We are told that the vehicle can move forwrds and backwards, and that it can pivot which doesnt affect the moevement range.

So we can measure when the vehicle goes forweard and backward, that implies that we MUST measure from the hull as the vehcile goes forward and backwards. Not from some point on the ground where the vehicle was at some time in the past.



Sliggoth

You can, and should, define an AREA in which models may be placed in their movement. This is NOT always a simply circle as indicated previously, but a shape adapted by surrounding terrain and the shape of the vehicle. You may measure, as many times as you want, BEFORE physically moving the vehicle, these measurements being made are to determine where the vehicle may move. After measuring this distance you may place the vehicle in this area. THAT is how the BRB describes it, you MAY NOT measure as many times after a unit has started moving, there is no need for it, you only NEED to measure when you are determining it's maximum movement distance on the board, after that all you must do is physically move it.

I have described the above, in greater detail, with corresponding rules quotes, previously. Your explanation(s) have been done without any reference to corresponding rules.

Why is it so hard for people to provide rules quotes and/or references? Otherwise you have no backing to your claims!

I think this arguent will never be resolved. The only way both sides can ever be 'happy' is if, in 6th Ed, you have to pay to pivot. Say, 1" per 90 degree turn.

Because the rules quotes have been provided - turning cannot reduce your movement, yet in your world turning DOES reduce your total movement - meaning your interpretation is wrong....

UltraPrime wrote:I think this arguent will never be resolved. The only way both sides can ever be 'happy' is if, in 6th Ed, you have to pay to pivot. Say, 1" per 90 degree turn.

I would be happy if GW wrote clear, concise rules in 6th. I would be ecstatic if they actually hired some help from trained, experienced professionals in the area of writing easy to follow rule sets. It would be amazing if I could just sit down, read the rules, and know in precise steps how the game goes. Instead we have hodge podge rules where key aspects remain undefined because GW see their 'game' as more of a 'hobby' and sees rules as 'guidelines' for having some fun with your models, rather than actual instructions for a competitive game.

I personally don't mind GW treating everything as a hobby, the problem arises when people decide that GW rules are a competitive basework for tournaments, and as such rules lawyering and RaW shenanigans ensue, where people can argue about anything from movement to psychic abilities with out an easy to find right/wrong answer. Simple language nuances become game winning strategies and all hell breaks loose. Not that it really matters as most tournaments are a shambles anyway where the TO enforces rules that are completely, obviously wrong (like dismounting just the independent character from a transport carrying a unit he is attached to) and players disregard obvious rules (deploying daemons normally). Attending a 40K tournament is often as much based in the luck of the dice as it is the luck of the draw with TO's and opponents.

ANYWAY /endrant

As it stands, I would settle for some one explaining, in great detail, why they see the RaW working for option A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rules quotes have been provided - turning cannot reduce your movement, yet in your world turning DOES reduce your total movement - meaning your interpretation is wrong....

Where is the reduced movement? See my example where in a world where you CAN NOT pivot you have the same movement as where you CAN using my method.

On the other hand, using YOUR method, the distance you can move changes RADICALLY when you incorporate pivoting...

Pretty sure if it doesn't change, you don't lose or gain anything, but if it DOES change you MUST have gained or lost.

Repeating the same wrong statement, continuously, without rules quotes or diagrams... you think that's convincing anyone but yourself?

People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there.

No reference to moving at all. It says that as part of pivoting you are allowed to combine moving forwards and backwards as long as you do not exceed your maximum movement. I have rules quoted the references line by line, word by word. The best others do is quote my quotes and then 'boil it down' the way you have.

If I wanted it 'boiled down' I'd buy a pot and burn it!

It's really something I wish that GW would clarify. So small yet so big.

I play B. If any part of the vehicle moves farther than 6 inches, it counts as having moved cruising speed, and I won't let my opponent move the vehicle farther than 12 in this manner.

GW should steal, ahem, borrow some of these diagrams for future Errata or 6th edition for 100% clarification.

ihatehumans wrote:

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there

Other people have provided all the neccessary rules quotes. I don't have the book, but reading the quotes has convinced me that they are right and you keep on ignoring what the rules actually say in favor of what you WANT them to say.

As well as the when do you measure argument, I think another sticking point is the RAW "Turning does not reduce the vehicles move".

The pro A camp appears to be taking the point of view that as there is no reduction for pivoting you are free to measure from any possible position that the vehicle could pivot to. This allows them deploy sideways and then pivot and measure the distance from that position, or move a plankt length pivot and measure from that pivoted position.

For me in the against A camp I read that as, there is no reduction to maximum movement for turning. To me a movement reduction would be if the rules said turning up to 90° reduces movement by 2" turning up to 180° reduces maximum movement by 4". Which obviously they don't.

I don't know if I am making the distinction between the two views clear but this is why I believe those in the hardline pro A camp don't even acknowledge the anti A argument as a valid interpretation of RAW.

Anyway I think this will be my last post on the subject. Personal I don't feel A is the way the rules are either written or intended. but despite this I feel the best way to play both for consistency and speed is to pivot to face the direction you want to go and then measure one line from the centre of the front of your vehicle. Move the vehicle along that line, ending with the vehicle behind the point measured to with the vehicles front perpendicular to the line and the centre of the vehicles front on that line. You can then pivot on the spot at the end of the move. Yes this would allow you to gain (from my perspective) inches by deploying sideways, but this is not something I would choose to do anyway.

skyth wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there

Other people have provided all the neccessary rules quotes. I don't have the book, but reading the quotes has convinced me that they are right and you keep on ignoring what the rules actually say in favor of what you WANT them to say.

Oh they have, have they? So since you managed to read it and accept you can't possibly quote it... Just reading something and deciding someone is right/wrong is about as unconvincing as it gets. While the thread itself is about how you play it, and that's fine, I personally only care about people trying to convince me otherwise, and vice versa. I would be posting in a separate thread, but Dakka mods see fit that all discussion on such matters remain in this thread, as such I have no shame in hijacking this thread for my personal use. So if you wish to discuss anything in this thread, with me, give concise explanations and/or rules quotes, as insaniak for example did (for a bit, and then when on about some other stuff), or be polite and give up as GWAR seems to have, or my personal least favorite, continue to spout the same unsubstantiated claim over and over generally clogging down any real discussion on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:As well as the when do you measure argument, I think another sticking point is the RAW "Turning does not reduce the vehicles move".

The pro A camp appears to be taking the point of view that as there is no reduction for pivoting you are free to measure from any possible position that the vehicle could pivot to. This allows them deploy sideways and then pivot and measure the distance from that position, or move a plankt length pivot and measure from that pivoted position.

For me in the against A camp I read that as, there is no reduction to maximum movement for turning. To me a movement reduction would be if the rules said turning up to 90° reduces movement by 2" turning up to 180° reduces maximum movement by 4". Which obviously they don't.

Pro A: I can pivot so that my maximum range is increased, or if I wish to pivot at the end of my movement my maximum range may be reduced!

Anti A: You can't use pivoting to change your maximum range at all, your maximum range is your maximum range and can not be changed by pivoting or otherwise.

To be finer though, the real discussion centers around whether you measure maximum range of a unit's movement from the center to center, or whether you measure from closest to closest. There is no rule outlining specifically which one, the only article we have on measuring any distances at all is on measuring units within a range of each other, and that says measure from closest to closest. Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention center to center movement (or rather centre to centre lol) so I am inclined to use the example we are given. The pro A's strongest point I have seen so far is that it has been played their way for a long time.

Norade wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

No, they showed there measuring to the same point on the hull not to the furthest point. Your camp seems to advocate using the example they showed and measuring from one point to a different point.

What the diagram shows and what the rules advocate are often slightly out of sync, as the diagrams show you a simplified case. Also, using your logic, to tank shock wouldn't we have to pivot exactly 30 degrees or whatever it is that they show on that particular diagram? Crocodile attack style tank shocks, GO!

ihatehumans wrote:Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention center to center movement (or rather centre to centre lol)

Hey it's English and it's centre, not my fault it transfered wrong when it went over the ocean .

But the pro A camp really do believe its RAW and apart from "this is how we have always played", "its RAW" will be the only argument you will get. So... you have to try to understand why they think it's RAW and I believe it is the interpretation of that turning rule which is causing some of the issues.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as RAW, language is about expressing and interpreting meaning and ideas. So what you really have is rules as interpreted, the Pro A's are obviously interpreting something in a way that makes them believe they can't be wrong. They can't explain what that is because they can't see another way of interpreting the rules.

The same can be said for you iHate, you can't see how you could be wrong

And so the Pros and the antis just end up banging heads not understanding why the other party can't read the rules properly.

Try to work out HOW they came to there point of view and then maybe you can find a effective way of explaining why its wrong.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Ok I get it. It is stating the ridiculousness of pivoting taking up movement. In the first step, the Raider is facing front and moves forward 2" as measured from the front, and still facing frontwards. Then after moving the 2" it rotates 90 degrees to go left. The controller goes to measure again for the Raider's movement at the same spot as before and has now discovered, solely by rotating, that the same measurement spot on the Raider is now 4" away from where it ended the 2" movement, hence the move 4" line (The red line connecting the two yellow dots on the straight Raider and the now turned Raider). Then the game explodes because that is a WTFOMGBBQ moment as by pivoting movement was somehow expended which is explicitly not allowed by the rules.

THis is all that is needed

In the "no pivot" camp the end result of your breach of rules is the above situation, where pivoting HAS reduced movement.

which is explicitly not allowed.

ihathumans - please read and understand this for once. It may help you.

Slackermagee wrote:

Norade wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

No, they showed there measuring to the same point on the hull not to the furthest point. Your camp seems to advocate using the example they showed and measuring from one point to a different point.

What the diagram shows and what the rules advocate are often slightly out of sync, as the diagrams show you a simplified case. Also, using your logic, to tank shock wouldn't we have to pivot exactly 30 degrees or whatever it is that they show on that particular diagram? Crocodile attack style tank shocks, GO!

No, not at all as the diagram says nothing about the angle being important. You miss that fact that one diagram shows and makes a point of showing that you measure to the same place, the other has an unlabeled angle only there to show how the move works. I would be shocked to have to explain this to anybody else, however you seem incapable of using logic to do anything as shown by your wall of ignorance style tactic of simply repeating yourself while not reading what others have to say.

ihatehumans wrote:Well what other descriptions on movement do we have, and by that i mean, what actually moving a model constitutes, all it says in the book is that you can move your models a certain distance, it doesn't define exactly how this works. Since it doesn't define it, the ONLY description we can use is the everyday usage of the phrase "move it X distance" which I defined.

The book points out how vehicles pivot, and that doing so does not reduce their movement. So you move the vehicle however far, pivot, and continue your movement.

Within that framework, it is possible for a part of the vehicle to have moved more than 12" from it's starting while the vehicle is only considered to have moved 12"... but that happens because the framework provided gives rules to follow as to how to determine that movement.

I was trying to elaborate that pivoting can not grant extra movement. Unless you are arguing the rules say that it can?

It doesn't grant extra movement. It does change how that movement is measured.

insaniak wrote:So the way people have done things previously in previous rules and the way others do things in the new rules, means the 'others' are wrong?

No. The way people have done things previously and in this edition (for a given rule that has remained unchanged save for a slight change in how it is worded), combined with the other things I mentioned suggests to the people who follow that interpretation that it is the correct one.

Why wouldn't pivoting be mentioned in the rules?

Sorry, you've confused me there. Pivoting is mentioned in the rules. It's what we're discussing...

It is specifically mentioned under the tank shock rules AS being inconsistent (I already pointed this out to you)

And didn't explain what you meant by it when I asked you to, so I'm still not following what you're talking about.

Finally, please PLEASE provide me with (or point me towards) a clear step by step explanation as to how the rules say to do movement. With specific rules quotes for all actions/restrictions and diagrams where helpful.

Ok, to break down the entire argument:
The movement diagram on page 12 of the rulebook shows us that to measure movement, we pick a point on the edge of the model and measure the movement based on that point (The Vehicle movement rules additionally mention that we measure to and from the vehicle's hull). It specifically shows the front centre of the hull used for a vehicle (which is what I've generally seen done... the centre-point option many have mentioned in this thread is, in my experience, less commonly used as it's not as easy to be accurate with it).

We're told on page 57 that vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, that this is done by pivoting on their centre, that this does not reduce their movement, and that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving.

I would point out the use of the word 'reduce' as opposed to the 'affect' that has been used at times in this thread. For normal infantry movement, the rules do indeed say that turning doesn't affect their movement. For vehicles, it simply points out that turning doesn't reduce it.

So, we can pivot the vehicle as it moves. Thus, you move the vehicle however far you want (up to it's maximum movement) measuring the distance travelled from a point on the vehicle's hull. At any point in that movement you can choose to pivot the vehicle and then carry on with movement, measuring the distance travelled from that same point on the hull. You don't include the distance travelled as a part of the pivot in that measurement, as the vehicle movement rules specifically tell us that pivoting doesn't reduce the vehicle's movement. You just measure up to where the vehicle pauses, pivot, and then resume measurement as the vehicle moves off.



The alternate, that you just measure a circle around the vehicle and move the vehicle to somewhere on the edge of that circle, as I pointed out before removes any point in the rules telling us to pivot on the vehicle's centre. It also ignores the diagram that shows us to measure from a consistent point when measuring... If you're going to include the pivot in the movement, you would need to measure the actual distance travelled by your measure point. So for most vehicles, turning 90 degrees is going to use up the bulk of their movement if they want to move at Combat speed.

Ok, here is the most simple example of how the one arguement fails:

A vehicle moves forward a full 12" straight ahead.

The vehicle then attempts to pivot to the right 15 degrees, in order to face its front armor directly at an enemy unit.

This pivot has moved the front left corner of the vehicle more than 12" from its starting location, beyond the circle/ lozenge shape measured at the start of movement.

Now we are either going to have to violate the rule that pivots do not reduce movement (in other words move the vehicle backwards a bit) or else concede that this idea isnt working.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Ok, here is the most simple example of how the one arguement fails:

A vehicle moves forward a full 12" straight ahead.

The vehicle then attempts to pivot to the right 15 degrees, in order to face its front armor directly at an enemy unit.

This pivot has moved the front left corner of the vehicle more than 12" from its starting location, beyond the circle/ lozenge shape measured at the start of movement.

Now we are either going to have to violate the rule that pivots do not reduce movement (in other words move the vehicle backwards a bit) or else concede that this idea isnt working.



Sliggoth

... Or just point the vehicle at its new target so that no part of the hull is beyond the distance measured? Really people, there's an AS. As you move. Not before you move. Not after you move. You may pivot AS you move. Not whenever you damn well please in the movement phase. Move (while turning and pivoting) to the destination measured from a part of the hull.

As to Norade: Your taking the diagrams at face value and ignoring the rules text above them. Its a simplification of what should be done. If we took everything at face value we would be turning that way in tank shock, every squad would have to maintain exactly two inches of space between each model, etc. etc. That paragraph explicitly details that movement should be done in such a way as to avoid tacking on extra inches on account of differences between front and side vehicle facings. It never states in the RAW to measure front to front, only to measure in such a way as to maintain yourself within the distance measured before you begin moving. You cannot pivot before moving if you intend on moving afterwards (this not complying with the 'if pivoting alone' bit). If you move one planck forward then pivot, you must keep the hull of your vehicle behind that one planck point you measured. Then you can take the rest of your movement minus that one planck.

Let's assume that one is instructed, explicitly by RAW, to measure front to front. You start sideways, measuring 12" upward from the front of the tank and place the tank in a frontwards facing position behind that 12" point (the tank having turned on the way there). Want to measure less than 12"? Do the above but record the distance you yet want to travel and repeat the process from your waypoint.

As you move, yes. Moving the full distance still allows a pivot at the end of that movement. Or if that concept is too unsettling, lets move the vehicle 11.99" straight forward so that it still has movment allowance left and then do the pivot. If its has to not move its full allowance in order to pivot...then the pivot is reducing the movement, which is expressly not allowed in the rules.



There are two different ways that movement is being measured in this debate.

One method is to measure a movement radius from the starting position of the vehicle. This method does not allow a pivot and then moving the vehciles full allowance in the new direction (unless its done a 190)

The other method measures the distance the vehicle moves, as it is moved across the board. This does allow the vehcile to move its full allowance in the new direction.


There is another rule (tank shock) which strictly follows the second method.

For some people, this would be an indication that the second method is actually the correct method. For others, this is simply an indication that the tank shock rules are incorrect as well.


But of course, if one is moving in a curving path then one must still measure as one moves along that path as well, effectively saying that the first method requires the use of the second method as well. An example is when moving around impassable terrain to get to the other side, the vehicle never moves more than 12" from its starting location but we do not allow the vehicle to wind around a path thats 24" long to arrive at its new location.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:As you move, yes. Moving the full distance still allows a pivot at the end of that movement. Or if that concept is too unsettling, lets move the vehicle 11.99" straight forward so that it still has movment allowance left and then do the pivot. If its has to not move its full allowance in order to pivot...then the pivot is reducing the movement, which is expressly not allowed in the rules.

'At the end of' is not during, its at the completion of movement. Also, the vehicle can move its full move allowance: some portion of the hull moved .01" when you place it again. There has been a net gain of .01". Pivoting does not 'gain' you distance (which would contradict the rules expressly written on page twelve above the diagram for instances such as these) just as it does not 'lose' you distance.

Sliggoth wrote:
There are two different ways that movement is being measured in this debate.

One method is to measure a movement radius from the starting position of the vehicle. This method does not allow a pivot and then moving the vehciles full allowance in the new direction (unless its done a 190)

The other method measures the distance the vehicle moves, as it is moved across the board. This does allow the vehcile to move its full allowance in the new direction.

The second method and the first method differ by only one point: every who does the second method is doing the first method in segments. You lay down (or what have you) your ruler like everyone else does, yes? You record how far the vehicle has gone from its starting point? Then there's no difference between this and the first method. If you pivot before starting to measure the distance you've traveled, which is what I assume you're doing, then you've pivoted before movement began. Which is wrong, as per pg57. Again.

Sliggoth wrote:
There is another rule (tank shock) which strictly follows the second method.

For some people, this would be an indication that the second method is actually the correct method. For others, this is simply an indication that the tank shock rules are incorrect as well.

And for the vast majority of people I've known both here in Vancouver and back in Pittsburgh the Tank Shock rules are entirely separate from the regular movement rules, being a special attack move. They're not wrong, they're a different set of rules entirely. To begin with, the very first line states to pivot then move. Pg57 very clearly states that in regular movement you must pivot as (meaning after you have started to) move.

Sliggoth wrote:
But of course, if one is moving in a curving path then one must still measure as one moves along that path as well, effectively saying that the first method requires the use of the second method as well. An example is when moving around impassable terrain to get to the other side, the vehicle never moves more than 12" from its starting location but we do not allow the vehicle to wind around a path thats 24" long to arrive at its new location.

This has been brought up so many times in this thread. Its a point that held little merit before and holds none now. Segmented movement will work if you absolutely need it to, otherwise you do what everyone else has done since they invented bendy rulers: bend you ruler about the route, stopping your vehicle in the orientation of your choosing before it violates its movement limitations.

Of course, you also have to occasionally have to place the vehicle down to make sure it fits but still. Bendiness, not just for yoga students.

Slackermagee wrote: You cannot pivot before moving if you intend on moving afterwards (this not complying with the 'if pivoting alone' bit).

The allowance to pivot as you move does not prevent you from pivoting at the start of that movement.

If you move one planck forward then pivot, you must keep the hull of your vehicle behind that one planck point you measured. Then you can take the rest of your movement minus that one planck.

In which case such a turn is impossible, as the vehicle has to pivot on its centre point.

Let's assume that one is instructed, explicitly by RAW, to measure front to front. You start sideways, measuring 12" upward from the front of the tank and place the tank in a frontwards facing position behind that 12" point (the tank having turned on the way there).

That still relies on the assumption that you have to complete the measurement before you start to move the tank, which is not actually required by the rules.

It's equally valid to turn the tank and then measure as far as you want to move in that direction. Or, if you really want to insist on the 'no turning before moving' then just moving a fraction of an inch forwards (sorry, I'm not getting into 'planck' measurement... too silly) then pivoting, then measuring the rest of the tank's movement.

Hmm, seems that some terms mean radically different things to people. Lets try this tack then, since it seems people want something new.

There seems to be some disagreement over the measuring itself. We are not explicitly told how to measure. We are told that a vehicle has a movement allowance, so therefore we know that we can measure how far a vehcile moves so that this allowabce is not exceeded.

This is the ONLY permission we are given, there is no permission to measure an entire umbrella area or range of movement, we are being given permision to make certain that the movement allowance is not exceeded. How does a vehicle move? It only moves forward and backward...so then we are only allowed to measure its distance when it moves forward or backward. There is no permission to measure an umbrella around the vehicle, in fact this sort of measurement is likely to give us all sorts of data on ranges to other units, data which we most certainly are NOT allowed to obtain.

A pivot does not reduce a vehicles movement, so we are not allowed to measure a pivot. We are allowed to measure movement, the forwards and backwards movement of the veheilce, but we are not given permission to measure pivots since pivots do not reduce a vehicles movement allowance. Can a pivot end up with a portion of the vehcile farther away from its starting point that the vehicles moveemnt allowance? We dont know, because we are never given permission to make a measurement of the pivot.


Realistically we can understand that a pivot may see a portion of a vehicles hull ending up farther from its starting location...but because movment in 40k is a representaion of movement in the real world such is allowed. The movement phase in 40k is simplified movement, vehicles are explicitly allowed to pivot and in no way reduce their movement. This is in its very nature going to result in moves that are not perfect by every standard.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Hmm, seems that some terms mean radically different things to people. Lets try this tack then, since it seems people want something new.

There seems to be some disagreement over the measuring itself. We are not explicitly told how to measure. We are told that a vehicle has a movement allowance, so therefore we know that we can measure how far a vehcile moves so that this allowabce is not exceeded.

This is the ONLY permission we are given, there is no permission to measure an entire umbrella area or range of movement, we are being given permision to make certain that the movement allowance is not exceeded. How does a vehicle move? It only moves forward and backward...so then we are only allowed to measure its distance when it moves forward or backward. There is no permission to measure an umbrella around the vehicle, in fact this sort of measurement is likely to give us all sorts of data on ranges to other units, data which we most certainly are NOT allowed to obtain.

A pivot does not reduce a vehicles movement, so we are not allowed to measure a pivot. We are allowed to measure movement, the forwards and backwards movement of the veheilce, but we are not given permission to measure pivots since pivots do not reduce a vehicles movement allowance. Can a pivot end up with a portion of the vehcile farther away from its starting point that the vehicles moveemnt allowance? We dont know, because we are never given permission to make a measurement of the pivot.


Realistically we can understand that a pivot may see a portion of a vehicles hull ending up farther from its starting location...but because movment in 40k is a representaion of movement in the real world such is allowed. The movement phase in 40k is simplified movement, vehicles are explicitly allowed to pivot and in no way reduce their movement. This is in its very nature going to result in moves that are not perfect by every standard.

Sliggoth

If Gwar!'s explaination didn't work I doubt this will either, but it was well written for what it's worth.

My explanation was prettier!

Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

On a side note: Big THANK YOU to Yakface and the other admins for letting this virtual chin-wag extend to 15 pages of RAW discussion, despite the large red lettering on the first page. Loved the hash out we had.

Slackermagee wrote:Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

Except as far as the game is concerned, it hasn't moved 14, it's moved 12.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

Except as far as the game is concerned, it hasn't moved 14, it's moved 12.

Which has been precisely the pro-DOH.

Mm-must... stop... arguing.

I've only skimmed the last pages; you guys actually convinced Slacker? It's actually possible for a thread that went on for 15 pages to end amicably?

Sliggoth wrote:Hmm, seems that some terms mean radically different things to people. Lets try this tack then, since it seems people want something new.

There seems to be some disagreement over the measuring itself. We are not explicitly told how to measure. We are told that a vehicle has a movement allowance, so therefore we know that we can measure how far a vehcile moves so that this allowabce is not exceeded.

This is the ONLY permission we are given, there is no permission to measure an entire umbrella area or range of movement, we are being given permision to make certain that the movement allowance is not exceeded. How does a vehicle move? It only moves forward and backward...so then we are only allowed to measure its distance when it moves forward or backward. There is no permission to measure an umbrella around the vehicle, in fact this sort of measurement is likely to give us all sorts of data on ranges to other units, data which we most certainly are NOT allowed to obtain.

Ah, and to think I told my self I was done with this thread.

I stopped reading here btw.

Since we obviously can't agree even on how to measure and move regular miniatures.

Let me just clear this up though, are you saying that in order to move a regular, non-vehicle unit, I have to declare the path it will take, then measure it, once I have measured it, at all, I have to move that path? So the very second I apply any length on my measuring tape/stick to the board, in any direction, I MUST move THAT direction the FULL distance? If I move the measuring tape, even one planck, from this spot, I am measuring illegally? Oh 1 planck is ok but over an inch will be pushing it?

Amusingly enough, what triggered this discussion for me, was Dash using this A movement with his raiders. You know what ELSE Dash did? He measured the FULL movement range of his Raider, and didn't move it. He even used the information gleaned from his potential 24" movement to make sure to stay out of charge range of some angry orks. Guess what? He can do that. Totally legal RaW as far as I am concerned, but APPARENTLY in YOUR world it's not...

I find it ironic, truly, just how much you see as RaW that, well, isn't. Guess what:

When I move a unit, I can measure in any direction from that unit, up to the unit's max movement, this creates that 'umbrella' as you named it. I'm not going to RaW argue it, and most especially I won't be surprised if the usual suspects try to tell me they've always played it the other way, and that's how it was in the last editions, and it's only had minor rewording, and that's still how everyone plays it now... so it must be right! Look they will show you, by using language as loosely as possible to invent things (like measuring from the centRE and pivoting modifying how you measure movement rofl ) while common sense is ignored in light of their carefully manipulated RaW. They even have diagrams to show they are right, sure the diagram only has one mode, them being right, and it doesn't build any concepts, it just displays them being right, but that's all you need!

I'm starting to wonder why we even have a term "RaW" in 40K since even RaW seems to be unintelligible to most players


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and just so we are clear insaniak, the diagram for movement:

DOES NOT SHOW IT BEING MEASURED FROM THE SAME POINT!

It just as much shows it being measured from closest to closest, just as I said it should.

So please explain the lovely paint diagram which shows that YOUR method violates "pivoting does not reduce movement"

In other words RAW you are wrong, RAP you are wrong, and RAI (as the rules have not changed in 3 editions - the minor revision is JUST that; it does not actually alter how you move) you are wrong.

0-3.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So please explain the lovely paint diagram which shows that YOUR method violates "pivoting does not reduce movement"

In other words RAW you are wrong, RAP you are wrong, and RAI (as the rules have not changed in 3 editions - the minor revision is JUST that; it does not actually alter how you move) you are wrong.

0-3.

You know how my movement method looks exactly the same as the one where pivoting doesn't exist. In my world, if you can move something two ways, and both ways result in the same distance, then neither of them reduces or increases the movement. Then again I don't live in a world where movement distances are context sensitive :(

But thats the key problem. Movement in 40K IS context sensitive, to use your phrase.

Movementin 40k for vehicles is only when they move straight forward or backward. Thats what movement is defined as. Thats what the movement allowance is tied to. Movement in 40k is not an accurate representation of real world movement, many other rules in 40k are also not very accurate or precise when compared to the real world. The rules in 40k are built that way however. At one time there were movement rules that were more detailed and complicated, those riles did perhaps more accurately measure distance but perhaps because they were more complicated they were replaced by the current rules.

Its an intentional simplification of the older process, it creates some weaknesses but it is simpler and it seems thats what they want at the moment.

Sliggoth

ihatehumans - stop adding "or increase" - the rule only requires that pivot does not *reduce* your movement, it is SILENT on whether it can "increase" your movement.

So yes, explain that diagram - you are a) required to pivot about the centre and b) this action cannot reduce your distance.

Your method "works" only by ignoring both of those rules, wihch doesnt make it a particualrly satisfactory method now, does it?

RAW, RAI and RAP are *all* against you.

ChrisCP wrote:

If I may state something?

This diagram is false.

Now, I'm sure you all agree with me, but from my take on the option B (which may not be the same as slacker and ihatehumans) pivoting doesn't reduce movement. It's PART of the move. There a big difference in how we look at this. In this diagram, you would have moved 2" because you went up so the end of your movement (thus your front in this case) has moved your chosen distance, at which point you pivoted (backwards, nonetheless. If you had moved in a straight line you might have moved LESS than 2").

Unfortunately, reading and rereading has led me to believe that I have no asnwer! The "turning does not reduce movement" throws me off entirely. So, I'll play however the person I'm playing with wants to play (encouraging option B I suppose... gotta have some pride).

Good debate all... most of the time. The attacking of semantics in people's posts and repeated abuse of shoddy diagrams rather than the arguments after them was a bit annoying.. but there were gems! Gems of intellectual debate that made me glad I submitted my time to this thread!

Hope this gets cleared up in 6th. Cheerio! 15 pages is enough.

Just stop arguing against Option A. You might be think your right, you might BE right, but there are way too many people who are far too used to getting a 22"+ charge range off of their land raiders/Trukks/Raiders/etc. for anything you say to get through.

They have a way of measuring which allows for A, we have a method of measuring that only allows for B, and if it really actually becomes an issue in a tournament game... grab a judge and point out pages 57, 12, and the way each player has been moving. The judge will make a call and then you continue.

Except your way involves breaking the rules (it reduces your movement when you pivot) and in fact means pivoting doesnt exist - in your rules.

So breaking at leqast one rule and ignoring how to move doesnt seem the strongest of arguments now, does it?

Well, it seems a lot stronger argument when somebody doesn't pick and choose things that we say and warp them. If I hadn't argued the topic yet and read your post you'd think those who argued for B had no basis in the rules whatsoever!

Nice contribution.

Your statement is false, by the way. Although really, I'm done arguing the point too, as no progress is going to be made.

You guys still limping along on this?

Yep, they're still trying to say that RAW supports one side or the other...

Pvt. Jet wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

If I may state something?

This diagram is false.

Now, I'm sure you all agree with me, but from my take on the option B (which may not be the same as slacker and ihatehumans) pivoting doesn't reduce movement. It's PART of the move. There a big difference in how we look at this. In this diagram, you would have moved 2" because you went up so the end of your movement (thus your front in this case.

Really, which part? Because you've made a blanket statement about my diagram and without pause moved onto your interpretation of this set of rules. Either that or you're not explaining how you're measuring certain elments of 'my' move, secondly....

The diagram is accurate.

When one is moving 'forwards' in 40K is must be in a direction perpendicular to the tangent of the forward-most point of the front arcs hull.
There is a few ways to reach this conclusion but the most direct is vehicles may never 'wheel around' and any method of measuring distance which would create a reading on a bearing would be false as the only way to obtain this titlted move is to have wheeled around.

Now my diagram the second section of possible movement marked in red shows a measurment of movment distance that is not perpendicular to the tangent of the forward most edge... Now obviously one must draw the conclusion that this distance covered by the forward-most point of the front arcs hull cannot be measured for the purposes of movement as this would be measuring the forbidden action that is 'wheeling'.

If we were to measure in the fashion I think you want us to one would have measured an illegal move

False my arse

Okay, I hadn't been paying attention to this thread and clearly it has gone way, way, way off the deep end into a rules argument.

I don't like to keep this poll threads locked as I want people to always be able to cast their vote on how they play in the future, so I'm going to lock this thread long enough for it to slip off the first few pages and then unlock it later.

Once unlocked, PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE ARGUING ABOUT THE RULES IN THIS THREAD.

If you absolutely must (and really, why?), please start a new thread on the topic.