At least use decent examples when you say people are cheating. If anybody would use this "cheat" as your words say which was legal 2 months ago, it is not done to gain the whole lenght of the vehicle for assault.
Say it is for melta-gun range which you shouldnt be able to to get in when you disembark on first turn.
And since you can always go backwards getting the whole lenght of the vehicle is even not necessary, you can just drive in reverse.
The distance you could get was always the distance you got from just pivoting (which is around 2 cm for rhinos and 4 cm for land raiders).
pizzaguardian wrote: At least use decent examples when you say people are cheating. If anybody would use this "cheat" as your words say which was legal 2 months ago, it is not done to gain the whole lenght of the vehicle for assault.
Say it is for melta-gun range which you shouldnt be able to to get in when you disembark on first turn.
And since you can always go backwards getting the whole lenght of the vehicle is even not necessary, you can just drive in reverse.
The distance you could get was always the distance you got from just pivoting (which is around 2 cm for rhinos and 4 cm for land raiders).
There is a mighty big difference when you consider things like fire dragons and WS which are only weak at their rear. Go ahead I dare you to deploy that WS with its ass pointed at me so you can back up. Melta units had a MASSIVE footprint when they could rotate for "free," even more so when they gained inches start of game.
Meltagun units except for fire dragons cant fire first turn even if they deploy backwards....
There is at least 24 inches in deployment between sides, thats what i want to say. Unless you gain inches at the first turn, turning 180 should not be enough anyway.
And we seem to have a diffference of opinion on massive...
Ok there is an assumption here that is WRONG and I can quote the rulebook to prove that. Pg 18 doesnt apply to vehicles, or indeed all models. It applies to Infantry.
Some new information has come to light as I was reading tonight… Sorry for the long windedness, but this is because it is just copied from my other forum post on the warmaster. It backs up both Pg 18 and Vehicle movement. It has NEW information that may help as it does change things.
Pg 18 clearly states that no part of its BASE can finish more than 6" away from where it started the movement phase. This is RAW, and in that regards THEY ARE RIGHT! As far as infantry are concerned their base must not be placed more than 6” from where it started from. The rule about parts of the base/ hull however doesn’t affect vehicles – hear me out…
The very first paragraph on page 18 answers our question partly. It states…
"For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of infantry move as they are the most common units in the game. Vehicles, jumps units yadda yadda move in different ways to represent their "greater mobility" and this will be discussed later in the book (pg 61-71)." – here it states vehicles etc don’t follow these rules and their rules are found elsewhere…
Page 18 are not general movement rules... they are infantry movement rules regardless of Raw. It also just stated that these other units move in different ways due to their greater mobility and these are discussed in their relevant sections…
Then, you turn to pg 62, Very first sentence... “So far, we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry” GW has just made that very clear, twice now, that the preceding sections! Pg 18 doesn't apply to vehicles at all and you have to use their section to work out vehicle movement.
This changes things and my perspective as well as I didnt know that. As you have to apply the vehicle movement rules in a different section under vehicles. This is the same for all other non-infantry models where you have to go to their relevant section for their rules on movement. Pg 18 doesn't count for vehicles at all except to make the point about you can’t place a model "on the far side of the tape measure and it talks about the length of the vehicle getting like a free full length movement because of placement on the other side of the tape measure. So long as you place the vehicle down BEFORE the tape measure and not after it, you satisfy this statement.
So now you turn to Vehicles, pg 72. The actual vehicle model movement rules states measuring by "measure to and from the hull". We now can’t assume pg 18 in this as they are the rules for infantry. Base or no base is irrelevant. So these are the relevant facts for vehicle movement:
1. Vehicles are “measured to and from their hull” – I guess this is by placing a dice where it is going TO and measure FROM its starting position that the model will not move more than 6”.
2. “Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model”
3. “Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot above their centre-point.” (Remember how people used to pivot by starting their move already sideways, use a free pivot to face forward, move 6” and pivot again so they could use the width of their vehicle twice for free movement). Pivots points are just the mechanism that a vehicle turns
4. If you just pivot on the spot, you are counted as stationary
5. If you move forward 6” and turn using the pivot point to turn your vehicle in any direction as you are allowed to “just like any other model”, as long as you place the model no further than 6” from its starting position (regardless of its facing as your allowed to turn in any direction multiple times during the move) you are meeting the pg 18 grey boxes placing models and measuring example. By placing the model on near side of the tape measure, not the far side of the tape measure.
6. This means a Rhino/ Wave Serpent etc would move forward 6” measuring from the hull where it has come from and to the 6” mark where it is going. It is free to turn in any direction as per pg 73 as part of that movement so long as the model travels no more than 6” from where the model started and it has been placed on the near side of the tape measure not the far side so that is legal. It doesn't matter that “parts” of the vehicle might have moved more than 6”. That isn't a vehicle rule (Its an infantry one in regards to measuring) and would be murder to measure really large vehicles like fliers and clearly there is no example/ explanation or mechanic in the rules to explain how that is done if that was the intention as that would be a horrendous measuring rule that would need to be explained. The disembarkation qualification is that the vehicle has not moved more than 6”, and as a whole, it hasn't.
7. This also answers the question about normal vehicles being able to move and turn and shoot, so long as their movement doesn't exceed their vehicle type in movement regardless of the facing.
DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.
Ventiscogreen wrote: DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.
It would also mean you could never move a vehicle, as the allowance to move any of your units is right after the section that says " For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section." (The Movement Phase chapter, 2nd graph).
The allowance to move vehicles, and indeed any unit, is in The movement phase chapter where they discuss the rules for Infantry.
"In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance."
Ergo if you only go off of the Vehicle movement rules vehicles do not have a separate allowance to move, and as such, you may never move any vehicle.
Ventiscogreen wrote: DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.
From the BRB "Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be
discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section."
So if we go to the bike movement section we have,
"MOVEMENT
Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."
So there is no mention of maintaining unit cohesion. That section is in the movement section and applies to infantry. So would you argue that only infantry have to keep unit coherency?
All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.
In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.
But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)
Ventiscogreen wrote: DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.
From the BRB "Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be
discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section."
So if we go to the bike movement section we have,
"MOVEMENT
Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."
So there is no mention of maintaining unit cohesion. That section is in the movement section and applies to infantry. So would you argue that only infantry have to keep unit coherency?
I could see that interpretation, i find that idea entertaining, and pretty much sums up this thread for me. By raw, if the infantry rules apply in their completeness, then the op is correct. If they are separate, with separate rules, there are a ton of shenanigans to be found. Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.
mcphro wrote: All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.
In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.
But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)
Ive been really thinking this over. For a while I even agreed with this interpretation. But the issue is, it doesnt seem to be correct. Reasons:
1. All of this is based on the idea that the page 18 rules are for all models. And it is true, unless you are told they are superseded.
2. Basic vs Advance rules: Basic rules are actually the whole of "The rules". Advanced rules are codex rules which over-right the rulebook.
3. Pg 18 states: "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the move.
There is no conflict, or 2 parts of the rule in this case. No part of its "base" refers to models with a "base".
4. No where does it say "swap base for hull". even on page 72.
5, At this point, both 1st paragraph pg 8 and 62 say these rules are for infantry "ie models with bases"
6. Pg 72 specifically states: "The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. So it is illegal to refer to pg 18 as it says they cannot be used.
7. This is because vehicles ARE different sized models. And so it says "Models are measured to and from the hull. It didn't say to and from the front or rear of the hull. Just the hull.
8. pg 73 - Pivoting, while examples are given for stationary movement, tells you that models can pivot/turn in the movement phase and that this movement can be any number of times.
At this point, a vehicle is seen as an object It is clear that it may move upto 6" and turning can be any number of turns. pg 18 cant be applied for vehicles because weve been told we cannot (pg 72). The only exception to this is walkers.
10. pg 73 also states - Pivoting is always done by the center-point of the model to prevent it from moving further than intended.
11. pg 81 states that a unit can disembark if "so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6". It didnt say say any other way to interpret that than the vehicle.
12. The limit in this case in the range of the hull of the vehicle which is 6".
Vehicles can move up to 6" and pivot any direction so long as the "limit" of their movement is 6". So, measure from the hull 6" and place a dice. Move the vehicle in a fashion so no part (rear of otherwise) comes further than that 6" and dice.
NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.
mcphro wrote: All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.
In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.
But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)
Ive been really thinking this over. For a while I even agreed with this interpretation. But the issue is, it doesnt seem to be correct. Reasons:
1. All of this is based on the idea that the page 18 rules are for all models. And it is true, unless you are told they are superseded.
2. Basic vs Advance rules: Basic rules are actually the whole of "The rules". Advanced rules are codex rules which over-right the rulebook.
3. Pg 18 states: "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the move.
There is no conflict, or 2 parts of the rule in this case. No part of its "base" refers to models with a "base".
4. No where does it say "swap base for hull". even on page 72.
5, At this point, both 1st paragraph pg 8 and 62 say these rules are for infantry "ie models with bases"
6. Pg 72 specifically states: "The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. So it is illegal to refer to pg 18 as it says they cannot be used.
7. This is because vehicles ARE different sized models. And so it says "Models are measured to and from the hull. It didn't say to and from the front or rear of the hull. Just the hull.
8. pg 73 - Pivoting, while examples are given for stationary movement, tells you that models can pivot/turn in the movement phase and that this movement can be any number of times.
At this point, a vehicle is seen as an object It is clear that it may move upto 6" and turning can be any number of turns. pg 18 cant be applied for vehicles because weve been told we cannot (pg 72). The only exception to this is walkers.
10. pg 73 also states - Pivoting is always done by the center-point of the model to prevent it from moving further than intended.
11. pg 81 states that a unit can disembark if "so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6". It didnt say say any other way to interpret that than the vehicle.
12. The limit in this case in the range of the hull of the vehicle which is 6".
Vehicles can move up to 6" and pivot any direction so long as the "limit" of their movement is 6". So, measure from the hull 6" and place a dice. Move the vehicle in a fashion so no part (rear of otherwise) comes further than that 6" and dice.
NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.
I disagree with a lot of the points you bring up, especially 6 as you enter part of a rule saying its illegal leaving the second half which makes it legal, assuming you understand what the word 'Instead' means it's quite disingenuous to deliberately tailor for your purposes.- I don't expect people to read all pages thoroughly, however I think
''NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.''
This was conclusion reached a few pages ago (At least by me), albeit for different reasons, It was brought up the structure of the sentence could be referring to where any point of the hull started. It would be applied to a model with a base also... as they are not measured from the front or back, just the base (which I think was the main point). The easiest way to measure this is to pivot while moving rather than end your movement then pivot.
I put this little diagram together so that it’s visually clear to people how this is supposed to work. When moving, the movement of the vehicle includes any rotation, as all 40K vehicles have a predominant propulsion system along one plane of axis.
Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.
Why is the idea that something so ponderously large has trouble turning and moving a hard concept to grasp? If it's going in a straight line, it can easily move 6 inches, but if it tries to turn, it gets slowed. Smaller vehicles aren't affected nearly as much. This fits with both rules AND physics! Another victory for the machine god!
Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.
Why is the idea that something so ponderously large has trouble turning and moving a hard concept to grasp? If it's going in a straight line, it can easily move 6 inches, but if it tries to turn, it gets slowed. Smaller vehicles aren't affected nearly as much. This fits with both rules AND physics! Another victory for the machine god!
Possibly because it's a floating metal crucible of doom built by a race that has no concept of 'physics'?
Personally I think that pivoting doesn't count towards total distance moved, simply because of the enormous difficulty involved in determining this. If the extra 2" is so important to you, go for it. Just means that you're in my range that little bit quicker.
When has a raider pivoting ever been game breaking? This seems like an argument over something that has very little impact in game. Oh, certainly, it may not be in the 'spirit' of the game, but it really makes that small an impact that this seems a little OTT.
It think that the poster who said that provided the closest point of the vehicle, after it has moved, is no further then any given point on the vehicle before it moved, is in the right. But that's just me.
Nem wrote: I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.
Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.
This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.
Seems like the best of both worlds...?
But this way is also open to "abuse", by the same vehicle that could "abuse" it in the previous method of measuring. Ghost Arks will increase their Gauss Flayer range by this new method.
I put abuse in quotes because I think the abuse is imagined. Under the old rules interpretation, if you start sideways then turn straight, you "gained" distance. If you go from that straight direction and turned sideways the next turn (to fire broadside for example), you "lost" distance. Basically, it evens out in the end.
I would refer you all back to this conclusion i suspect a lot were happy with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in case you were wondering what is meant, here is an image description.
Top is current interpretation and how i think Vehicle mvt is worded.
Bottom is Nem's interpretation, where any part of the hull must be within the maximum distance.
As you can see, the Top view "Wins" movement upon deploying sideways, while Bottom view "wins" movement upon moving sideways (If the Rhino could ever fire broadside weapon batteries)
And as milkboy says: both methods will even out upon moving forward.
Nem wrote: I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.
Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.
This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.
Seems like the best of both worlds...?
But this way is also open to "abuse", by the same vehicle that could "abuse" it in the previous method of measuring. Ghost Arks will increase their Gauss Flayer range by this new method.
I put abuse in quotes because I think the abuse is imagined. Under the old rules interpretation, if you start sideways then turn straight, you "gained" distance. If you go from that straight direction and turned sideways the next turn (to fire broadside for example), you "lost" distance. Basically, it evens out in the end.
I would refer you all back to this conclusion i suspect a lot were happy with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in case you were wondering what is meant, here is an image description.
Top is current interpretation and how i think Vehicle mvt is worded.
Bottom is Nem's interpretation, where any part of the hull must be within the maximum distance.
As you can see, the Top view "Wins" movement upon deploying sideways, while Bottom view "wins" movement upon moving sideways (If the Rhino could ever fire broadside weapon batteries)
And as milkboy says: both methods will even out upon moving forward.
Don't understand how the green points are lining up in your example, we measure from the edge of the hull - to the edge of the hull. As far as I can tell these should be the same edges to and from rather than different edges you have put the green splotch's on, and the first example the measurement seems to be coming from the center of the hull.
It was supposed to be a distance "front face" to "front face"?
So the second one one the bottom should be more central?
Or all on the bottom right corner (6" corner to corner? )
BlackTalos wrote: It was supposed to be a distance "front face" to "front face"?
So the second one one the bottom should be more central?
Or all on the bottom right corner (6" corner to corner? )
I have my table set up at home so will try and take some top pictures tonight using the D.Eldar Raider
It's difficult trying to explain images with text but I'll try.
The top diagram is using the old rules interpretation. The top diagram includes the three green spots, the two green lines and the one blue line (the other blue line belongs to the second diagram). The bottom diagram is your new interpretation.
The green spot indicates where the measuring tape is held. The old interpretation, one way is to measure centre of model to centre in the new position. Then pivot accordingly. The bottom diagram measures the 6 inches from the furthest point moved. Thus, distances between green spots is always 6 inches.
In the top example, the vehicle seemed to have "gained" distance. This is represented by the blue line measurement. In the next movement phase, when it moves 6 inches more and pivots again, it loses that distance it has gained in the first turn.
In the bottom diagram, the final position is still the same for both methods.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops. took too long to type that.
milkboy wrote: It's difficult trying to explain images with text but I'll try.
The top diagram is using the old rules interpretation. The top diagram includes the three green spots, the two green lines and the one blue line (the other blue line belongs to the second diagram). The bottom diagram is your new interpretation.
The green spot indicates where the measuring tape is held. The old interpretation, one way is to measure centre of model to centre in the new position. Then pivot accordingly. The bottom diagram measures the 6 inches from the furthest point moved. Thus, distances between green spots is always 6 inches.
In the top example, the vehicle seemed to have "gained" distance. This is represented by the blue line measurement. In the next movement phase, when it moves 6 inches more and pivots again, it loses that distance it has gained in the first turn.
In the bottom diagram, the final position is still the same for both methods.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops. took too long to type that.
But under the old method you wouldn't start measuring until after pivoting the vehicle, meaning that measurement line starts 2'' or so further than on the first diagram? Am I missing something?
[edit] I never meant to leave out actually measuring from a specific 'facing' while applying other rules, I have to test with a line out but in my head you have to turn with most vehicles quite a bit at the end of movement to actually break them, when measuring appropriately without applying a break in measuring for pivoting.
That is true but even if you pivot first and then move 6 inches by measuring from the front of the model (in this example), the centre of the model will still only move 6 inches.
please never refer to "The most Important Rule" in this forum, it is agreed that we do not.
If Nem had a valid method with full rules support (as per the OP) then many of us would actually follow those rules, as the "as usual" with DE Raiders is accepted but very very easily seen as "cheating" to new players.
Nem,
Milkboy explains it very well:
In the "old method" you could actually use the green dot for the measuring tape. I actually use that method (I do not measure from the front of the hull, 3" forward, pivot, 3" forward.
I pick the most central point and measure from there, so need to "clear" corners by about 2" (on a rhino)
As i undertsood and tried to represent your method: The distance between the green dots (and furthest part of the hull "forward") is always 6", and both methods result in the EXACT same position going from 1 to 3.
I could technically see your interpretation 2 to 3 go less than 6" but then would you say that those are the rules as you read them?
IE in my example of movement, the rhino would be 11.5" from its starting position (1 to 3)
In case anyone who doesn't understand why this would make sense.
Anyone saying pivoting is not distance gained isn't thinking about this scenario at all.
I support this, and most likely will bring it up at the FLGS. If they argue with me I will abuse the gak out of it until they agree.
milkboy wrote: That is true but even if you pivot first and then move 6 inches by measuring from the front of the model (in this example), the centre of the model will still only move 6 inches.
Problem is people don't measure from the CENTER of the hull, they measure FROM THE HULL.
Meaning distance is gained, and even 2 inches gained on turn on for Orkz in dawn of war deployment is HUGE.
EDIT**
There is not a rules reference, to my knowledge, that specifically says where to measure from. (Other than "the hull")
The people that say they measure from a corner, must not pivot 180 degrees often, because they would soon realize that Rhinos move like 1-2 inches a turn.
Unless they pivot first, not acknowledging pivoting as movement, which would give those people an advantage as shown in the above example.
Good lord you guys are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. My diagram is correct, anything else is gaining movement because it is pretending that rotation does not count toward the 6" of movement.
Da Mediokre Painta wrote: I put this little diagram together so that it’s visually clear to people how this is supposed to work. When moving, the movement of the vehicle includes any rotation, as all 40K vehicles have a predominant propulsion system along one plane of axis.
Yes I think this is the way it reads now, subtle difference.
Forces one to plan before moving by necessitating prior knowledge of which part of hull will move the farthest.
Da Mediokre Painta wrote: Good lord you guys are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. My diagram is correct, anything else is gaining movement because it is pretending that rotation does not count toward the 6" of movement.
funny. the opposite faction could claim the same thing.
i feel sorry for your gaming group... having to deal with a RAW rule lawyer like yourself, making these kind of statements.
anyway, let me get one thing straight. is anyone saying i couldnt park a vehicle sideways on the 12" mark, then pivot and still counting as stationary? (i.e. fire all weapons, charge with disembarked passengers etc...)
gaining 2" while beeing stationary is ok
gaining 2" while moving is not ok
?
and what about those big vehicles like monos or baneblades? if they pivot they cannot move?
Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.
Da Mediokre Painta wrote: I put this little diagram together so that it’s visually clear to people how this is supposed to work. When moving, the movement of the vehicle includes any rotation, as all 40K vehicles have a predominant propulsion system along one plane of axis.
Yes I think this is the way it reads now, subtle difference.
Forces one to plan before moving by necessitating prior knowledge of which part of hull will move the farthest.
This is an old interpretation, please read the new posts and why this would not work.
Even Nem has chosen an adaptation where it's distance from any part of the hull to any part of the hull.
It is also 1 interpretation but the the "almighty right one".
Most of us still read the old interpretation as correct and not disproven...
For our position: It has moved forward 12", then Pivoted on the Green dot "central axis".
If we were to follow your argument, the Red line shows that no part of the Hull is 12" away from the original position of the Hull.
Would you not say that the Positioning of the second Ark (following the Rules as you've interpreted them) is closer in Range to the enemy?
And here is how the interpretation you follow would "gains distance", just like the one we use "gains distance" if you deploy sideways...
And the completes the full circle of the discussion again. Let me know if I have to re-quote this post when we go back round
That last one is wrong. The rear of the vehicle has moved further than 12", therefore it is an illegal move under the interpretation set out in the OP.
Snapshot wrote: Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.
thats where i disagree from a RAI standpoint. no where is it mentioned that big vehicles are more cumbersome than small ones. on the contrary, regardless of size each category or modeltype moves at the same speed and has the same maneuverability if not otherwise stated in some kind of special rule (even RAW wise)
just think about how restricted the movement of vehicles would be if you couldn't pivot for "free". a monolith could never move more than 1" and some big vehicles could actually move "further" if they would just stay stationary and pivot on the spot.
i'm not saying that RAW wise you guys are right (i still believe this is not the case) but even if you 'were' right about it, big vehicles would be useless in a standard game. the movement would be so awkward and cumbersome to execute, that fielding them wouldnt make any sense (especially for big transports, since they could only move foward in a straight line or loose a turn by pivoting on the spot)
just take the picture from above and visualize how restricted the movement for big vehicles would be.
even a for a rhino wanting to make a 45° turn... look how silly this would be.
now imagine if the rhino wanted to make an 90° turn. it could move less than ONE or TWO inches. A RHINO.
That last one is wrong. The rear of the vehicle has moved further than 12", therefore it is an illegal move under the interpretation set out in the OP.
That is why the OP changed position to something that made a lot more sense, and is still fully bound by the conditions in the OP:
Nem wrote: I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.
Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.
This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.
Snapshot wrote: Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.
thats where i disagree from a RAI standpoint. no where is it mentioned that big vehicles are more cumbersome than small ones. on the contrary, regardless of size each category or modeltype moves at the same speed and has the same maneuverability if not otherwise stated in some kind of special rule (even RAW wise)
just think about how restricted the movement of vehicles would be if you couldn't pivot for "free". a monolith could never move more than 1" and some big vehicles could actually move "further" if they would just stay stationary and pivot on the spot.
i'm not saying that RAW wise you guys are right (i still believe this is not the case) but even if you 'were' right about it, big vehicles would be useless in a standard game. the movement would be so awkward and cumbersome to execute, that fielding them wouldnt make any sense (especially for big transports, since they could only move foward in a straight line or loose a turn by pivoting on the spot)
just take the picture from above and visualize how restricted the movement for big vehicles would be.
even a for a rhino wanting to make a 45° turn... look how silly this would be.
now imagine if the rhino wanted to make an 90° turn. it could move less than ONE or TWO inches. A RHINO.
The same goes to a Rhino that wants to make a 180° turn to let models embark / disembark from the back: it would barely move 1" if it was limited at 6".
That's why (and i fully agree) the OP changed the interpretation to this:
Nem wrote: I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.
Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.
This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.
Seems like the best of both worlds...?
Which works very well imo. It has the same "win"-"loose" as the current method, while still adhering to the original "no more than 6" " condition
No sorry, gonna put a couple of things forward now.. please please get this point.
1. pg 72 CLEARLY says the "NORMAL rule for measureing distance to or from a base cannot be used"
... so in that respect, you are NOT ALLOWED to refer back to page 18 so far as refering to bases and the like... you must use the vehicle movement rules pg 72/73
2. It took me a while, but we are all arguing 1 THING! The allowed distance for movement. And it took me a while because I THOUGHT it had something to do with measuring.. it doesnt andI think we are all getting it wrong. It has to do with pivoting. Pg 73 CLEARLY states that it is pivoting that controls just how far a vehicle has moved. "Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.". The reason i Love that sentence, is it is the one thing in the book that addresses vehicle movement and going further than allowed. Going further than allowed for a vehicle is not addressed on page 18 "no part of a base can move furthen than 6" That rule is specifically an infantry rule. This is addressed in 3 places...
1. pg 18 - paragraph 1 "for the time being well just explain how squads of infantry work"
2. pg 62 - first sentence - "So far, weve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry" (this particular one is damning, cause they just said it black and white... these rules upto page 62 are basic rules as they pertain to infantry!
3. pg 91 Walkers - "If a walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as for an infantry model". "Under moving wakers - "Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry"... there it is again...So if there is a unit that requires to be measured like infantry, they will tell you in that unit types description.
...So this means a couple of things... 1) vehicles can move 6" period. 2) this is measured from the hull. not part of the hull or this corner or that. ie Lets say your moving your wave serpent in an arc. You get your tape measure, you move/ bend it up to 6" from the front of the hull, place a dice, then move your vehicle up to that dice . You MAY now turn your vehicle about the centre point SO LONG AS no part of the vehicle EXCEEDS that dice. If it did, to stay legal (if you want to stay at combat speed you would have to move your model so that no part exceeds that 6" movement.
3. all this other interpretation about vehicles slowing down, measuring this and that corner is irrelevant. This is no mechanic in the book that tells you to do that. If measuring vehicles was THAT complicated, they would give specific examples of how to do that. People here have good intention and opinions. Buit not matter the argument, if you tell a person e.g. you must measure from this corner of the vehicle etc... Well ill say "show me where it tells me to measure from a the corner of the vehicle etc". sorry, not being rude, but unless it says it in the rulebook, you cant do it.
... the underlying mechanic is move no more than 6", pivot around the centre-point.
eg. this stops old tactics of parking your vehicle sideways, pivoting and getting free 1/2 model free movement. while pivoting is a free move, if you were facing sideways, then you would have to measure from the side of the hull 6", sure then turn/ pivot and move 6" from that point. Because if your vehicle pivoted, then measures and it moved like 9" its over 6" movement - thats illegal - sure.
e.g. lets say a Wave serpent. wants to turn a drop off infantry. Measure 6" from front of wave serpent. Move model. Free turn 180 degrees. The Rear door CANT be more than 6" from original measurement. Infantry disembark. Use wargear to spin vehicle after shooting phase etc..
I really do respect a lot of opinions, pictures, proposed mechanics etc. However you cant "propose a rule" thats not in the book. But... consider these things... please...
a. No where does it state you swap base for hull. on page 18.
b. It DOES state the normal measuring of bases and infantry rules CANNOT be used. So if someone quotes pg 18 "measure from any part of the base... just stop, your told your not allowed to.
c. The CRUX of the argument - stopping vehicles from moving more then their allotted distance is SPECIFICALLY addressed under pivoting paragraph on page 73. Pivoting is actually the mechanic that stops you from going too far, and it SPECIFICALLY says so...
Another argument...
People then say... well if all that is true...thats unfair, your necron transport or wave serpent is longer then my chimera....
Well that's a modelling issue not a rules issue. And the larger model pays for as it cant hide as well. Otherwise gw should make all vehicles exactly the same size. Look at the size of a necron flier with infantry vs am's Valkyrie/vendetta flier vs space marine stormraven. Even for fliers that will never be fair. Or landraider vs chimera exiting from front or rear. Every vehicle will have differences and has advantages vs disadvantages. Thats no different from eldar that can run and shoot vs a model that cant. Vehicle size is no different. Thats not modelling for advantage, that is how gw released its models. The new AM taurox wheeled transport looks longer then some vehicles. Besides, once a vehicle has turned its rear to the front it does so at disadvantage as well. i.e. Also vehicles like the wave serpent shield cant protect if its is facing away, unless it takes specific wargear making them even more expensive. A 55 point chimera or a 40 point rhino vs a 140 pt wave serpent that can perform the same turning maneuver and I gain an extra 2" for my infantry, if it is a cheat, is an expensive one. But then the rules do say thats why vehicles represent greater mobility.
Truth is, GW never intended for the game to be complicated. And ill permitted any player who plays me, to move that full 6" and clap them for doing so. You know why, cause its fair because ill do it in my turn too.
Yes, we are fully agreed on that position of thought: it is the position taken by the OP and others.
However by playing a Necron Ghost Ark with the method you have outlined above: measure from the front of it, place a dice, and move up to that dice, you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice (Black spot on the picture here)
The Gauss blasters on the side of the Ark are closer (12" from where the front of the Vehicle was, to be exact) and some would say you are "gaining movement" - the same people who are currently arguing that deploying sideways "gains movement" for long vehicles.
In the end it makes not much difference which method you use, but i'm sure a Necron player against a DE player would argument this at length...
BlackTalos wrote: Yes, we are fully agreed on that position of thought: it is the position taken by the OP and others.
However by playing a Necron Ghost Ark with the method you have outlined above: measure from the front of it, place a dice, and move up to that dice, you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice (Black spot on the picture here)
The Gauss blasters on the side of the Ark are closer (12" from where the front of the Vehicle was, to be exact) and some would say you are "gaining movement" - the same people who are currently arguing that deploying sideways "gains movement" for long vehicles.
In the end it makes not much difference which method you use, but i'm sure a Necron player against a DE player would argument this at length...
Both are "fair".
But there is a mistake here I think.. correct me. If I moved the front of the vehicle it to the red line (the red dot), the vehicles pivot point is 1/2 way back along that red line of the model. On the red line, you have pivoted the vehicle around the nose point. This is illegal as you must pivot around the center point.Just like the green dotted example, this is legal. So no the blasters cannot extend past the end of the black line. See, you stated "you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice" Noooooo, you must pivot the vehicle around its center point.
I said... "You measure 6" from the hull of your vehicle. Move the model to that line. i.e. move the vehicle up to that line. I would move the same part of the hull that I measured facing in that direction, but in your example, before turning, your vehicles nose should be at the red dot and the vehicle should be on a 45 degree facing. Now, you may turn 90 degrees if you wish around the center point. But "no part of your vehicle may exceed that red dice, or you would be at cruising speed. so from where the nose should be facing 45 degreed along that red line with the nose touching the red dice, you may now turn the vehicle 90 around the center point of the vehicle...
In fact, the longer your vehicle, the further away your guns will be from that red dice...does that make sense?
The main argument for long vehicles is if they turn 180 degrees and disembark infantry because people say the back of the vehicles access point has moved like 12". well sorry, again modelling issue. Rules say you can turn without penalty an many turns as you like. It is intended that way. See my fair/ unfair comment above.
2. It took me a while, but we are all arguing 1 THING! The allowed distance for movement. And it took me a while because I THOUGHT it had something to do with measuring.. it doesnt andI think we are all getting it wrong. It has to do with pivoting. Pg 73 CLEARLY states that it is pivoting that controls just how far a vehicle has moved. "Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.". The reason i Love that sentence, is it is the one thing in the book that addresses vehicle movement and going further than allowed. Going further than allowed for a vehicle is not addressed on page 18 "no part of a base can move furthen than 6" That rule is specifically an infantry rule. This is addressed in 3 places...
"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed." the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.
this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.
if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.
in 40k distance moved is the difference between the start and the end, what you do between the two doesn't essentially matter and any "magic" done to try and get free movement is cheating.
If you do not move at all, you may pivot, and the model doesn't count as moving.
otherwise pivoting counts as moving and is done as the model moves, not when your done moving and you pivot. If we have moved and then pivot, we are not remaining stationary so the pivoting=movement and is not free, and if that takes us beyond the distance we are allowed to move we are cheating.
If the movement was measured from what the vehicle was doing during its move instead of at the end of its movement you would end up with scenarios where CCB could do flybys(and conversely any FMC, reavers, and screamers..) against models that were not between their begining and ending points, which we cannot do because movement is only the distance from where you began moving to where you ended moving, not what happens between.
Da Mediokre Painta wrote: Good lord you guys are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. My diagram is correct, anything else is gaining movement because it is pretending that rotation does not count toward the 6" of movement.
funny. the opposite faction could claim the same thing.
i feel sorry for your gaming group... having to deal with a RAW rule lawyer like yourself, making these kind of statements.
anyway, let me get one thing straight. is anyone saying i couldnt park a vehicle sideways on the 12" mark, then pivot and still counting as stationary? (i.e. fire all weapons, charge with disembarked passengers etc...)
No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.
mcphro wrote: No sorry, gonna put a couple of things forward now.. please please get this point.
1. pg 72 CLEARLY says the "NORMAL rule for measuring distance to or from a base cannot be used"
... so in that respect, you are NOT ALLOWED to refer back to page 18 so far as refering to bases and the like... you must use the vehicle movement rules pg 72/73
2
''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''
Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement? How about the separate rules for Jump infantry measurement - or Bike movement? The bit that is actually only pertaining to infantry is 6inches.
Lets make this clear - All basic rules for Moving, shooting and assaulting use infantry rules as a baseline. If you ignore all those sections for anything other than infantry you don't have many rules at all.
This is how the rule book works. You have basic rules which are written from infantry perspective, you then have lots of other types of units with some of their own rules - where their rules are conflict with the basic rules then they override, but other than those rules they are still subject to all baseline rules.
What is stopping you from moving a MC off the board in the movement phase? Page 18 (Or maybe it's on 19). Even though it's 'Infantry' rules, MC's do not have an allowance. Likewise, the rules for remaining in coherency are in that section, is it only infantry which must remain in unit coherency?
Edit: Quote Basic Versus Advanced
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank).
-------
The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.
It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.
-------
Evidently I haven't had time to picture this out yet. If I can find a ruler might be able to do it from my desk
------
Edit; It's essential pivoting is not thought of as 'before' you move or 'after' you move, Pivoting is done during movement (as you move) - and actually it always has been which is why not counting as movement previously was a obscurity, it lead to a stop start measuring method which is not detailed anywhere in the rules.
I don't believe it's as difficult as a lot of people are making out. With only slight pivots people will continue to stick the tape down at the front and do a slanted 6inches, which is fine. If people want to do a 180, they will position the back at the end of the measurement instead of the front. To go around a 90 degree corner they will do this exactly like every other model, measure 6inches around the corner (Unless anyone measured 3inches, moved all the models and then moved another 3....) positioning the front / wherever the point at the end of the tape (doing the pivot as they move the vehicle) - Anything which is not 'Stop measuring, Pivot, Start measuring again' method will conform to all these rules.
anyway, let me get one thing straight. is anyone saying i couldnt park a vehicle sideways on the 12" mark, then pivot and still counting as stationary? (i.e. fire all weapons, charge with disembarked passengers etc...)
No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.
nope, it is to show that under certain circumstances, as i said later, pivoting while remaining stationary in cases of big vehicles you would actually let you 'move' further than if you were to move and then pivot (because no hullpart can move more than 6")
''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''
Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement?
i wrote this before allready... .. you use an interpretation whenever it fits you bit you disregard interpretations of others because of RAW. either you use RAW or its an open discussion where you cant rule out other interpretations. this is your opinion and can be never anything more because its not clearly addressed in the rulebook.
"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."[u]
the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.
this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.
if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.
The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.
It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.
the picture dosnt show only pivoting (counting as stationary) its a move and a pivot from the centre
i wanted to show how limiting this form of movement would be if no part of the hull can move more than 6" (when you want to turn and move)
and i uses a pretty tight scaling (for the rhino)
anyway, let me get one thing straight. is anyone saying i couldnt park a vehicle sideways on the 12" mark, then pivot and still counting as stationary? (i.e. fire all weapons, charge with disembarked passengers etc...)
No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.
nope, it is to show that under certain circumstances, as i said later, pivoting while remaining stationary in cases of big vehicles you would actually let you 'move' further than if you were to move and then pivot (because no hullpart can move more than 6")
It could, but its a get out for vehicles that need to just turn (As that's mostly what the super heavy vehicles do anyway). As far as it being clear, its because the rules state Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.
''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''
Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement?
i wrote this before allready... .. you use an interpretation whenever it fits you bit you disregard interpretations of others because of RAW. either you use RAW or its an open discussion where you cant rule out other interpretations. this is your opinion and can be never anything more because its not clearly addressed in the rulebook.
"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."[u]
the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.
this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.
Anyone who reads this forum a lot will know I have a lot of respect for other peoples interpretations, even where they differ from mine. I don't rule out others interpretations so easily, but again at some point I weigh the balance and I know many many people on here will disagree with removing the second sentence and therefore the context of the ruleto fit your own interpretation of 'RAW'. Then you suggest my interpretation of RAW is just RAI, It's not. My interpretation of these rules are fully in line with the written words, I have quoted all the rules in question and all. I used all the rules and arrived at a point all of them fit (rather than just some). I have changed bits from the OP to fit with discussion that others have brought forward, that's the point of these forums.
There is never anything solid (Other than FAQs) to tell us how we are playing any of the rules is actually the correct way. Not being a single rule to confirm is fine, as I have stated it fits with all the other rules, If the shoe fits.... I'm pretty happy with best fit of a rule really - and while you have disagreed you you have not mentioned how a different interpretation fits better.
if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.
The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.
It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.
the picture dosnt show only pivoting (counting as stationary) its a move and a pivot from the centre
i wanted to show how limiting this form of movement would be if no part of the hull can move more than 6" (when you want to turn and move)
and i uses a pretty tight scaling (for the rhino)
Thats fine, I misunderstood that as just a pivot. I am doing the pics today anyway.
So , you don't want to use any of the rules pertaining to bases - fine. Even without them there is no rules to say pivoting while movement does not count towards movement.
Really I want to know how you would resolve the rules, excluding the bases - The nearest I can think of is just a strait measurement from a facing to the end point for a facing, the furthest point of movement, at least on a Dark Eldar Raider I know this is essentially the same. I still suspect there is actually very little difference on larger vehicles, assuming they are not longer than 12'' and less than half as wide, if you take away the bubble some oddly shaped vehicles may penetrate if you measure from different points on the hull, but this is a matter of a CM at best, which is not worth getting the magnifying glasses out - especially as these unusually shaped vehicles are not typically things like transports which people actually move during a game.
At that point what Black mentioned about there being little difference is correct, it may penetrate part of the bubble, but as long as your measuring before you pivot and do not pivot after reaching the end of the measurement it does conform to the rules about movement being hull to hull and only the rules which do not mention bases(Only the vehicle rules, and only the measurement movement rules), but ''gained'' distance is no where near what it once was.
I know where you guys are coming from, but the rules mechanic that is being argued breaks down for other movement in the game if pivoting counts as movement. i.e. There are simple statements that state the "intent" of what vehicles can do. It does say that vehicles can turn/ pivot just like infantry can.
How can you then count turning as moving when you don't count turning as moving with an infantry base?
Well it's their version of interpretation. I do not think it's wrong, but I also agree with you that a Pivot is not counted as distance when you are moving forward (or left or right).
At this point in time, i would say Both interpretations "work" in RaW.
As for intent: I'm pretty sure it was always "measure movement - Pivot - measure movement - Pivot- etc" How far have you moved? answer has to be within limits set. Telling you how to do this with exact rules is a bit harder.
the problem with this "trukk move" will always remain. any vehicle with 24" weaponry could do the same thing (pivoting on the 12" deployment line without counting as moving) and fire in the first turn into the enemy deployment zone while counting as being stationary (i.e. fire all weapons with full ballistic skill)
i just dont see it as a big enough problem to over-complicate vehicles movement-phase... (given that there is no clear RAW/RAI)
every army benifits/suffers from those things in the same way. so its kinda balanced.
i have and will always measure from the center of the vehicle and pivot (around the center) as many times as i want in the movement-phase.
oh and @Nem
Anyone who reads this forum a lot will know I have a lot of respect for other peoples interpretations
after your your calm and informative reply i am inclined to believe that : )
RedNoak wrote: Any vehicle with 24" weaponry could do the same thing (pivoting on the 12" deployment line without counting as moving) and fire in the first turn into the enemy deployment zone while counting as being stationary (i.e. fire all weapons with full ballistic skill)
I did not think of that situation as we kept talking about "movement"....
But indeed, even following the Rules as pointed out by Nem, a vehicle could still pull-off the "Cheat" of deploying sideways and being "Less than 24" " away from the enemy deployment. Vindicator Tank comes to mind here, and i think this cements my position personally
hehe, but that doesnt move the discussion in any direction.^^ if you can come to an agreement with your opponent, everything goes.
but to recap things:
i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.
what i'm going to say was partially stated a couple of pages ago...
if you refer to infantry base-movement rules, it opens up a totally new discussion, since everything that was stated here about vehicle movement would also affect infantry movement. if no part of the base can move further than 6" and turning/pivoting is counted towards the distance traveled (even if its a round base) no infantry model (or any other model) could turn at the end of its movement phase. (see attachment 1)
i know you are all afraid of the mighty OP ork trukk gaining an inch...
but as i said before this works out for all armies. shooty armys can do the same thing to fire their 24" weapons with full BS into the enemy deployment zone on turn 1
and by the way, this way of shooting was and still remains LEGAL by all in this thread proposed means. (see att. 3)
the next issue would be big vehicles. even small vehicles would suffer from restricted range if they want to turn during their movement.
but in some cases big vehicles couldnt move at all if they want to pivot, since at a certain point,
if you want to 'track' ranges in any instance of the movement, "a part of the hull" would move further than the 6" restriction
and if they were to move some big vehicles would actually LOOSE distance in order to turn. (see att. 3)
another argument would be the cumbersome process of moving vehicles. keeping track of all points of the hull in every instance of the movement and measuring all the time to make sure nothing goes outside the 6" bubble.
so like i said before. as a general rule:
simply measuring from the center of the hull, pivoting as you wish is the most-simple, RAW/RAI-backed-up and fair system.
Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.
Snapshot wrote: Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.
i know that it has no real practical use.
it just shows the possible inconstancy of some rules (for some interpretations)
turning infantry models is clearly allowed but no part of the base can move further than 6".
a directly affected model however would be a (round based) walker. after moving 6" he couldnt turn at all. a walker base is what? 2" wide? so in order to turn 90" you would only be able to move 5". to turn 180° you could only move 4".
Snapshot wrote: Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.
i know that it has no real practical use.
it just shows the possible inconstancy of some rules (for some interpretations)
turning infantry models is clearly allowed but no part of the base can move further than 6".
a directly affected model however would be a (round based) walker. after moving 6" he couldnt turn at all. a walker base is what? 2" wide? so in order to turn 90" you would only be able to move 5". to turn 180° you could only move 4".
You're quite right - the walker would have to think about what facing he wanted and take that into account with his movement.
Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)
BlackTalos wrote: Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)
No they can't, they function like any other vehicle in regards to Line of Sight, you have to trace Line of Sight from the mounting along the barrel, just like all other vehicles.
Snapshot wrote: Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.
There are MC's with Oval bases, but similarly they are not Infantry.
i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.
I think my problem is there is no indication vehicles CAN do free pivots, there was in 6ed, but that rule has been removed. Considering taking the measurement rules for movement - you would need a rule to say you can free pivot rather than something to say you can not
BlackTalos wrote: Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)
No they can't, they function like any other vehicle in regards to Line of Sight, you have to trace Line of Sight from the mounting along the barrel, just like all other vehicles.
Corrected, another change from 6th that i failed to notice. Walkers no longer pivot freely in the shooting phase =O
In the case of the Imperial Knight, if you glued it properly the weapon Arm may swivel. Can you point it at anything you want to shoot? IE pretty much 90°-180° to his right (or left)
I think my problem is there is no indication vehicles CAN do free pivots, there was in 6ed, but that rule has been removed. Considering taking the measurement rules for movement - you would need a rule to say you can free pivot rather than something to say you can not
no its not. your whole assumption is based that this sentence...
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
...means you can only pivot free if its remained stationary.
to me it doesn't say that.
and again, even if we ASSUME that you are right, nowhere in the rulebook does it mention how to proceed from here. how do we measure pivots? when do we measure them? where do we measure them?
we would need a complete improvised rule-set (just look at the last 5 pages on this topic) just to move our vehicles.
you have no RAW baseline only a shady interpretation (RAI-wise) which implications are so cumbersome to execute and straight up deadly to some units, that it would have a major impact on the game
To me personally that whole section where they say pivoting on the spot doesnt count for movement is only there to explain why you can pivot and still fire all your weapon at full BS and has nothing to do with counting movement inch's.
If you pivot to drive around the corner of a building, for example, the act of pivoting in that turn doesn't count for movement. But let's say you wanted to stick close to the wall of the building, and move in an "L" shape to hook around the building in your movement phase. You would have to measure from start point to end point of the L to determine how far you've actually move, the pivot at the joint of the L to turn around the corner of the building doesn't count.
I don't believe there are any problems with it, decide where your moving to, measure 6'' from the hull move the vehicle there pivoting as your moving it. No implications, no made up rules, in line with the measurement and movement rules. How you measure any other model when going around a corner - like that
It's not an assumption - the sentence says if you pivot on the spot alone it does not count as movement, so that if you only pivot you do not count as moving. And not having a rule to say you can ignore the measurement rules.
Which part of that paragraph do you think says; pivoting is not movement? There was part of this rule in 6ed that said that clear as daylight - but it's been removed in 7ed. Seriously I'm assuming I am right because it literally says pivoting on the spot ALONE doesn't count as movement, but nothing about pivoting not being movement at any other point. Ergo, no rules saying you can ignore pivoting when determining distance.
As for needing permission to override measurement rules that's a part of basic versus advanced rule set - we have rules which say measurement for a vehicle is hull to hull, and we're told in measurement about how to measure 6inches. Now you need something to say it can ignore those rules when pivoting, ergo the lack of rules saying you can is a problem, because you need permission to break those rules. You require permissive rule here which says you can cross the 6inches of that tape measure via pivoting.
Basically rule book doesn't point out everything you can not do during the game, it tells you what you can do (and then gives restrictions and exceptions). You have to prove why you can, rather than I proving you can not.
@RedNoak: What Nem has put fourth, and I think what you are missing, is that in a permissive rule set you need permission to do something. How do you measure your infantry? Do you start at the furthest point , before you have moved the model, and end the move at the furthest point, after you have stopped moving the model? How else would you measure pivots? You put the tape down/start measuring before you pivot and stop measuring after you are done moving the model. When do you measure infantry? These are all covered in the basic rules if you want to stop and look at them.
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
What does this mean to you if it doesn't mean that pivoting is only free if stationary?
The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.
That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.
The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).
Eihnlazer wrote: The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.
That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.
The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).
That's because previous editions had a sentence which said that pivoting didn't count towards movement along with the one about only pivoting on the spot. That first sentence was removed whilst the rest was just copy and pasted.
So the author intended to remove that sentence, which then leads the rule to the conclusion in the OP.
There IS a rule that forces you to consider the cost of pivoting in your movement - it is the one on p18 that says no part of the base (hull) can be more than X" from where it started. That simple rule automagically makes you pay for pivoting, so they make the exception (advanced rule) that when you only pivot you don't suffer any of the penalties for having moved.
So if you move forward one-one-hundredth of an inch, you can only pivot so many times? That makes no kind of sense, especially as it is almost literally impossible to pivot a model and not move it slightly off its original starting point (as determined by the center point of the model).
I take it then you can never measure anything as most people put pressure on the things they are measuring and therefor move it..... That is what I am getting from your statement.
Psienesis wrote: So if you move forward one-one-hundredth of an inch, you can only pivot so many times? That makes no kind of sense, especially as it is almost literally impossible to pivot a model and not move it slightly off its original starting point (as determined by the center point of the model).
Technically yes, but if your playing group gets out their micrometers after you declare you're just pivoting, get another playing group....
*throws table* feth this. even if I lose, never taking vehicles, as if I ever ran into one of you in game about this, I would probably quit and sell all my vehicles immediately.
I understand the point of the thread and the legality, but I see the fun of the game also like a frog. You can dissect it and see how it works, but it's no longer alive.
Final note: I would rather get cheesed out an extra couple of inches then spend 30 minute arguing over the correct movement.
As the thread is getting heated again, i believe it can stay where it stayed before:
Yes they removed that 1 phrase of specification. Yes page 18 maxes you out from the hull. Yes i can see it as a valid interpretation and would not deploy my Vehicles sideways if i faced you.
However.
The current reading and interpretation by most of us, where pivot is free: so starting your mvt with a pivot to "gain distance" still works, and is still within the rules.
If taking note of page 18: The Center point of the vehicle has never moved more than its allowance, so what happens to corner X Y Z is irrelevant. If you believe so, enjoy explaining it to players with Monoliths and Baneblades.
Eihnlazer puts it how i also read the rules currently:
Eihnlazer wrote: The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.
That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.
The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).
Both positions accepted, with agreement before the game starts, and TO ruling in tournaments. No one is "Wrong".
Both sides work, both sides "Gain movement" and both will create small issues.
and now we got to a full circle in just one page of this thread.
i believe most of you guys dont get what a massive nerf to vehicle's and walkers this would mean.
- big vehicles cant turn at all if they moved
- smaller vehicles can only move 1-2" if they want to turn more than 45°
- walkers cant turn if they moved more than 4"
and no, we are not exactly told how we are supposed to measure pivots, besides a vague "messure from the hull" and some mixed in rules for INFANTRY movement.
Snapshot wrote: Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.
thats where i disagree from a RAI standpoint. no where is it mentioned that big vehicles are more cumbersome than small ones. on the contrary, regardless of size each category or modeltype moves at the same speed and has the same maneuverability if not otherwise stated in some kind of special rule (even RAW wise)
just think about how restricted the movement of vehicles would be if you couldn't pivot for "free". a monolith could never move more than 1" and some big vehicles could actually move "further" if they would just stay stationary and pivot on the spot.
i'm not saying that RAW wise you guys are right (i still believe this is not the case) but even if you 'were' right about it, big vehicles would be useless in a standard game. the movement would be so awkward and cumbersome to execute, that fielding them wouldnt make any sense (especially for big transports, since they could only move foward in a straight line or loose a turn by pivoting on the spot)
just take the picture from above and visualize how restricted the movement for big vehicles would be.
even a for a rhino wanting to make a 45° turn... look how silly this would be. (both vehicles moved and turned)
now imagine if the rhino wanted to make an 90° turn. it could move less than ONE or TWO inches. A RHINO.
Spoiler:
RedNoak wrote: hehe, but that doesnt move the discussion in any direction.^^ if you can come to an agreement with your opponent, everything goes.
but to recap things:
i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.
what i'm going to say was partially stated a couple of pages ago...
if you refer to infantry base-movement rules, it opens up a totally new discussion, since everything that was stated here about vehicle movement would also affect infantry movement. if no part of the base can move further than 6" and turning/pivoting is counted towards the distance traveled (even if its a round base) no infantry model (or any other model) could turn at the end of its movement phase. (see attachment 1)
i know you are all afraid of the mighty OP ork trukk gaining an inch...
but as i said before this works out for all armies. shooty armys can do the same thing to fire their 24" weapons with full BS into the enemy deployment zone on turn 1
and by the way, this way of shooting was and still remains LEGAL by all in this thread proposed means. (see att. 3)
the next issue would be big vehicles. even small vehicles would suffer from restricted range if they want to turn during their movement.
but in some cases big vehicles couldnt move at all if they want to pivot, since at a certain point,
if you want to 'track' ranges in any instance of the movement, "a part of the hull" would move further than the 6" restriction
and if they were to move some big vehicles would actually LOOSE distance in order to turn. (see att. 3)
another argument would be the cumbersome process of moving vehicles. keeping track of all points of the hull in every instance of the movement and measuring all the time to make sure nothing goes outside the 6" bubble.
so like i said before. as a general rule:
simply measuring from the center of the hull, pivoting as you wish is the most-simple, RAW/RAI-backed-up and fair system.
There aren't that many issue if you take it this way:
"No part of the hull is simply from Hull to hull, no matter facing, 180 turns, etc."
Nem wrote: I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.
Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.
This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.
"No part of the hull is simply from Hull to hull, no matter facing, 180 turns, etc."
but how is this more RAW or RAI conform than the pivot doesnt count as moving?
its a compromise, ill give you that. but it still impedes vehicle movement, if you turn you will never move more than 5" maximum the mor degree you turn the less you can move (and makes it really awkward to measure)
Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.
Those were usually the same people who would try to pivot on a corner at my LGS. Had a dude rotate his dreadknight on a far side, gained an extra good 4 inches from that long ass base. When you call them out, they just look at you, like you accused them of murder.
Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.
Those were usually the same people who would try to pivot on a corner at my LGS. Had a dude rotate his dreadknight on a far side, gained an extra good 4 inches from that long ass base. When you call them out, they just look at you, like you accused them of murder.
As much as Pivoting on a corner is completely illegal per RaW, and told "you are not playing right" with "please go back and move that again",
I have yet to meet a Dark Eldar player who does NOT deploy sideways and rotate on turn 1. Never had an issue with it and they are almost never Waac players...
If you decided to deploy 0.001mm behind your Deployment line and get charged, i think you didn't think things through when he deployed =P
The problem with the deploy sideways and pivot is you have to measure from where you started before pivoting for movement now as the pivot isn't free if you intend to do more than just pivot. if you measure from where your pivot ends up and then moved 6" you have cheated.
Same for the end of the movement, you can't move 6" and then pivot. Pivoting isn't free.
I played Dark Eldar a handful of times in 6th, and never pulled the pivoting BS because tbh it didn't actually say it was free and allowed then either, people just assumed it was.
vehicle movement really isn't hard unless you are trying to cheat at it.
Where is your vehicle, are you moving or just pivoting.
If just pivoting-pivot and your done- you don't count as moving.
if you are moving then mark start point, mark end point, do your pivots between the two at the center of the model. done.
how to fail at moving-
pivot mark start point-move [this is a fail because if you do more than just pivot the pivot doesn't count as stationary so it is part of your move and you must include the pivot as movement]
or
mark start point, move 6", then pivot at end of move. [this is a fail because if you do more than just pivot the pivot doesn't count as stationary so it is part of your move and you must include the pivot as movement]
blaktoof wrote: if you are moving then mark start point, mark end point, do your pivots between the two at the center of the model. done.
I agree:
Deploy sideways.
Start moving: move 0.001" forward.
Pivot.
Measure 5.999" from the front of the hull. Move forward.
End movement.
How far is the front of your hull to the Mid-line? 6" minus half the vehicle length.
I have "cheated" and "gained movement" by following your exact rules.
EDit: The center of the vehicle (or "mark start point") is still 6" from where it was at deployment ("measure to end point")
You already know before the pivot where you plan to move. Start measuring before you pivot then pivot and place the facing you want toward the direction you want and move the distance you wish to move. This has been posted in here as a valid workaround at least twice now.
If you need to go around things move to where you need to pivot record the move start measuring in the new direction, before the pivot, then finish the move.
If all you are doing is pivoting it's not measured per the rules.
Edit: Using this you do not loose distance, you simply do not gain distance via pivoting while moving.
Not being functional is not equivalent to a reduction of efficacy. The new movement rules are the latter, not the former. I dont like the change myself, but that doesnt alter the text written in the book.
Just accept the new movement paradigm and adapt imo.
I'm afraid this would definitely kill transports. The point of a transport is to increase mobility as much as it is to offer protection. If rotating my rhino 180 degrees before I move now means I can only move 2" forward because the change in position of my rear hatch is 4" forward and that counts as part of my movement when I decide to actually move, then I was way, WAY better off just marching my infantry forward.
Throughout 5th edition, when vehicles were king, I always played it that you start out, before doing anything, measuring from your vehicle to where you wanted your vehicle to end up - closest point, usually. And then you could spin around like a top during your movement as much as you liked, so long as you ended up that far away. I resented the landraiders and DE raiders that tried to gain extra inches by deploying sideways and then turning. The fact that they had to pull out a "well, technically, this blah blah blah...." proved to me they were trying to gain advantage in the rules.
In 7th, I honestly thought I had read that vehicles moved by first pivoting to face the direction they wanted to go, then measured and moved. That made the DE trick legal, but it applied to all vehicles now, and it was only coincidental that certain longer vehicles benefited more. Oh well.
What this DID do was make vehicle movement make a bit more sense - people complained about my method of doing things back in 5th because it involved tanks moving sideways. In what I thought was 7th's version, tanks had to always drive forward or backward, and pivoted as much as necessary without reducing their movement. This worked for me visually on the table much better than before.
Now we apparently have serious issues with deployment out of transports, and the poor IG and eldar players with a hatch only in the rear might as well never try to take them for transport potential (like they have been at all, really...), because when deployed facing forward, that hatch is now 7" back in their deployment zone. This truly does put the nail in the coffin for mose transports except open-topped, which disembark from anywhere, and landraiders, with a hatch in the front. Anyone else loses too much movement to make it worthwhile.
I'm in agreement with the technique of measuring 6" away before you do anything, and then making sure no part of your vehicle exceeds that distance away once it's done moving - and turn as much as you like on the way.
Snapshot wrote: Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.
There are MC's with Oval bases, but similarly they are not Infantry.
i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.
I think my problem is there is no indication vehicles CAN do free pivots, there was in 6ed, but that rule has been removed. Considering taking the measurement rules for movement - you would need a rule to say you can free pivot rather than something to say you can not
But there is, the paragraph does state: "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase sounds as Stationary." That is a huge indication that vehicles CAN do free pivots, as why would a maneuver done after 0" of moving not change your movement speed, but doing the same thing after 6" of movement would? By all indications such a The removal of the phrase "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." sounds more like the writers going, we're stating this same principle 3 times in 2 sentences, maybe saying it just twice will be fine.
Either way I think the writers dropped the ball on this wording change, if they didn't mean to change the common interpretation, they underestimated the importance dedicated rules people will place on every sentence, and if they did intend the change, they did not bring enough attention to said change as the rules were out for a healthy amount of time before anyone even noticed the different wording, much less ascribed a fundamental change in the way people move vehicles to that change.
The sentence about "a vehicle may pivot as much as they like" is still in, isn't it?
How could that be true if pivoting DID count as movement? If it does, then no, I can't pivot as much as I want freely. I can pivot....well none at all, I suppose, if I want to end up 6" away. That seems contradictory. I'm sure, despite the removal of the sentence, that they still intended vehicles to be able to spin around as they moved.
Spellbound wrote: The sentence about "a vehicle may pivot as much as they like" is still in, isn't it?
How could that be true if pivoting DID count as movement? If it does, then no, I can't pivot as much as I want freely. I can pivot....well none at all, I suppose, if I want to end up 6" away. That seems contradictory. I'm sure, despite the removal of the sentence, that they still intended vehicles to be able to spin around as they moved.
A vehicle may turn as many times as it likes, just like a normal model.
However the difference between this edition and last is that in this edition.
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
pivoting is done as you move, not before or after.
If you only pivot you count as not moving.
There is no exemption that pivots do not count towards movement like there was last edition.
and there is this..
As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.
so if you pivot as you move you measure your movement start and stop point before all pivots, and at the end after all pivots. not Pivot measure move, or measure move-pivot.
Also we may end the move with the any part of the hull further than the distance alloted for the move.
this does not mean the front of the vehicle has to be where the front is, you can move a rhino pivot 180 and be 6" from where you started. your front where your rear was and your rear where your front was and no part of the hull has moved past the 6" you are allowed to move, you are just facing the other way. As long as no part of the hull is more than 6" away from where it started you are still moving 6".
You say you can pivot as much as you want during the move (not before, not after - fine with this), but then you say no part of the hull can be further than 6" away from where it began.
That's the issue. If you take that literally, then if my rhino starts facing toward you, I cannot go forward 6" and have my rear facing you. That means the rear part of my hull moved quite far, and the front part of my hull moved not far at all.
I would be fine with this, but if you really truly mean no PART can go further than 6" then the vehicle really can't change orientation at all. Saying you can freely pivot as much as you like as you move and saying no part of the hull can move more than 6" from where it began are directly contradictory, if you take the latter literally.
pivoting is done as you move, not before or after.
from this sentence??
"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"
and there is this..
As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.
yeah, there it is indeed: INFANTRY movement rules, magically becoming VEHICLE movement rules
which by the way... IF they would be used in that exact wording in conjunction with vehicle rules: you couldnt turn EITHER intantry or walkers after they moved 6"
as shown in this repeatedly posted picture: ("no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.")
Gravmyr wrote: You already know before the pivot where you plan to move. Start measuring before you pivot then pivot and place the facing you want toward the direction you want and move the distance you wish to move. This has been posted in here as a valid workaround at least twice now.
If i start measuring any vehicle movement from the center point of the vehicle, do whatever i want and place the center point exactly 6" away from the beginning, i will still "gain movement" as is so often despised.
I will follow those exact rules to the letter and still produce what is trying to be "avoided".
blaktoof wrote: this does not mean the front of the vehicle has to be where the front is, you can move a rhino pivot 180 and be 6" from where you started. your front where your rear was and your rear where your front was and no part of the hull has moved past the 6" you are allowed to move, you are just facing the other way. As long as no part of the hull is more than 6" away from where it started you are still moving 6".
I think this is what a vehicles maximum movement looks like.
No part of the vehicle can end outside the line which is 6" away from each part of the hull if you want to remain at combat speed.
Which is indeed how i understand the position of pretty much most posters of the thread "Against" the "pivot to gain distance".
But that position lets you "gain distance" on Ghost Arks, so it's not ideal either.
@Spellbound: RAW yes. In the end you need to come up with an acceptable way of moving between gaining movement and restricted movement. Measure the distance and move up to there. BlackTalos kindly reposted the image that illustrates it well.
@RedNoak: Those Three sentences yes. To be more clear pivoting is part of the movement.
@BlackTalos: I've never put forth measuring from the center only people trying to retain additional movement have put that type of measurement forward. I advocate measuring from the closest edge and going from there just as the image you kindly reposted has movement being done. As an aside how does a GA gain distance from this interpretation?
It's nice to see that the "Pivoting is movement" scheme still produces results that only make sense if you don't actually have any terrain to move around.
solkan wrote: It's nice to see that the "Pivoting is movement" scheme still produces results that only make sense if you don't actually have any terrain to move around.
Disagree. Does any other model movement not make sense if you need to move around terrain? Were advocating you move like any other model. Your allowed to pivot -as you move-. Some how people are really confused how to measure around a corner, and then how you move a vehicle from there from the first point to the end point. Some mix up with measuring distances, and moving.
Spellbound - The structure of that sentence was brought up it could also mean no part of the base could be more than 6'' from where any part part of the base started, this makes a lot of sense in terms of vehicles and models (with or without circular bases). It was noted we don't measure bit of the bases - in which case a measurement of 6inches from the hull, and movement with pivots to the end point's will make this impossible to actually break under that interpretation.
Blacktalos - Measuring from the center of the hull has not been in since 3rd ed I think, or maybe 4th
Red - We have rules for measuring distances, and they are in no way related to vehicles having the ability to pivot as they move. You measure distances before you move , and you can pivot as you move, not as you measure. There is more than just the movement rules which touch on how to measure distances in 40k.
Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain
features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest
point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the
bases of the closest models in each of the units (see the diagram below)
The distance between the Space Marine unit and the hull of the Ork Trukk is 5
inches. We normally say that the Trukk is within 5" of the Space Marine unit.
Note that we always measure to the hull of a vehicle.
Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed.
Quite simply we know what 6'' is in terms of measurement, it is 6'' from the hull, to the end of the 6'' tape measure. You measure distances before you start moving models, ergo the tape measure is down before you pivot. At that point you can move the vehicle, including pivoting it, to the end point of that tape measure in the direction you wish to go. There are no base or infantry related rules in there.
@RedNoak: We are using the basic movement rules and using the exceptions presented in the vehicle section just as the rule book puts fourth. Without those basic rules you just have distances to move without other rules. You need to provide a line from the vehicle section that tells you not to use any of those rules if you want to ignore them.
Blacktalos - Measuring from the center of the hull has not been in since 3rd ed I think, or maybe 4th
Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain
features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest
point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the
bases of the closest models in each of the units (see the diagram below)
The distance between the Space Marine unit and the hull of the Ork Trukk is 5
inches. We normally say that the Trukk is within 5" of the Space Marine unit.
Note that we always measure to the hull of a vehicle.
Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed.
Quite simply we know what 6'' is in terms of measurement, it is 6'' from the hull, to the end of the 6'' tape measure. You measure distances before you start moving models, ergo the tape measure is down before you pivot. At that point you can move the vehicle, including pivoting it, to the end point of that tape measure in the direction you wish to go. There are no base or infantry related rules in there.
I disagree with that interpretation of movement.
P10 and Distances is just that: Distances. It is not relevant to actual movement of the models. It is a distance between 2 objects, not 1 Object in movement.
The only Rule set we have for movement is on p18, and
Models move up to 6" in the Movement Phase. (...) if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started in the movement phase.
Quite clear for models on bases.
Page 73 then specifies how this works for vehicles. Notice also that P72 and "Vehicles and measuring distances" is a separate paragraph completely, irrelevant to movement, but contains the wording "measure to and from their hull".
Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed.
And the paragraph following mentioning Pivots, etc
So what part of the vehicle travels "up to 6" "? I do not see any issue with choosing the Center point of the vehicle in measuring that Travel?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would emphasise that point by saying this:
We are told to measure a vehicle's Travel distance. I assume here you know the definition of "travel" and how it is different to "move": one cares not how you get from A to B, but the other measures every millimeter of the journey as a quantifiable distance.
So how do you measure a travel distance with a point on the vehicle if:
Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point
If you may pivot as many times as you like, measuring the travel distance at any other location than the centre-point will exponentially increase.
And so I underline again my position that you measure exactly how far, in inches, the centre-point has moved, and that is your "travel" distance. However many times you decide to Spin-top...
I'm sorry but the point is not irrelevant. Some in this thread seem to think they're heads are going to explode if they have to play movement as the rules seem to suggest. I'm simply pointing out that WHFB players manage to get their units around the battlefield without requiring mental therapy afterwards. It's really not that hard to move and pay for your pivots.
The measurement rules are vaguely to do with movement considering we need to know how to measure 6inches, but directly concerned with how anything moves no. I'm pretty much outside the 'can be arsed' phase to explain why to measure from the hull of the vehicle rather than the center of the vehicle - If you want to measure from the center of the hull and your FLGS is OK with that, then that is fine - but I wouldn't take it outside there.
The problem with removing so many basic rules, you suddenly have no rules and start making up methods to fill the gaps. Not seeing a problem with measuring from the center of the hull is a by product of removing basic rules, because they state 'base'.
The basic rules do state "Base" but as others have pointed out, that is for anything that has a base.
I understand you want to replace the wording of those rules with "Hull" rather than "Base", and i can understand that assumption, but ultimately do not agree that it is how the rules are written.
you have to measure travel (as per the Vehicle RaW) and not movement:
you have to take note / measure exactly how the Vehicle got from A to B, as opposed to the Basic movement rules that say you can pretty much "travel" 50" until you are 6" away from your starting location.
I can adjoin pictures to show it more clearly if the point isn't completely clear, but i do believe the interpretation "Hull within 6" " is flawed, even though not "wrong" within RaW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So i spent some time to get this explained in a picture.
To Nem, but all can try this:
"No part of the vehicle can be further than 6" or you have moved more than you allotted distance"
Now please set up a "long" vehicle, such as a Dark Eldar Raider or Necron Ghost Ark on your Table.
Now assume you move at maximum 6" for 3 turns of the game
All the Red lines on the diagram MUST be 6" (or less)
After these 3 quite simple turns of play, measure the distance (Green lines) from the centre point of the vehicle (or any other part of the Hull you wish to pick)
I can guarantee that your vehicle is now MUCH further than 18" away from its starting position.
Feel free to add a 4th Turn just to make sure the vehicle is facing the same way again, and measure.
You move up to a maximum movement distance, not a travel distance. there is no such thing as "travel distance" in the RAW and there is nothing to even loosely imply you measure how far you have moved based on the movement path.
If that were the case we would have things like vector strike/blade vane/scream attacks/ chariot drive bys not use the terminology that you mark the start and end point and its a line between those two.
There is no raw that you measure travel.
the hull of the vehicle is used instead of the base for measuring stance.
As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull
the vehicle has a maximum movement distance, not travel range travel move or travel distance.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance.
There is nothing anywhere in the rules to even suggest you can pivot for free, move some, measure that move, pivot for free, move some and measure that move and when it hits 6" your golden. that is a fallacy.
unfortunately what you stated is not the full text.
before it it states:
The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons
which obviously shows us the distance a vehicle moves.
then it goes on to state that if during the distance the vehicle moved it travels up to x" its going combat speed, and if it travels between x and y its going cruising speed.
However none of this overrides or tells us to measure vehicle movement in any way different than normal movement. Does it? If it does please show the quote from the relevant page.
there is nothing about measuring how far you travel as you are traveling, that is fabricated.
and the reason you cant measure through impassable terrain is the same reason no model can generally, unless they have a specific rule that says they may travel over it. That is a reason based on the terrain and hos nothing to do with general vehicle movement.
You want to go 6", great take your tape measure, pick a point on the hull and measure 6" to where you want to go, place the model down there you have gone 6" with pivots between.
Theres an impassable thing in the way, measure 6" around the thing, put vehicle there.
By the by, i was cruising through my BRB and noticed that on page 92 in the Tank Shock and Ramming section that you do not count the pivot move before your tank shock or ram againgst your movement distance at all.
Hmm.....i guess pivots are free after all even if you move.
This was brought up earlier. Those are special instructions. I assume you move infantry 2d6 in the movement phase because that is what they move during a charge.....
Eihnlazer wrote: By the by, i was cruising through my BRB and noticed that on page 92 in the Tank Shock and Ramming section that you do not count the pivot move before your tank shock or ram againgst your movement distance at all.
Hmm.....i guess pivots are free after all even if you move.
Was that ever questionable? Just that including pivots the vehicle cannot move further than 6" from where it started.
Someone pointed out earlier that measurement can be taken from the center point. That makes sense. I don't care if someone can broadside me by turning sideways, that was bad planning by me anyway..
And I am sure everyone can figure out how to get around (or over) obstacles.
blaktoof wrote: unfortunately what you stated is not the full text.
before it it states:
The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons
Right back at you:
The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later
Ie: this text says pay attention this will be important later.
Not: this text is about accuracy in shooting
What is the Title of that paragraph?
VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE
do vehicles shoot in the movement phase?
that entire section is describing "how to move vehicles"
blaktoof wrote: which obviously shows us the distance a vehicle moves.
then it goes on to state that if during the distance the vehicle moved it travels up to x" its going combat speed, and if it travels between x and y its going cruising speed.
However none of this overrides or tells us to measure vehicle movement in any way different than normal movement. Does it? If it does please show the quote from the relevant page.
Right there, quoted word for word:
Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
Because at the moment, you seem to be saying i can do this with my vehicle:
By your interpretation, i am only 12" away from where i started my movement: this is legal.
When i say no: you have traveled 20", which is more than the 12" you are allowed to move....
@BlackTalos: I think you may want to check your figures. Following your directions and layout that you posted above The front of GA is about 16" away. The center of the base is about 17" away.
Your argument is that you measure travel, including the distance gained by pivots, was exactly how I put it fourth in the first place and how I do movement myself.
Nem and I are putting fourth both a RAW, basically unusable, vision as well as a RAI version with a quick box for clear movement and travel measurement for terrained fields.
The picture above was a horrible and very fast job in MS paint. I hoped that the point would still get across if you take the values as they are.
IE: the green line IS 12" and the blue lines ARE 10" and 10".
My argument is that you measure travel (from vehicle centre-point), but pivots don't make a difference? Also i do beleive that it is fully within RaW?
Nem is putting forward another interpretation, shown in this picture, where "travel is irrelevant", in a way, and the only rule that matters is:
"Models move up to 6" in the Movement Phase."
or to quote Nem:
"we know what 6'' is in terms of measurement, it is 6'' from the hull, to the end of the 6'' tape measure".
I am unsure what "side" you belong to if you play like i describe it but put forth Nem's argument?
If the drawing is causing problems, here's one that I happen to know is in scale.
Nice and simple situation: The blue rhino wants to move around the about 5" square obstacle. (The path it wants to take is marked out in 1" increments, and the yellow rulers are included to show the size of the vehicle.) Note that it's going to turn three times.
How much movement does the vehicle need to travel that path?
It seemed pretty clear cut to me. I've been lurking this thread side it's conception so that obviously makes me the most qualified person to speak on the matter.
If you don't move, the pivot on the center point is free (thus long vehicles could potentially gain range etc).
If you ARE moving the model, you measure from the farthest point on the hull in the direction you are moving, the distance you are moving, and you can do as many pivots as you want in the mean time, you could do a hundred donuts on the way, but the farthest point on your hull may not be farther than the distance you declared to move. Meaning at the end of your move you can be oriented in any which way, as long as your move didn't take you beyond your "movement bubble."
Ergo, big vehicles and long vehicles are a bit harder to manoeuvre effectively bawwww.
I can't actually believe this horse hasn't been declared dead by a medical professional yet.
Bolg da Goff wrote: It seemed pretty clear cut to me. I've been lurking this thread side it's conception so that obviously makes me the most qualified person to speak on the matter.
If you don't move, the pivot on the center point is free (thus long vehicles could potentially gain range etc).
If you ARE moving the model, you measure from the farthest point on the hull in the direction you are moving, the distance you are moving, and you can do as many pivots as you want in the mean time, you could do a hundred donuts on the way, but the farthest point on your hull may not be farther than the distance you declared to move. Meaning at the end of your move you can be oriented in any which way, as long as your move didn't take you beyond your "movement bubble."
Ergo, big vehicles and long vehicles are a bit harder to manoeuvre effectively bawwww.
I can't actually believe this horse hasn't been declared dead by a medical professional yet.
because its based on assumption and interpretations. using rules for infantry movements and swapping the term base for hull.
its neither balanced nor user friendly, as you have to track that bubble during the game
the method mentioned by you is a compromise to not totally wreck vehicle movement, (which would happen if you take the made assumptions and interpretations literary)
Bolg da Goff wrote: It seemed pretty clear cut to me. I've been lurking this thread side it's conception so that obviously makes me the most qualified person to speak on the matter.
If you don't move, the pivot on the center point is free (thus long vehicles could potentially gain range etc).
If you ARE moving the model, you measure from the farthest point on the hull in the direction you are moving, the distance you are moving, and you can do as many pivots as you want in the mean time, you could do a hundred donuts on the way, but the farthest point on your hull may not be farther than the distance you declared to move. Meaning at the end of your move you can be oriented in any which way, as long as your move didn't take you beyond your "movement bubble."
Ergo, big vehicles and long vehicles are a bit harder to manoeuvre effectively bawwww.
I can't actually believe this horse hasn't been declared dead by a medical professional yet.
So how far did this Rhino move?
By what you have said, you'd measure from where it is up top to it's new position right? Ignoring the Red line?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to specify, the answer would be 16". Because the new position is completely within 16" of where it started?
My interpretation: Pivots are free, but you count every single red section: 26" total would be needed
I am of the same conviction. A "meaningful pivot" (aka one you are doing to deliberately change orientation to circumvent obstacles) will be measured, but not in wheeling or degrees or other finicky stuff. Simply say "it's moving six inches this way" move as I described above, then rinse and repeat until you're around the obstacle. It's not difficult.
Its a clear cut case of RAI vs RAW, but you'd have to e a beligerent fool to actually try to apply it RAW down to the nitty gritty and busting out your compasses and whatever those half circle rulers are called. Like, be real here people.
EDIT: to clarify what I am saying: pivots are free, but any distance gained counts as movement unless you are only pivoting. You may pivot as you want for free but movement gained from such pivots are movement, and movement is movement, so it counts towards your total distance for sure.
EDIT 2: I don't have a computer on hand so I can't draw up a fancy graph, but the drawing above with the rhino and monolith is incorrect in its depiction of the vehicles movement bubble. It would only be equidistant on all sides if it was an open board with literally no obstructions. As a result, in order to maintain equal movement distance on all sides, the area above the monolith would be significantly smaller than the unblocked areas below and beside.
We are completely agreed on how to measure then. If you pick the very centre point of the vehicle, measure 3" in a direction, pivot around centre point, measure centre point 2", pivot on centre point, measure 1", you have totaled 6", even if the 3" was forward and the 1" backwards, and you are actually where you started. If you decide to "complete" that movement, you have moved 6", even if you are in the exact same place.
ED: If you always pivot on the centre point, there should be "no movement"
ED2: I don't think the green area is the movement bubble. Solkan should comment but i think the grey area or green area are not to be taken in account?
My problem with saying you always measure to the center in movement means you you have set precedent to measure there for all measurements to the hull. Do you require charges to reach that same point?
The way I interpreted it was say I was moving in direction A. I measure the distance I am moving from the point on my hull closest to direction A and when I have finished my move, no part of the vehicles hull may be past that point. Ergo I could move the vehicle spinning around as if it were a spinning top but it wouldn't matter as long as my farthest point was not beyond the invisible "line" it is not allowed to cross.
EDIT: to clarify what I am saying: pivots are free, but any distance gained counts as movement unless you are only pivoting. You may pivot as you want for free but movement gained from such pivots are movement, and movement is movement, so it counts towards your total distance for sure.
So you're saying that this rhino can go further
than this rhino
because it ends up facing the same direction?
And if the red line is drawn further than the rhino can move, please indicate either where the rhino is supposed to stop, or how to calculate where it runs out of movement. Because that red path marked in that diagram is where I want to move the model, and I'm trying to figure out according to your interpretation how many turns it's going to take to get there.
Gravmyr wrote: My problem with saying you always measure to the center in movement means you you have set precedent to measure there for all measurements to the hull. Do you require charges to reach that same point?
No, i made quite a big point earlier that "Distances" is not the same as "movement".
Distances: Measuring from Unit A to Unit B (charge distances, etc)
Movement: Measuring from a model "in a direction", "up to a distance"
The BRB explains very well how we measure distances. It also describes movement for Based models pretty well. Vehicle, as per this thread, is slightly less clear, but I think there is enough wording to make sense of it.
There is nothing saying exactly where you measure movement from, only that the Travel of what you measure does not exceed a distance. I would suggest taking it from the centre-point, only because the centre-point "does not move" when you Pivot (around the centre point).
You measure from the hull just the same as the wording for distances. Using two separate locations when measuring to or from the hull sounds like you are intentionally changing it to gain something.
Movement for vehicles per the brb is exactly the same for vehicles as it is for based models with certain exceptions. Stating that they are somehow less exact also sounds like someone trying to gain something.
What is the first heading under The Movement Phase in the BRB? Movement Distance. How can you have movement separate from distance if that is not only the basics for movement but the descriptive illustration for proper movement?
Then you have no permission to measure at all when moving if you are separating the two..... Virtually every rule in this book has to interact with other applicable rules or there is no way to viably do anything. Since there is no section in the assault or shooting sections for it I assume you have your own rules about rerolls and modifying dice rolls.
Models move up to 6" in the Movement Phase. (...) if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started in the movement phase.
Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed.
You do not need the page on "measuring distances" for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you argue to me that you need the page on measuring distances, then i have a few questions for you:
Is a standard infantry unit within 6" for it's movement destination? does it need to be "wholly within"? can you count the entire unit "within" 6" of that point?
Etc... Questions that make absolutely no sense, because "Measuring Distances" is NOT involved in measuring movement.
Models move individually not as a unit otherwise vehicle squadrons are basically fudged same as a unit made up of a large number of infantry models. If you do not use the two together you have no way to measure vehicles without a base as you do not have permission to measure their travel from the hull, the only section that speaks about measurement is the basic movement which does not mention measuring hulls only bases. As you are the one separating them please cite a rule that allows you to measure movement from anything but a base.
Indeed, the movement rules talk about bases, which vehicles do not have.
To move a vehicle, you have to use these rules:
VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later.
• Stationary. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
• Cruising Speed. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible – all of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.
You simply measure the travel of the vehicle. Where you measure is not mentioned, and all parts of the vehicle will travel the exact same distance, so it does not make a difference.
You are never told to measure vehicle movement from the Hull only. That is an assumption.
That is not permission to measure from the hull to calculate distance. Please cite a rule in that section allowing you to measure the hull to do so. Why are you measuring from the hull to determine distance when you do not have permission to do so?
I am pointing out the flaw behind the idea that you can somehow separate movement from distance.
There is no flaw. You are told to measure the travel of the vehicle.
You are told that you can move "in vectors" (if that makes grasping the concept easier?) and that you can also pivot. If you never pivot, by RaW your vehicle is pointing in the exact same direction as you were before moving.
The BRB has 2 sets of rules, completely separate from each other:
Movement
Vehicle movement
Both are completely self-contained rulesexplaining how you perform movement.
There should be no need for any other section if you are alone in the middle of a 2ft by 2ft table of just static grass...
Both are not completely self contained....and there is nothing to support that.
They have modifications to the standard movement rules, which are specifically (or in some peoples opinions not so specifically) amended in the vehicle section but they like all units obey the general movement rules. This is even shown in the first diagram for movement distance when they reference vehicles.
for all distances you measure to and from the hull for vehicles, so movement distance is to and from the hull.
you are never told to measure the travel of the vehicle, that is fabricated.
you are told that a vehicle that travel a certain distance only fires with x rules and a vehicle that travels another certain distance fires with y rules.
there is no such thing as measuring travel distance, the only time travel is used in the vehicle section is in relation to how many weapons a vehicle can fire. But by the time you figure out how far a vehicle travelled you have already moved the vehicle using the normal movement rules, not some imaginary movement where you measure every inch one at a time and get to pivot and not measure the change in distance from the pivot. then 1 by 1 measure some more inches...
If you check the beginning of the book there are 2 sections:
MEASURING DISTANCES
In games of Warhammer 40,000, distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick. You can always check any distance at any time. This allows you to check whether your units are in range of their target before they attack. After all, the soldiers are led by seasoned veterans who can accurately judge the range of their weapons, even if we, their generals, cannot.
Section 1, let you know how the entire game works in Inches.
Section 2, distance:
Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distances between units are always measured to and from the bases of the closest models in each of the units (see the diagram below).
Not at all you said movement is separate from distance, and have not cleared up the fact that by your logic I can drive through enemy models and within 1" of enemy models.
Gravmyr wrote: Then you can drive vehicles through other models and within 1" of enemy units if those two sections are separate. We know that's not right.
Did you seriously not read my post?
It's the last line:
VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later.
• Stationary. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
• Cruising Speed. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible – all of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.
Which does not cover enemy models now does it. How about moving within 1 "? Didn't in the drawing you posted earlier why did you go around that enemy model?
blaktoof wrote: Both are not completely self contained....and there is nothing to support that.
They have modifications to the standard movement rules, which are specifically (or in some peoples opinions not so specifically) amended in the vehicle section but they like all units obey the general movement rules. This is even shown in the first diagram for movement distance when they reference vehicles.
Distances, yes. movement, No, please double check.
you are told that a vehicle that travel a certain distance only fires with x rules and a vehicle that travels another certain distance fires with y rules.
In the shooting paragraph, yes i agree. We are discussing Movement Phase here...
there is no such thing as measuring travel distance, the only time travel is used in the vehicle section is in relation to how many weapons a vehicle can fire. But by the time you figure out how far a vehicle travelled you have already moved the vehicle using the normal movement rules, not some imaginary movement where you measure every inch one at a time and get to pivot and not measure the change in distance from the pivot. then 1 by 1 measure some more inches...
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
If you continue to simply ignore Rules, we can stop right here....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gravmyr wrote: Which does not cover enemy models now does it. How about moving within 1 "? Didn't in the drawing you posted earlier why did you go around that enemy model?
Ok, debunking your last "argument" against:
If you were forbidden to be within 1" of an enemy unit, explain to me how tank shock works?
having the word travel doesnt add the words "you measure travel inch by inch with free pivots in between"
the word travel is in a subsection under "the distance a vehicle moves" ironically it states it affects how many weapons the vehicle can fire then goes into the subsection where it mentions "a vehicle that travels up to 6 is said to be going combat speed and may fire" obviously travel is only used here in combination with the above "movement distance" to determine weapon firing and in this subsection where travel is used has nothing to do with actually moving the vehicle but rather what happens to the vehicles shooting when the vehicle had a certain movement distance.
how did the vehicle get that movement distance? by using the rules from the movement section for how far a unit moves, using their movement distance.
if we then look under vehicles and measuring distance we see that instead of the base we use the hull and measure to and from the hull.
as there is no rule anywhere that says we measure a vehicle traveling incriments its quite easy to figure out how to place a vehicle that moves a certain distance.
we measure from the hull, as it is used instead of the base per the RAW, extend our tape measure out to where we want it to go within 6" in any direction, and put the vehicle so the hull is in the same orientation at the end of the tape measure as the begining.
we have no moved 6" with pivots in between.
please find anywhere that it describes this made up we measure in increments to see how far a vehicle travels.
Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle (not including Walkers or Chariots) are not locked in combat and can therefore be shot during the Shooting phase. If the vehicle pivots on the spot (to shoot at its attackers for example), move these models out of the way as you shift the vehicle and then place them back into base contact with the vehicle – or as close as possible if there is no room. Units that still have models in base contact with a vehicle during its Assault phase may attack it again, just as in a normal ongoing combat (including all models that would count as engaged in a normal assault).
From the vehicles in close combat rules. If you could not be within 1" of an enemy, as a vehicle, none of this would make sense when it is your turn...
A Tank Shock is an exception to the rule that enemy models cannot be moved through.
Does this give an exception to the 1" rule? no, because Vehicles do not have it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: having the word travel doesnt add the words "you measure travel inch by inch with free pivots in between"
the word travel is in a subsection under "the distance a vehicle moves" ironically it states it affects how many weapons the vehicle can fire then goes into the subsection where it mentions "a vehicle that travels up to 6 is said to be going combat speed and may fire" obviously travel is only used here in combination with the above "movement distance" to determine weapon firing and in this subsection where travel is used has nothing to do with actually moving the vehicle but rather what happens to the vehicles shooting when the vehicle had a certain movement distance.
how did the vehicle get that movement distance? by using the rules from the movement section for how far a unit moves, using their movement distance.
if we then look under vehicles and measuring distance we see that instead of the base we use the hull and measure to and from the hull.
as there is no rule anywhere that says we measure a vehicle traveling incriments its quite easy to figure out how to place a vehicle that moves a certain distance.
we measure from the hull, as it is used instead of the base per the RAW, extend our tape measure out to where we want it to go within 6" in any direction, and put the vehicle so the hull is in the same orientation at the end of the tape measure as the begining.
we have no moved 6" with pivots in between.
please find anywhere that it describes this made up we measure in increments to see how far a vehicle travels.
You are confusing 2 sections of the Rulebook.
VEHICLES IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE
The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later.
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
and
VEHICLES IN THE SHOOTING PHASE
Moving and Shooting with Vehicles All vehicles have the Relentless special rule, but the number (and accuracy) of the weapons a vehicle can fire in the Shooting phase depends on how fast it moved in that turn’s Movement phase, as detailed below.
• A vehicle that moved at Combat Speed may fire a single weapon using its Ballistic Skill. The vehicle can also fire Snap Shots with other weapons if it wishes, though, of course, it cannot fire any weapons that cannot be fired as Snap Shots.
Two very separate sections.
And yes, if you have to Zig-Zag through a City board, you measure every movement, not just "Start to finish".
You mean the enemy having had permission to move to within 1" and not being forced to move? You can't move to within 1" is not the same as not being allowed to be within 1".
If you continue reading you have to stop outside of 1" if you come upon an enemy vehicle. Per the BRB they apparently include the 1" as part of the model or it would have it's own entry under deep strike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still haven't covered why you went around the enemy model not through it if it doesn't exist for vehicles.
The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.
You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gravmyr wrote: You mean the enemy having had permission to move to within 1" and not being forced to move? You can't move to within 1" is not the same as not being allowed to be within 1".
If you continue reading you have to stop outside of 1" if you come upon an enemy vehicle. Per the BRB they apparently include the 1" as part of the model or it would have it's own entry under deep strike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still haven't covered why you went around the enemy model not through it if it doesn't exist for vehicles.
I'm sorry but this post does not make much sense?
the BRB includes the 1" as part of the model? have you got quotes for this, i've never heard of this? and in what way, charging in close combat? moving?
I assume then you can't cite permission. I told you before I measure how far I move unless there is nothing in the way. What I am arguing is the stance that vehicle movement is completely separate from infantry movement. When I measure I include the distance gained via the pivot against how far I move. I don't pick a random place on the model to measure from, I measure from the closest direction I am going then pivot and move.
The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.
You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.
But as Insaniak clearly said on as early as page 2, that is not the correct way of seeing things.
What you keep pointing at is the fact that i am implying, by saying that Vehicle Movement is independent, this rule is ignored:
Models in the Way A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.
I then ask you, why do the Vehicle RaW say this:
If the vehicle pivots on the spot (...), move these models out of the way as you shift the vehicle and then place them back into base contact with the vehicle – or as close as possible if there is no room.
If quoted Rule 1 applied to vehicles, doing quoted Rule 2 would be illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
move the Tank straight forwards until it comes into contact with an enemy unit
This would also be completely illegal.
And so would this:
If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is Falling Back or not), these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance
The image by Solkan? Then it would be a Ram, here are the rules:
Units other than vehicles in the path of a Ramming Tank are Tank Shocked as normal, but if the Ramming Tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle or building, resolve the collision as follows.
Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the Ramming vehicle always uses its front armour).
Oh look, there is even a very clear part about what you can/cannot do with a Vehicle:
the Rammer continues its move until it reaches the declared distance, moves to within 1" of impassable terrain or friendly troops (at which point it stops immediately) or contacts another enemy unit (which it will Tank Shock or Ram again).
So it does seem that the only thing that actually stops a Vehicle from moving is "impassable terrain or friendly troops", anything else is "it will Tank Shock or Ram again".
I have never encountered / played with Vehicles that were not tank or skimmer, so there was no issue with the rules as i listed them.
Having thought about it, i remembered the Taurox, fast vehicle but not a tank, and how that vehicle (there might be more i did not know of) would, as you say be able to move through things because of lack of Rules.
What you keep pointing at is the fact that i am implying, by saying that Vehicle Movement is independent, this rule is ignored:
Models in the Way A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.
And indeed Vehicle movement is Advanced Rules superseding the Basic Rules of the movement phase. we do indeed need that paragraph for the Taurox.
This does not change the ability to measure vehicle travel from anywhere on the vehicle (even measuring from the driver) as per the Vehicle rules.
If this needs to be clearer:
Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on.
It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.
Is replaced by:
• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.
• Cruising Speed. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible – all of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.
Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.
And Rules like
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.
still apply. (Also noticed that if Vehicle movement rules were fully self-contained, you could indeed drive off the board)
Good start but look at page 13 under Basic vs advanced. All rules under movement, shooting and assault apply to all models unless there is a contradiction. You then measure the same way you would an infantry model and a virtual movement of the bubble. They have never cleared up that you need to move forward in any movement for vehicles, except tank shock. Since you have no restriction on this, which I don't use but has been advocated by some, you can slide the model sideways to the edge of the bubble or measure, pivot and slide forward to the edge of the bubble. You then end up being able to move the bubble as put forth but measured exactly the same as infantry. Even if I don't use all the power sliding I can still nudge any part of my vehicle up against the 6" bubble by measuring from the closest edge moving it out and pivoting so the facing I want is in the direction I want so long as I stay within the 6" measurement of my initial position.
If I can choose a random part to measure to and from I could choose the right front corner start my measurement pivot and move and gain the entire length of the vehicle on top of my move. The restriction that exists concerning the entirety of a base, becoming the hull, works just fine to prevent additional movement gain. It is far simpler and easy to measure to an exact point, like a clear edge, then it does to measure to theoretical point in the middle which your model may or may not have a good reference for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In the end what I advocate, and I believe Nem does too, is that don't be tfg and keep it within the measurement you said you were moving. Measure from the closest edge of the hull and move then pivot at the end and you should end up with your access point right at the line if you are looking to disembark. Stop letting people try to justify gaining additional travel distance based off pivoting being free when it no longer is if you move as well.
As an aside I can gain additional distance with nearly all turret based weapons simply by putting my side forward. When I pivot the turret sideways and measure from the end of the barrel which now rests further forward but I have now given the enemy a much easier time to shoot my rear armor. The access point being on the rear is the only time you get that from disembarking and then you have a unit giving a cover save to those shots.
I still disagree with the "bubble method". As Insaniak posted a long time ago, you would move just like Infantry: Place your "bubble" and line yourself up to it, regardless of pivots or anything that happens along the way.
Vehicle rules are clear that you measure "Travel", a word i hope i do not need to define. ALL other rules will say "move". Vehicles movement is the only rule that uses the word "Travel", and i personally believe that this is not accidental.
"If I can choose a random part to measure to and from I could choose the right front corner start my measurement pivot"
I'll stop you right there. you can measure from anywhere, indeed, but for straight movement only. They explain Pivots as a separate matter. After the pivot, you can return to picking any point and continue the measurement...
Because there is no distance gained from the pivot, it's in the rules:
Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.
That line is irrelevant if you count the pivots as movement (each one of them).
If we follow the method by Nem, we get this:
I believe the green line is your travel, which is maxed at 12".
If you ignore this, you can place your Rhino "in the bubble" at 12" away (Blue line), with significant movement gain...
For a start I would ask that you go back and read just Nem's posts. The 6" as has been put forth was just for an illustration.
"pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed" Is not the same as "Pivoting from the center does not count as gaining distance" What is does prevent is this:
As you can see if you didn't have to pivot from the center and pivoting doesn't count for movement and you can pivot all you want you could walk across the board legally.
Let's make a few additions to your image:
Looking at the additions I made the blue square is a vehicle that has a 12" weapon on it. If you move the 3" it can't hit the black square but once it pivots it can... How is that not a gain in distance?
Gravmyr wrote: For a start I would ask that you go back and read just Nem's posts. The 6" as has been put forth was just for an illustration.
"pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed" Is not the same as "Pivoting from the center does not count as gaining distance" What is does prevent is this:
As you can see if you didn't have to pivot from the center and pivoting doesn't count for movement and you can pivot all you want you could walk across the board legally.
I know, i put this on page 3, thanks for reading MY posts:
Naw wrote: "Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."
I do believe that this rule was to stop this:
Whereas this is fully within RaW:
Gravmyr wrote: Let's make a few additions to your image:
Looking at the additions I made the blue square is a vehicle that has a 12" weapon on it. If you move the 3" it can't hit the black square but once it pivots it can... How is that not a gain in distance?
If you are arguing that the pivots performed along the green line count, the vehicle would travel even less. But you are telling me the Blue line (your interpretation) if fine?
That really does not make any sense? Why would you tell ME to move less when YOU are already moving so far more?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And i agree, it would indeed create some "gaining of distance", but the exact same amount as i would playing "your way".
If anything, on a turn per turn basis, i think your interpretation gains even more distance:
BlackTalos wrote: So i spent some time to get this explained in a picture.
"No part of the vehicle can be further than 6" or you have moved more than you allotted distance"
Now please set up a "long" vehicle, such as a Dark Eldar Raider or Necron Ghost Ark on your Table.
Now assume you move at maximum 6" for 3 turns of the game
All the Red lines on the diagram MUST be 6" (or less)
After these 3 quite simple turns of play, measure the distance (Green lines) from the centre point of the vehicle (or any other part of the Hull you wish to pick)
I can guarantee that your vehicle is now MUCH further than 18" away from its starting position.
Feel free to add a 4th Turn just to make sure the vehicle is facing the same way again, and measure.
I posted my measurements earlier based off your image. The front of GA is about 16" away. The center of the base is about 17" away. Sorry if I was not clear enough looks like you posted a second image between entry and posting of my response. By the way choosing the Ghost Arc is a poor choice as I ignore all terrain and models with it. I have no reason to make those course changes and would simply move in a straight line. Now using the exact same setup following your directions for 6" moves but measuring our way what you get is 12 3/4" center post to center post and 13 3/4" front to front.
You still have not addressed this: "Pivoting is always done from the center of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed" Is not the same as "Pivoting from the center does not count as gaining distance" Which is my point not that you gain a length by pivoting elsewhere.
Edit: Since you are using a majority of the rules from the basic section, as there are few changes, yes your movement should be almost exactly the same as infantry. Unless they are going to give us other rules as to how we handle it we need to follow the infantry rules.
The vehicle section uses move in the line above the rule about travel as well as the Oxford dictionary using move to define travel.... While verbage is sometimes a good indicator not all that helpful in this case. At this point I have to assume that most people have made up their minds as to how this works. I have skimmers nearly exclusively so it does not affect my move in the least. As Nem pointed out they removed the line in the middle of a paragraph about free pivots. You can either try to find/create a bunch of rules or simply follow the infantry ones.
Gravmyr wrote: I posted my measurements earlier based off your image. The front of GA is about 16" away. The center of the base is about 17" away. Sorry if I was not clear enough looks like you posted a second image between entry and posting of my response. By the way choosing the Ghost Arc is a poor choice as I ignore all terrain and models with it. I have no reason to make those course changes and would simply move in a straight line. Now using the exact same setup following your directions for 6" moves but measuring our way what you get is 12 3/4" center post to center post and 13 3/4" front to front.
Well that kind of proves the point then? measuring using the interpretation you use gains distance. It is the same for the Green line and blue line in the picture with your additions:
I would definitely call out any player that puts his rhino in the Grey area up top, as he is supposed to be, and i always play it, where the first Rhino is: Grey area below.
Indeed the Ghost Ark would ignore all these constraints, but that's because the Skimmer rules say you ignore them.
Gravmyr wrote: You still have not addressed this: "Pivoting is always done from the center of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed" Is not the same as "Pivoting from the center does not count as gaining distance" Which is my point not that you gain a length by pivoting elsewhere.
As i posted above, the pivoting reference is simply against the picture with the Rhino, and how pivoting on a corner would gain distance, even if you were "only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary".
Someone posted it before:
If you deploy your Ghost Ark sideways along the deployment line and "Simply Pivot" are you not considered Stationary? Do you simply "disregard" this version of "gaining movement"?
Gravmyr wrote: Edit: Since you are using a majority of the rules from the basic section, as there are few changes, yes your movement should be almost exactly the same as infantry. Unless they are going to give us other rules as to how we handle it we need to follow the infantry rules.
The vehicle section uses move in the line above the rule about travel as well as the Oxford dictionary using move to define travel.... While verbage is sometimes a good indicator not all that helpful in this case. At this point I have to assume that most people have made up their minds as to how this works. I have skimmers nearly exclusively so it does not affect my move in the least. As Nem pointed out they removed the line in the middle of a paragraph about free pivots. You can either try to find/create a bunch of rules or simply follow the infantry ones.
Or simply follow the Vehicle rules because they are not Infantry. A Vehicle moves by measuring it's travel distance. Simple enough, as most players play it that way. This has not changed from 6th.
Measuring from A to B 12" and placing you vehicle on the end is indeed something you can do with skimmers, but not "ground" vehicles.
