Ok folks here's the situation. Scenario is Pitched Battle with Annihilation, we set up 24" apart

1) My opponent sets up a land raider side ways, hard against his deployment limit.
2) He takes his first turn, rotates said Land Raider and moves forward 12"
3) Deploys his terminators out of it
4) Charges me in the assault phase, just making it with the lead termy

Note we have a 1st turn charge here how did this happen?

When the land raider rotates, because its a rectangle the front third is now projecting over his deployment limit even though he hasn't moved it yet. Nets him about 2.5"

When the terminators deploy it games them an extra 2" and when you factor that the termys are on large bases we gain about 1.5" there.

2.5 + 2 + 1.5 = 6 There we have it, the extra 6" required to set up a first turn charge from 24" away.

As I said this is all technically legal but its a pretty cheap trick. Was wondering if anyone else out in the Dakkaverse had encountered this maneuver, or indeed if anyone thinks its a good idea!

I agree it is sneaky but a great trick for getting into combat quickly.

Were they Assault Terminators or just Regular Terminators?

Ouch. Wouldn't pull that in a friendly game, but does have its merits in the less gentlemanly tournies. The only thing similar I have encountered is the Tervigon whose 14 spawned guants managed to charge me first turn. This was Dawn of War and 18" away though. Not the same I think.

Thats interesting. Are there rules on exactly where the pivot of a tank is, because you could technically turn the land raider pivoting from its back end to gain however long the land raider actually is.

Thats if there are no rules, theres most likely a rule on pivoting from the center of the tank.

This is why you subtly deploy your guys one inch away from the end of the deployment zone if you know you're probably not going first. 24" range weapons will use that distance to make themselves at the very outer limit of their range all the time if you watch a 'competitive' game, so that one inch can deny this first turn assault stuff and a round of shooting from entire units.

If they still put their models in base contact or claim they have range you know they're doing something hokey with measurements before the game seriously starts. Call them out on it.

Jaon wrote:Thats interesting. Are there rules on exactly where the pivot of a tank is, because you could technically turn the land raider pivoting from its back end to gain however long the land raider actually is.

It rotates on the exact centre of the tank , at least according to a staffer who was watching at the time.

Oh and regarding the type of terminators... they were wolf guard...

Staff are as accurate with rules as you or me (though there is the issue of they have last say as it is their store).
____________________

Else, who cares, the opponent should be meching up honestly and not deploying at 24" but <24".
Early committing termies are dead termies and the SM army loses steam as they are taken on piece-meal.

It sounds right though, I mean it is the literal interpretation of rotates on the spot. Its not like vehicles pivot on a corner or anything like that (at least not any more)

It's gamey and rude in some places I guess.
It really depends on who you are playing against and if this was discussed before the game. Some people have self restrictions on what they think is right/proper/polite play.

Every army can take adv. of this IMO, the only issue is if this was 'ok'ed' before the game or not.

This is a brilliant trick.

Dirty, bastardly, and other nasty words, yes, but brilliant nonetheless.

I would honestly be so impressed with my opponent's shrewdness and savvy that I couldn't even be mad about it.

Man, I wouldn't even look on the rules, I'd rotate every tracked vehicle from the center, and wheeled vehicles from the rear... like they actually do.

But then, it's just silly me.

Dark wrote:Man, I wouldn't even look on the rules, I'd rotate every tracked vehicle from the center, and wheeled vehicles from the rear... like they actually do.

But then, it's just silly me.

I don't believe the rules specify a pivot point when you're pivoting your vehicles on the spot.

However, the rules do define movement by the distance traveled from the front of the hull of the vehicle, so I might counter-argue that if you pivot on the end of the vehicle, you've moved roughly a distance equal to the length of the vehicle, and therefore count has having moved that distance. Actually, I could argue that the front of the vehicle hull has moved twice the length of the vehicle, and thus if it's a vehicle at least 3.0001" in length, you're moving at cruising speed... when all you've actually done is move about 3.0001".

So, RAW, pivoting from any point other than the center of the vehicle is disadvantageous to you.

sneaky, and scary. Until like the above said, early committed termies are dead termies. My favourite moment of playing IG so far is when an opponent risked deep striking a chaos lord and termie body guard into the heart of my guardsmen thinking he'd do me big time. One turn later and they were smoke from LASGUNS! my heavy weapon squads didn't even touch them. The lord wasn't killed but a conscript squad kept him busy while I shot a few other units up before turning attention back to the lord. Want to assult me first tern with termies? go for.... please. As soon as the combats over they're gonnas. how many points is that they need to take out to make the move worth it?

But then the pure shock factor could be worth more than getting their poitns back for the more evil players out there. Now, where's my land raider? *snigger snigger.

I suppose if you know what your doing and can see that weak point in your opponents line it could be a really msart move though.

So lemme get this straight.

We're talking about moving an inch or two extra with a vehicle? Like 13-14.5 inches instead of the 12" that a LR can move?

Pivot...then begin your movement? Sorry, how is this not cheating?

Sure, you can pivot your vehicle all you like "AS THEY MOVE" (thats a rulebook quote boys and girls). Not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

I'm sorry...and surprised that I'm the first one to call foul on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emmkay wrote:As I said this is all technically legal but its a pretty cheap trick. Was wondering if anyone else out in the Dakkaverse had encountered this maneuver, or indeed if anyone thinks its a good idea!

No its not, and no its not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emmkay wrote:
It rotates on the exact centre of the tank , at least according to a staffer who was watching at the time.

Tell that staffer that Deadshane told him to go read the rulebook.

Deadshane - actually entirely legal, and has been since 3rd ed.

FIrst turn charges are also entirely fine, Raider wytches have again been able to do this (comfortably, with the right drugs) for ages.

You pivot from the centre, and you are told that pivoting cannot *reduce* your movement. If you in anyway say my move has been reduced by pivoting then you are the one who is cheating, not me.

The YMDC forum had a long thread on this. End result, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, this IS legal, IS known about to GW (seriously, the number who are at UK GT every year that to not know it requires greater levels of ineptitude than evenb GW could be responsible for) and HAS been left in the rule book now for close on 12 years.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by it.

Sanctjud wrote:It's gamey and rude in some places I guess.

....and illegal in others.

SaintHazard wrote:

Dark wrote:Man, I wouldn't even look on the rules, I'd rotate every tracked vehicle from the center, and wheeled vehicles from the rear... like they actually do.

But then, it's just silly me.

I don't believe the rules specify a pivot point when you're pivoting your vehicles on the spot.

However, the rules do define movement by the distance traveled from the front of the hull of the vehicle, so I might counter-argue that if you pivot on the end of the vehicle, you've moved roughly a distance equal to the length of the vehicle, and therefore count has having moved that distance. Actually, I could argue that the front of the vehicle hull has moved twice the length of the vehicle, and thus if it's a vehicle at least 3.0001" in length, you're moving at cruising speed... when all you've actually done is move about 3.0001".

So, RAW, pivoting from any point other than the center of the vehicle is disadvantageous to you.

Well, i'm just a theorist, since my only real games are all of Necromunda (I'm building my 40K army, though), but I'm pretty sure that the small rulebook on the AoBR box says that the movement is calculated from the rear of the vehicle (thus, not moving a lot actually :\), but I can only check that once I'm at home (I'm at work now, then college)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Deadshane - actually entirely legal, and has been since 3rd ed.

FIrst turn charges are also entirely fine, Raider wytches have again been able to do this (comfortably, with the right drugs) for ages.

You pivot from the centre, and you are told that pivoting cannot *reduce* your movement. If you in anyway say my move has been reduced by pivoting then you are the one who is cheating, not me.

The YMDC forum had a long thread on this. End result, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, this IS legal, IS known about to GW (seriously, the number who are at UK GT every year that to not know it requires greater levels of ineptitude than evenb GW could be responsible for) and HAS been left in the rule book now for close on 12 years.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by it.

Anyway you slice it, the LR is 14.5 inches closer to the enemy than it was at the start of the turn. Last I checked, LR's are able to move 12".

You moved only 12" yet the LR is 14.5" closer. I need a LR that is able to warp space/time like you guys got.

You guys say that pivoting cannot REDUCE a vehicles movement, but apparantly it can INCREASE it. Interesting notion. I disagree.

Deadshane1 wrote:So lemme get this straight.

We're talking about moving an inch or two extra with a vehicle? Like 13-14.5 inches instead of the 12" that a LR can move?

Pivot...then begin your movement? Sorry, how is this not cheating?

Sure, you can pivot your vehicle all you like "AS THEY MOVE" (thats a rulebook quote boys and girls). Not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

I'm sorry...and surprised that I'm the first one to call foul on this one.

Bold emphasis mine.

Please show me in the rule book where it says that.

There is nothing preventing you from pivoting on the spot then moving. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong with a ruling and I'll gladly accept it.

kronk wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:So lemme get this straight.

We're talking about moving an inch or two extra with a vehicle? Like 13-14.5 inches instead of the 12" that a LR can move?

Pivot...then begin your movement? Sorry, how is this not cheating?

Sure, you can pivot your vehicle all you like "AS THEY MOVE" (thats a rulebook quote boys and girls). Not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

I'm sorry...and surprised that I'm the first one to call foul on this one.

Bold emphasis mine.

Please show me in the rule book where it says that.

There is nothing preventing you from pivoting on the spot then moving. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong with a ruling and I'll gladly accept it.

Pg 57

Third paragraph, skipping bullet points, first sentence.

Guess what? If you see this type of deployment... only deploy 11 inches out from the table edge.

It's a sneaky trick yes, but I say you made yourself vulnerable by placing your unit at the hard edge of your deployment zone.

I'd like to point out also that if you're willing to fight this point to arguement during a game, if your gameplan depends on it that much, you're a weak player indeed.

I could play either way.

I just like to know that LR's are supposed to move 12". If I'm playing against an opponent that says they can move 12" forward or 14.5" to the side, its fine. If he needs that to make an interesting game against me, knock yourself out.

(I guess my meltaguns' close range is just going to (effectively) be 8.5 inches for the 2d6 pens that game since he's that much closer.)

Deadshane1 wrote:

kronk wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:So lemme get this straight.

We're talking about moving an inch or two extra with a vehicle? Like 13-14.5 inches instead of the 12" that a LR can move?

Pivot...then begin your movement? Sorry, how is this not cheating?

Sure, you can pivot your vehicle all you like "AS THEY MOVE" (thats a rulebook quote boys and girls). Not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

I'm sorry...and surprised that I'm the first one to call foul on this one.

Bold emphasis mine.

Please show me in the rule book where it says that.

There is nothing preventing you from pivoting on the spot then moving. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong with a ruling and I'll gladly accept it.

Pg 57

Third paragraph, skipping bullet points, first sentence.

Deadshane - The move is legit wheather you agree with it or not. Since you seem to be so adamently against it I suggest you just make a house rule to prevent it rather then trying to twist the verbage of the rules to get the outcome you're looking for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:I could play either way.

(I guess my meltaguns' close range is just going to (effectively) be 8.5 inches for the 2d6 pens that game since he's that much closer.)

That's the spirit.

oni wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

kronk wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:So lemme get this straight.

We're talking about moving an inch or two extra with a vehicle? Like 13-14.5 inches instead of the 12" that a LR can move?

Pivot...then begin your movement? Sorry, how is this not cheating?

Sure, you can pivot your vehicle all you like "AS THEY MOVE" (thats a rulebook quote boys and girls). Not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

I'm sorry...and surprised that I'm the first one to call foul on this one.

Bold emphasis mine.

Please show me in the rule book where it says that.

There is nothing preventing you from pivoting on the spot then moving. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong with a ruling and I'll gladly accept it.

Pg 57

Third paragraph, skipping bullet points, first sentence.

Deadshane - The move is legit wheather you agree with it or not. Since you seem to be so adamently against it I suggest you just make a house rule to prevent it rather then trying to twist the verbage of the rules to get the outcome you're looking for.

No need, like I said, if you NEED your LR's to MOVE 14.5" against me in a game rather than what the books state (12")...I'm good with it.

Play on.

The book also says a blast from a missile is max 48 inches and if it scatters it may well go beyond that.

Also the book says you put the flamer template on the tip of the gun but for multi-level buildings, this is noy applied.

I agree that its not the most nice tactic and taking into account you go first, you deployed first so you didn't know where the opponent would deploy... he's not the best tactician! unless initiative was stolen, obviously.

The LR does not move 14.5 inches.. it moves 12.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Pg 57

Third paragraph, skipping bullet points, first sentence.

Thanks Deadshane! I'll read it when I get home.

Deadshane - except it didnt actually move 14.5", based on how the4 BRB defines movement (yuo actually jut pick a point and are consistent with it) - the pivot neve counts as movement in and of itself.

As stated, has been a valid, 100% legal and not at all shady tactic since 3rd ed. 12 years.

Sorry.

Landraider begins a turn 24" away from target.

Landraider ends turn 9.5" away.

How far did the landraider move?

Be careful now. Simple answer please. Don't confuse yourself.

@ Deadshane:

Go ahead and point out, with relevant quotes, where anybody in this entire thread stated at any point in time that this tactic was required to win.

First of all, this tactic is 100% legal.

Second, it's not required to win, like it apparently is in your black-and-white world (where you're either a paragon of virtue or a sneaky WAAC bastard, and there's no middle ground).

It's a legit tactic.

Is it a bastard move, when your opponent doesn't see it coming? Sure, but that's not a bad thing.

(Legal) cleverness is to be rewarded, not vilified, otherwise this might as well just be checkers. All the flavor will be lost from the game if suddenly we're no longer allowed to come up with creative (legal) tactics based on RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:Landraider begins a turn 24" away from target.

Landraider ends turn 9.5" away.

How far did the landraider move.

As the BRB defines movement, the Land Raider, assuming it pivoted 90 degrees, moved 12".

It's not a complicated concept.

I'm sorry, how far again did the landraider move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SaintHazard wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Landraider begins a turn 24" away from target.

Landraider ends turn 9.5" away.

How far did the landraider move.

As the BRB defines movement, the Land Raider, assuming it pivoted 90 degrees, moved 12".

It's not a complicated concept.

Apparently it is.

Landraider is 24" away

If it only moved 12" it should be 12" away.

How is it only 9.5" away?


There is something "complicated" about the way you guys are doing movement.

Oh thats right, you're gaming the system to gain unfair advantage.

You moved your LR over 12". No problem...keep playing...so long as we got that straight.

Since the distance between the pivot point and the front of the hull (from which movement is measured) is two and a half inches, and the Land Raider pivoted 90 degrees, the Land Raider moved, as "movement" is defined in the BRB, twelve inches.

How is this confusing?

Since it's apparently too confusing, here.

Let me break it down for you.

The Land Raider is 14.5" away from where it wants to move, measured from the SIDE of the hull. The Land Raider pivots 90 degrees. The Land Raider is now 12" away from where it wants to move, measured from the FRONT of the hull.

The Land Raider moves 12".

The Land Raider is now 12" from its starting point. The Land Raider WOULD be 14.5" from its starting point if you'd measured the move (illegally) from the side of the hull, which is not how movement is measured.

Thanks for playing!

Landraider was 24" away from target at the beginning of turn.

Landraider is now 9.5" away from target.

How far again did you move it? My math says you moved 14.5"...please tell me if I need to go back to grade school.

My math is extremely simple, I asked for you not to confuse yourself and give a simple answer...you're confusing yourself.


Either that or simply state that you're gaming the system to gain advantage. Its easy enough.

So what you're doing is illegally measuring your opponent's movement from the side of his hull, not the front, to try and make it look like he's making an illegal move?

You're actually cheating for the purposes of framing someone for cheating.

...and you have the gall to call us cheaters?!

I'm not illegally doing anything, I'm asking how much closer your model has moved toward the target.

Please answer my question.

Do I need to requote it?

I've seen it used in tournaments before, and it works okay. Would never use it in a friendly game though.

Let me put it more simply for you.

When a Land Raider is turned sideways, and you measure from one point on the table to the Land Raider's hull, and it measures 24", the Land Raider can be said to be 24" from that point.

Cue movement phase. You rotate your Land Raider 90 degrees.

Now measure from that same point to the Land Raider.

The distance between the Land Raider and that point is now 21.5".

It's the difference between measuring from the SIDE of the hull (not how movement works) and measuring from the FRONT of the hull (how movement works).

You are correct in that if you meausure from the Land Raider to that point before the movement phase begins, you're going to measure 24".

But once the Land Raider has been pivoted, there is a 2.5" difference between measurement 1 and measurement 2. Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1. You can't retroactively measure movement. You measure movement (and this may come as a shock) when you move.

SumYungGui wrote:This is why you subtly deploy your guys one inch away from the end of the deployment zone if you know you're probably not going first. 24" range weapons will use that distance to make themselves at the very outer limit of their range all the time if you watch a 'competitive' game, so that one inch can deny this first turn assault stuff and a round of shooting from entire units.

If they still put their models in base contact or claim they have range you know they're doing something hokey with measurements before the game seriously starts. Call them out on it.

Correct!

This isn't cheating, but by the OP's admission, yes, it's gaming for advantage. That's just how it works.

SaintHazard wrote:Let me put it more simply for you.

When a Land Raider is turned sideways, and you measure from one point on the table to the Land Raider's hull, and it measures 24", the Land Raider can be said to be 24" from that point.

Cue movement phase. You rotate your Land Raider 90 degrees.

Now measure from that same point to the Land Raider.

The distance between the Land Raider and that point is now 21.5".

It's the difference between measuring from the SIDE of the hull (not how movement works) and measuring from the FRONT of the hull (how movement works).

You are correct in that if you meausure from the Land Raider to that point before the movement phase begins, you're going to measure 24".

But once the Land Raider has been pivoted, there is a 2.5" difference between measurement 1 and measurement 2. Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1. You can't retroactively measure movement. You measure movement (and this may come as a shock) when you move.

Quite complicated if you ask me.

Normally, when measuring seeing how far something has moved, you could simply measure the distance from it's target at the beginning of the turn, then again at the end of the turn.

I see you've been able to manipulate the system to gain 2.5" of movement. I've got no arguement with you there. I'm not so dense as not to see what you're doing.

You seem to have a problem stating that you're gaming the system for advantage.

Either that or the fact that the rulebooks state that non-fast vehicles can move up to 12" means nothing to you.

You're gaming the system...yes?

If by "gaming the system" you mean "making a perfectly legal maneuver that you didn't see coming" then yes. Does it afford me an advantage? Probably, yeah.

Don't be bitter about it. Learn from it and deploy a couple inches back next time to keep it from happening.

If that's too stressful for you, go play Checkers.

This is a strategy game. Don't be surprised when there's strategy involved.

SaintHazard wrote:Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1.

Where is this? Trying to find it.

The moving models example box on page 12 seems to imply otherwise, but honestly it rarely comes up for Tyranids--or maybe I am just missing it.
Or maybe its just the folks I play.

SaintHazard wrote:If by "gaming the system" you mean "making a perfectly legal maneuver that you didn't see coming" then yes. Does it afford me an advantage? Probably, yeah.

Don't be bitter about it. Learn from it and deploy a couple inches back next time to keep it from happening.

If that's too stressful for you, go play Checkers.

This is a strategy game. Don't be surprised when there's strategy involved.

Stressful? You're the one GIANT SIZING AND UNDERLINING your responses. (see, I can do that too! )

By the way, this isnt a strategic move, its a tactical one.

...and I'm happy so long as I got you to admit you're gaming the system.

...and yes, you moved your landraider 14.5"....dont worry, i'm ok with it...You see those melta equipped speeders that are deployed 12" off my line...they're in short range of your LR now, and I dont even have to resort to ruleslawyering trickery to do it. I'm happy.

And if that makes you feel better about yourself, well done you.

I'm going to go back to talking about the game I enjoy playing, unless you want to continue to try to vilify me for playing by the rules?

Totally legit and totally preventable. If you don't want to get charged first turn then just deploy a few inches back from your deployment zone edge. Especially if you only have 18" of space inbetween you.

SaintHazard wrote:And if that makes you feel better about yourself, well done you.

I'm going to go back to talking about the game I enjoy playing, unless you want to continue to try to vilify me for playing by the rules?

No thank you, I'm quite satisfied.

This is actually fairly common in my area. I picked it up from our veteran ork player. Ork Trukks & Battlewagons are very rectangular & it'll usually give us an extra 2-3". Plus being open topped we can disembark from ANY point on the hull so if you rotate 45 instead of 90 the corner will push you slightly further.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:This is actually fairly common in my area. I picked it up from our veteran ork player. Ork Trukks & Battlewagons are very rectangular & it'll usually give us an extra 2-3". Plus being open topped we can disembark from ANY point on the hull so if you rotate 45 instead of 90 the corner will push you slightly further.

That's absolutely wicked. I love open-topped vehicles.

Gonna have to remember this one when I actually have my Orks table-ready.

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1.

Where is this? Trying to find it.

The moving models example box on page 12 seems to imply otherwise, but honestly it rarely comes up for Tyranids--or maybe I am just missing it.
Or maybe its just the folks I play.

Thats because its something he made up.

Oh, sorry, now I'm done.

Deadshane1 wrote: I need a LR that is able to warp space/time like you guys got.

I'll give you one of my chaos land raiders.

This again? Somebody write to GW and get them to make vehicles perfect squares instead of rectangles. That will solve the problem for the geometrically-challenged.

Deadshane1 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1.

Where is this? Trying to find it.

The moving models example box on page 12 seems to imply otherwise, but honestly it rarely comes up for Tyranids--or maybe I am just missing it.
Or maybe its just the folks I play.

Thats because its something he made up.

Oh, sorry, now I'm done.

@ Deadshane - Feel free to quote the rulebook and prove me wrong.

@Kirsanth - I do apologize, I don't have the BRB on me at this very moment, but you DO measure movement from the hull. If you've interpreted vehicle movement otherwise, I'd appreciate a BRB quote if you don't mind.

SaintHazard wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Measurement 2 is used for movement. Not measurement 1.

Where is this? Trying to find it.

The moving models example box on page 12 seems to imply otherwise, but honestly it rarely comes up for Tyranids--or maybe I am just missing it.
Or maybe its just the folks I play.

Thats because its something he made up.

Oh, sorry, now I'm done.

@ Deadshane - Feel free to quote the rulebook and prove me wrong.

@Kirsanth - I do apologize, I don't have the BRB on me at this very moment, but you DO measure movement from the hull. If you've interpreted vehicle movement otherwise, I'd appreciate a BRB quote if you don't mind.

I'm sorry, I'm with Kirsanth I cannot seem to find "measurement 1" or "measurement 2" anywhere in the index or pages of moving the vehicles.

Could you enlighten us both on what page/paragraph those phrases are used? Or did you just make them up?

Deadshane - you are confusing displacement with movement.

Displacement is the distance between where the vehicle started and where it ended. Movement is how far the front of the model moved. The tactic is entirely legal since you can pivot at any time during your movement, including after moving 0".

I'm sorry you find this distasteful, but you are incorrect as to its legality.

Pay attention. I defined two methods of measurement, one illegal, one legal.

SaintHazard wrote:When a Land Raider is turned sideways, and you measure from one point on the table to the Land Raider's hull, and it measures 24", the Land Raider can be said to be 24" from that point.

This is "SaintHazard's Example of Directional Distance Measurement Number One," or, for the purpose of simplicity, "measurement 1."

SaintHazard wrote:Cue movement phase. You rotate your Land Raider 90 degrees.

Now measure from that same point to the Land Raider.

The distance between the Land Raider and that point is now 21.5".

This is "SaintHazard's Example of Directional Distance Measurement Number Two," or, previously, "measurement 2."

You don't measure movement before the movement phase. SaintHazard's Example of Directional Distance Measurement Number One is not made in the Movement phase and is therefore not the legal method for measuring distance for the purpose of movement. SaintHazard's Example of Directional Distance Measurement Number Two is made in the Movement phase, immediately prior to movement, and is therefore the legal way to measure movement.

You know.

Before you move.

Better?

Let ME explain something here. (thanx saint, now that I've tried it, I like it.)

This whole issue seems to come pretty much from tankshocking. There the rules for tank-shocking state that you pivot before your move then move the vehicle.

Since we're not talking about Tank Shocks here, we wont bother with all that.

The rules on moving vehicles state that "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."

K, thats AS THEY MOVE, not BEFORE THEY MOVE.

So, any momentum gained toward any target on the board after you place your cheeto dusted hand on that model can (and probably will) be considered movement by your opponent.

If a target is 24" away before you lay your hand on the model, it stands to reason that your landraider should be no better than 12" away from that same target at the end of its movement.

Anything other than that is ruleslawyering gaming. Notice how much text it takes for SaintHazard to explain to me "how" he's moved his vehicle. All I asked was for him to tell me how far his tank would've moved in this instance....

Landraiders move 12"

Target measures 24" away at beginning of turn.

After movement Landraider is 9.5" away.

How far did the landraider move?


Begin long text of ruleslawyering drivel that noone's interested in.

I repeat...for the nosebleeds...

Landraiders move 12"

Target measures 24" away at beginning of turn.

After movement Landraider is 9.5" away.

How far again did your landraider move toward its target? Simple math states its 14.5 inches closer.

..............................

The thing is, I'm not going to argue with the whole of dakka's "internet expertise" that think that this sort of thing is kosher in a tournament gaming atmosphere much less a friendly game. (which is what ALL games should be to begin with)

You guys want to "game the system" in order to get your piddly 2.5 inches extra movement with a tank...knock yourself out. Thats fine, but dont kid yourself in thinking that its a straight-up or fair way to play against someone who didnt expect it that you sprung it on. That person thought your tank could only move 12", its now 14.5 inches closer to his squad you want to charge with termies. He's going to be pissed off. By doing that to an unsuspecting player who set up models for a fun game of 40k that makes YOU a loser regardless of who wins or his disposition.

I let people get away with this sort of sheisty stuff in games because in the end "who cares" its just a game, and if you've gotta spend 15 minutes explaining your position to me after I simply show you on a ruler how far your tank went...well..."dude, you can have it, just take it."

I suggest you guys sit back and reevaluate your reasons for playing 40k if you take such a staunch and immovable position on a subject like this. The game designers meant for LR's to move 12". If someone is upset after your LR moves 14.5" closer to his models, he has every right to question your motives. Me? If I did it and someone questioned me on moving in this manner...I would take back the 2.5" because they didnt expect it. (I wouldnt do it in the first place as its gameing the system for advantage but thats neither here nor there) Why would I take it back? Because I would rather my opponent feel that the game was fair on all levels and that he was beaten (or won) without any issues or rules points being argued.

That's what 40k is about, not scrutinising the rules for every little advantage you can squeeze out of them.

With that, this arguement is making me sick. People, those of you that beleive in doing this, take your little "pivot bonus" cause thats what it is. A bonus for parking sideways and pivoting before your move (even though the rules on vehicular movement state you turn "as you move" but thats beside my point). You're saying that the 12" that your LR gets isnt enough for you and you're going to try and "get over" by moving a little closer to your target. You need it, feel free.

2.5 inches isnt going to matter at the end of the day, but you need 'em...so take 'em. Don't kid yourself though...you're gaming the system...and you better declare a tank shock beforehand if you wanna be REAL sure you can pull it off.

Grow up...its a game.

No offence shane, but your point is more dead than hitler as it stands.
The LR is only moving 12" in theory.
The pivot uses up no movement.

Old trick, but still 100% legal to do.
Granted its by no means friendly, but since when have most comp's been a friendly enviroment?


Just a case of working around it and exploiting it. (as you said, melta range in effect has gone up)



This should however be amusing to see with the stormravens as they tend to be a tad bigger





so, whats next on the agenda, BA no-longer get flying dreads as they arent fair?

If someone plays this tactic on me then fair play, i have set-up in a dumb way and they exploited it as they should have.
All that has happened in that case is i have been out-played, not cheated.


the staggering units (X formation) for multiple cover thread springs to mind here
Yet another trick, but legal.

Also, keep in mind dark eldar raiders.
They will be fun with fleeting wyches and this trick




Edit:

Thats fine, but dont kid yourself in thinking that its a straight-up or fair way to play against someone who didnt expect it that you sprung it on

So we cant do unexpected things anymore?
Im sorry, but thats just pure gak.
The whole idea of a good tactic would be one thats unexpected as it wont be countered.
If they know what your doing then they set up ready for it, and there goes your plan.

Whats next, permission before i can use storm shields since they have a good ++ save ontop of a very nice 2+ ?

Keeping this in mind next time I face my brother. The Imperium of Man will crumble yet!

Shane,

Would you be fine if your opponent had simply placed his landraider 12" from its starting position keeping its side facing you? I see a lot of players doing that as it speeds up play. What about if he then pivoted at the end?

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:No offence shane, but your point is more dead than hitler as it stands.
The LR is only moving 12" in theory.
The pivot uses up no movement.

Old trick, but still 100% legal to do.
Granted its by no means friendly, but since when have most comp's been a friendly enviroment?


Just a case of working around it and exploiting it. (as you said, melta range in effect has gone up)



This should however be amusing to see with the stormravens as they tend to be a tad bigger





so, whats next on the agenda, BA no-longer get flying dreads as they arent fair?

If someone plays this tactic on me then fair play, i have set-up in a dumb way and they exploited it as they should have.
All that has happened in that case is i have been out-played, not cheated.


the staggering units (X formation) for multiple cover thread springs to mind here
Yet another trick, but legal.

Also, keep in mind dark eldar raiders.
They will be fun with fleeting wyches and this trick

You didnt read a thing I just wrote, did you?

Deadshane1 wrote:(clipped)

Ever heard of "free rotation?"

Go ahead, look it up in the BRB.

I'll wait.

Those two words nullify your entire argument.

"Free rotation."

Pivoting on the spot does not count as movement.

This is one of those rules you just sort of expect people to know, and expect not to have to explain it to them.

And if you want to come up with long-winded posts trying to justifying what is essentially cheating (robbing me of free rotation, or measuring my movement retroactively based on pre-pivot placement), that simply means I'm not the one who's twisting the rules to his advantage, you are.

And if you want to then blow off the fact that you're wrong by calling me a ruleslawyering WAAC bastard (instead of, oh, I don't know, realizing there is a gray area in between Mister Rogers and Adolf Hitler), that's your prerogative.

No one is going to take you seriously if you do, though. Fair warning.

Oh look, it's this thread again.

Search YMTC, this has been done millions of times.

Short Version: It's legal. If you don't like it, tough.

SaintHazard wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:(clipped)

Ever heard of "free rotation?"

Nope, please gimmie a page number and paragraph and I'll check it out. That phrase is not in the "Vehicles and Movement" section of the rulebook so I dunno what you're talking about. Of course I'm not looking at the Tank Shock rules so perhaps you're talking about tank shocks.

Pivoting on the spot does not count as movement,so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary.

There, finished it for you...just as irrelevant as tank shock because we're not talking about a stationary vehicle. You quoted a partial sentence out of the "Vehicles and Movement" Section.

This is one of those rules you just sort of expect people to know, but hope they dont, and expect to have to explain it to them.

Fixed it for you. Its the only reason for arguing your position.

And if you want to come up with long-winded posts trying to justifying what is essentially cheating (robbing me of free rotation, or measuring my movement retroactively based on pre-pivot placement), that simply means I'm not the one who's twisting the rules to his advantage, you are.

Excuse me, who moves there tanks and is never questioned on how far they moved? Oh thats right, I am. Who need a whole thread and needs to justify his position by explaining loopholes in rules? You my friend. Legal or not, your tank moved further than 12". You also seem to have a nice arguement concerning WHY you should be allowed to do it. In a game I play...it wouldnt be an issue.

I'm simply saying at this point that its sheisty.

And if you want to then blow off the fact that you're wrong by calling me a ruleslawyering WAAC bastard (instead of, oh, I don't know, realizing there is a gray area in between Mister Rogers and Adolf Hitler), that's your prerogative.

No one is going to take you seriously if you do, though. Fair warning.

Where is it that I'm wrong in stating that if a landraider moves 12" toward a target that at the beginning of the turn was 24" away, at the end of the turn it should still be 12" away.

Thats wrong?

Sure it is...if you're scrutinising the system for a little loophole. I'm not calling you a ruleslawyering WAAC Bastard saint. But arguing this as you are....I'd be willing to bet that you're a douchebag in-game. Not saying you are, but betting that its probably so.


As I said before, you can have your 2.5"...you need em. All I need is my 12". (wow, that sounds like I'm bragging about something totally un-game related.)


... I'll play my way (the way that doesnt instigate these sort of arguements) you play yours (and enjoy pissing the occasional person off in your game, not me, but normally some noob learning how to play).

Saint gets in the last jab at 3....2....1....

1) Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement. (page 57 --emphasis mine)

This is NOT saying pivoting is not movement.

2) Vehicles can turn as much as they want during movement--and turning does not reduce their movement.

Fine, but irrelevant, but it does imply that turning does not add to it either.

3) When moving the rules say to measure from the close edge both times. Not the SAME edge both times--or even circular bases could do this every time they move.

b------d


6 dashes = 6 inches.

Gwar! wrote:Oh look, it's this thread again.

Search YMTC, this has been done millions of times.

Short Version: It's legal. If you don't like it, tough.

Arent you banned? Get back into YMTC you shark toothed, monacle wearing...ummm...rules man!


Legal? Maybe. Easy way to surprise noobs? Definatly. This application intended by designers? Doubtful. Reason enough for a huge arguement and such? Absolutely not. As 'I' said...take your extra "pivot bonus" and play on...no big deal.

I certainly don't need a whole thread to explain why this move is entirely legal, as of page 1 everyone was in agreement that this maneuver is legal, until you came along.

But you made it into an entire thread by arguing for a ridiculous position - and so far not a single player has agreed with you.

I play by the rules, but I'm flexible. If you've got an issue with the way I'm playing it, we can talk about it. I don't mind house ruling certain rules that GW decides not to clearly lay out for us - even mid-game if it becomes necessary. But if you ask me what the rules actually say, I'm going to tell you what is and is not legal. That's what's happening in this thread. We're not in the middle of a game here, where it's advantageous to house-rule something to make the game flow more easily.

I don't need that extra 2.5" to win, but if I decide to take it, I don't expect my opponent to start frothing at the mouth.

On a related note, you really need to lay off the personal insults. So far I haven't attempted to put you down in any way, simply put forward my argument in a coherent and civil manner. But I can't go back and read a single one of your posts where your comments aren't condescending, inflammatory, or vitriolic in some way.

SaintHazard wrote:
But you made it into an entire thread by arguing for a ridiculous position - and so far not a single player has agreed with you.

Dakka disagrees with me? So?

I play by the rules, but I'm flexible.

Really? With they way you've been defending this as a totally legal and "if you didnt know about it it's your fault" attitude....I never would've guessed.

I don't need that extra 2.5" to win, but if I decide to take it, I don't expect my opponent to start frothing at the mouth.

and if they did, would you take it back?

On a related note, you really need to lay off the personal insults. So far I haven't attempted to put you down in any way, simply put forward my argument in a coherent and civil manner. But I can't go back and read a single one of your posts where your comments aren't condescending, inflammatory, or vitriolic in some way.

Oh get over yourself, I didnt call you anything. I simply stated that it seemed to me like you'd act like a douchebag in a game where this issue came up.

Maybe you should go hide under your bed until your parents let you back on the computer.

Aaaand that's where I stop taking you seriously altogether.

When you've decided to be civil, we'll talk.

Thanks.

So by Deadshane1's interpretation of the rules I can start 24" away facing forwards at the start (36" from his board edge). Move the land raider 12" and freely pivot 90 to the right at the end of the movement. Notice I've only moved 10.5" and so continue to power slide my raider until I have moved 12". Freely rotate my landraider 90 degrees to the left during the shooting phase and fire my multimelta at SHORT range at his tank that he set up on his 11" mark to make sure it wouldn't be in short range!

But WTFBBQ? He is in short range of the multimelta? How did this happen a raider can only move 12" he tells me. And I even moved the proper way he stated! Oh god land raider bending time and space again! RUN!!!!

Basically Deadshane1, you are getting confused by displacement vs distance with a rectangular vehicle. This happens in a ton of cases in 40k and is completely legal and as per the stated rules. You need to under stand that moving during the movement phase != physical displacement due to the rules for forward movement and turn on the dime mechanics combined with non-circular vehicles. Even square vehicles can get this advantage, so people asking GW to make square vehicles doesn't fix this because the distance to the corner is greater than to the center point of any side. Only circular vehicles would fix this issue.

Cheers. Back to gaming.

*EDIT* some spelling.

Trigons have an effective 12" move then?!

Yes monsterous creatures on those new oval bases can benefit from this rule.

You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Its a cheap move. One not likely to gain anyones respect. Thankfully haven't had it done to me personally. Though it is easily countered via deployment setup.

Not certain if this should be moved to tactics or left here. Leaving for the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentlemen, politeness is required. lets get back to it or this thread will be shut down.

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Yea, seems to me like that's a great idea alright. It gets even better though....

Models that have the same charge range as your movement + charge can possibly be out of range to charge you, yet miraculously, you'll be in range to charge them...after your "pivot bonus" of course.

Sounds fair to me! Apparently noone has a problem with this.

Myself, I cannot be bothered...and dont need it.

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

It't not about size. It's about aspect ratio. Most models are as wide as they are long in game terms because they're mounted on circular bases -pivoting gains them nothing. Vehicles tend to be longer than they are wide and so they can magically "gain" or "lose" movement distance when pivoting. Trygons, Mawlocs and models on cavalry bases can do the same though the effect is much less pronounced.

If it is shady, I play the weaker interpretation.

If my opponent wants to play otherwise, consistency is the only demand--I can exploit rules with the best.

Though for me it has been my job, I try not to bring it into games.

Deadshane1 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Yea, seems to me like that's a great idea alright. It gets even better though....

Models that have the same charge range as your movement + charge can possibly be out of range to charge you, yet miraculously, you'll be in range to charge them...after your "pivot bonus" of course.

Sounds fair to me! Apparently noone has a problem with this.

Myself, I cannot be bothered...and dont need it.

Yeah, I encounter this in any tournament where I have fought the new Nids. In fact during ard boys 2010 it really seperated the good players from the bad. If you didn't know how to properly achieve max distances with your assault forces via the rules then you took it on the chin each round. A lot of people learned a valuable lesson. Basically every year the number people who have caught on to how the rules are written has doubled steadly after every ard boys tourny in my area. Eventually everyone will understand how it works and won't get caught with their pants down.

Also for those that don't know the oval Nid bases came about because people were complaining the whole army was short handed due to this rule.

Strimen wrote:Also for those that don't know the oval Nid bases came about because people were complaining the whole army was short handed due to this rule.

I would love to see anything backing this. And battle reports from the games mentioned.

Oval bases are because the trigon doesn't fit on the smaller ones and they were originally created for Valks, from everything I have read.

Also, non-vehicle models are not required to pivot around the center point--this could get even worse.

@shane
you said "The rules on moving vehicles state that "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."

K, that's AS THEY MOVE, not BEFORE THEY MOVE."

Now when i read this, specifically the phrase "as they move" it says to me, based on the meaning and context of the actual words, that at any time during a vehicles movement it can pivot. So to me, "at any time" means they could pivot at the beginning of their move, or at the end, or in the middle of it, or hell, why not all three? Point being, they don't have to move a little bit first, and then be eligible to start pivoting. Accuse me of being a rules lawyer too, if you want to, but it's not going to change the fact that your POV is not the only one, or even neccessarily the correct one.

Ok guys, since I love you so much:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

15 page Threadnought about this topic. Please read it. Any arguments you might have WILL be covered there.

This is one of those rules artifacts that some folks find intolerable as 'rules abuse' and others feel is perfectly wonderful because it's RAW. Very similar to the discussion about units of multiwound models with model each geared-up differently to enjoy/exploit the benefits of the wound allocation rules.

Half argue it's exploiting an unintended rules loophole and the other half argue it's an intended rule designed to benefit the specific unit type.

The thread goes round and round and comes back in various forms as the Internet 'holy war' goes on...

This is a well accepted and very common tactic in every tournament I have ever been to. I find it hard to believe that people think this is somehow new.

Since i stoped reading after 2nd page, i'd like to add that there is no premovement phase as far as im concerned... since you can't move anything at the beginning of your turn (where deep strike, reserves and all that stuff comes in), lets move to next phase, movement, so the land raider is on its movement phase, it pivots (it's already movin), then move fordward (it keeps moving it has never stopped) now he is those 14.5 in you guys mention ahead on the battlefield, so everything happened on its movements phase.

It pivoted while moving? yes
Did it count towards its movement range? no, since pivoting doesnt count and it's still moving.
He then moves fordward 12in and its done.

By impling that this is illegal you are pretty much saying that vehicles can never pivot and move their actual speed, sure its easy at the beginning of the game to measure the 24in and start arguing about but even on the game whenever a tank pivots and moves forwards is doing the same thing.

Yeah that pivot on the spot would put him about 1.5 away *even with a 6" run OR charge measured*

Pretty sloppy playing there, watch for that kind of stuff.

How about a Chimera or similar vehicle with its front armor just under 12" from the enemy pivoting in place so its side armor is now just over 12" away, putting it out of assault range even though it never moved? The rules for vehicle movement by their nature allow such things to happen.

Impostures afoot

I would change the Subject to Technically Legal but Your a power gaming, rules lawyering, jack@ss and if you in my FLGS you will not get a game in with anyone

The question was not would you allow it in a friendly game. Hell the question is not even 'is it legal?' which it is. The question was, have you encountered this before and Is it a good idea?

A) No i have not encountered this before.
B) It seems like a great Idea, if a bit underhanded.

Dracos wrote:Deadshane - you are confusing displacement with movement.

Displacement is the distance between where the vehicle started and where it ended. Movement is how far the front of the model moved.

so that would mean you have to measure from the front edge of the model and not the side?


Deadshane1 is correct on this one.

lets assume for this example we move the LR in a straight line.

Point A is the closest part of a LR's hull to the direction you are going to move.

Point B is the farthest part of the LR's hull in relation to Point A

if you start at point A, and go to point B with a land raider, Point B has to be no more than 12" away from point A.

as such the Hull when it stops at point B can not be farther than 12" from Point A.

and since a vehicle can move up to 12" to move it further would be against the rules. Pivot or not you can not travel more than 12"

You would measure after the rotation, because pivoting doesnt count as movement. Thus, from the front of the hull's location after the rotation, to it's location after the movement, it has moved 12 inches.

Emmkay wrote:As I said this is all technically legal but its a pretty cheap trick. Was wondering if anyone else out in the Dakkaverse had encountered this maneuver, or indeed if anyone thinks its a good idea!

You'd have to be a total douche to employ a tactic described in the OP. Why would a vehicle start at 90° to the battle and the direction all other troops are heading in and then turn to face the enemy before making a sudden attack? It makes no sense from a narrative point of view and is absolutely nothing more than a cheap trick preying on a loophole in the rules. Turning should count against overall movement in a wargame but even where it doesn't you shouldn't be able to use that to gain extra movement. Needless to say someone trying a stunt like this to me could find someone else to play next time.

SaintHazard wrote:It's a legit tactic.

No it's not. By moving models in a totally artificial way on the battlefield it's allowing exploitation of an unforeseen technicality in the rules. You mentioned 'checkers', I would argue that if you want to play a game by the letter of the rules then checkers and chess is your best bet. For rules that tend to be a bit loose in places and can never hope to cover all of the almost endless possibilities that can occur on an open field wargame then you really have to consider the narrative of the game being played out and think about paying a tiny bit of respect to controlling your forces in a such a manner as to allow both players to continue suspension of disbelief.

Mattieau wrote:You would measure after the rotation, because pivoting doesnt count as movement. Thus, from the front of the hull's location after the rotation, to it's location after the movement, it has moved 12 inches.

And this is exactly the point I've spent three pages making, but apparently by the twisted logic of the naysayers this point either doesn't exist or comes across in a jumble. You said that ^ and they heard "Xrtbt lroda gosdfdsd asdoka ggk odfksdd, binfeif plolsdokg okdjisd gjfgdf ds okefodkfv. Thfg, foke sij sokda ok wnf dijwa okgmvsdks wdokd aos gjifgjidf, ij okd jisdjas aokgo dsd jifgjifgb, ij nmc dfijsvv wd ijasdied."

Seriously:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

Read. This. Thread.

It is legit, it is legal. It has been this way for TWELVE FREAKING YEARS.

If it were a "loophole", it would have been closed by now.

Free rotation as SaintHazard said. Nuff said. Yes it is that simple and yes this argument has happened like everywhere a million times. It is tournament legal. That being said you can't argue it at all anywhere, anytime unless it's been agreed upon as a house rule that it can't be done therefore changing the rules of the game. I don't need to be quoted and argued with so don't bother I wont respond. I'm just pointing out and agreeing with the obvious(mainly only to those that play WAAC style or are just natural major tacticians in a wargame and that's how they have fun).

Mattieau wrote:You would measure after the rotation, because pivoting doesnt count as movement. Thus, from the front of the hull's location after the rotation, to it's location after the movement, it has moved 12 inches.

and if you have moved more than 12" from your original position that would mean you did not follow the rules, yes Pivoting does not subtract movement, but it does not add movement either.

I dont get the whole discussion here... oO

This is just normal tournament procedure. Dark eldar use that trick for ages.

so back up some inches and you wont receive a 1st turn charge. Simple trick, simple counter^^

I think we've covered all of the usual arguments by this point. Moving on.