Okay. So I finally figured out where rules conflicts go...

Now, as argued in DashofPepers DE guide, he claims you are allowed to pivot to gain an extra 2" of movement in the movement phase. Now, my reasoning for finding this untrue? And correct me if you find A RULE that makes my statement incorrect.

You may not.

Here is how you should move based on the rules given in the rulebook

here's the exercise:
1. place a rhino such that it's side armor is facing you.
2. measure out 6" from the side of the vehicle and set the ruler down on the table, so the measurement doesn't change.
3. pivot the vehicle around the center so that it is facing in the direction the ruler is measuring.
3a. notice that the distance it appears to be moving has been reduced by about an inch.

The argument is currently revolving around whether you measure the allowed move distance before you pivot, or after.

If it is done the other way around, pivot, measure, move, then the vehicle will end up an extra inch or two closer towards the opponent, and may be the difference between successfully assaulting or failing.

Some are insisting that the clause in the core rulebook that tells us that a vehicle can pivot without counting as having moved means that's a "free pivot" and thus that extra inch or two doesn't count towards the vehicle's movement.

Others insist that the since you must measure your move first, then execute the move, pivoting before measuring is cheating.


overall there are a couple problems with arguing this out:
a. the BRB doesn't explicitly state when you measure your movement in relation to when you actually begin moving models.
b. taking the position of allowing a pivot before the model moves then basically allows the same shenanigans to be played with oval base models like trygons, mawlocs, Dreadknights and the like, as there's no difference in how the rules work.


Now you can say, "I can pivot and then measure" but this is untrue for 2 reasons.

1)BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

Check to make sure i didn't add these words

2) To argue that you CAN, after applying this, would suggest that a vehicle can in fact move before they measure the distance it moves.

The rulebooks says that pivoting does not take up any distance that a vehicle is allowed to travel, but it also says that a vehicle may not move past its maximum distance.

I understand there have been threads on this before, and that it is ultimately decided that it is allowed. Will someone please direct me to a rule (Page number preferred) where it even remotely suggests that you may? I mean... other than people trying to gain an edge from reading the rules in a way and presenting them as they wish to make it seem like they can do something they can not?

comments?

... Its very simple you pivot round the centre not the edge. If your vehicle's width is larger then its length (or vice-versa) then when you pivot you can change the distance that things might be. (ie a Razor back will gain 2-3" on its turret by turn 180).

Now if you rotate round a corner then you are not just pivoting you are also moving. You have gained added distance, which is hard to measure but definitely happening; so you are no longer stationary)

So pivot on the spot then measure then pivot again. Measuring from the same place to the same place without rotating.

I know how to pivot. But, that does not mean you can pivot past your maximum distance. Did you read it... or just wanted to post, assuming i was asking how?


You move to the 12" mark that you measured BEFORE moving, which includes pivoting if you choose to move. Hence the underlined section of the quote of the rulebook. Now, if you finish the move, may you pivot after you are done moving? No, you may not. Therefore, you do not, nor can you not, get any extra distance from pivoting.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:I know how to pivot. But, that does not mean you can pivot past your maximum distance. Did you read it... or just wanted to post, assuming i was asking how?

You can't pivot past your maximum movement. You only measure when moving.

You measure from point a to point a and that's how far you've moved, afterwards you can pivot. If you start the game side on you do gain 2" as you rotate but that's it. I restated what happens to make sure you understood that there's nothing wrong with this.

You can pivot then move provided the pivot is purely stationary and the pivot point is the center of the vehicle.

Scenario: You are the commander of a Leman Russ and want to go a direction other than forward, eg 9 o'clock. With a simple lever action, you slap the left tread back and right tread forward, pivot, then snap the left tread forward. Easy enough.

The rules for pivoting counting for movement pertains to firing and the number of weapons. The rules state that it doesn't count as movement or distance, so it wouldn't take up the movement phase anyway. I could have my LR doing donuts for a while before driving and still go cruising speed provided I only pivoted on the spot, a tactic I use when then are piloted by Bo and Luke Duke.

-cgmckenzie

Just measure from the center of the vehicle. If you start with a vehicle sideways, then measure from the center and place the center 6" from where it started and then pivot, then how can anyone say that it moved more than 6". The center is still only 6" away from where it started.

Rhinos are boxes, Raiders are rectangles.

If you pick the center of the raider as the point that you move, then pivot it on the spot and move it 12", the vehicle has only moved 12" but the nose of the raider is farther forward than it started. There is nothing illegal in that movement.

Sorry to answer your question with a question.... bad manors I know. If pivoting does not count as moving (pg 57 AOBR book) would you let your opponent pivot a vehicle in the shooting or assaulting phase????

No. It does not count as movement but you only have permission to pivot during the movement phase.

This is more of an issue 'turn1' where you have an arbitrary line you must stay behind. Mid-game this is usually less of an issue as you don't gain much.

Turn 1, it is legal and very easy to pull off and there are multiple diagrams confirming it.

And we don't measure from the center, we measure from the edge, which is why this works! ;D

If you measure from the edge then you have moved your vehicle too far.

That's why it is legal, you can pivot on the vehicles center and then move, if you pivoted measure from the vehicles edge then you lose movement doing it.

From what I see reading the rules it does seem pivoting to gain that extra distance is legal as pivoting does not count as moving so could be done seperatly from moving the vehicle. But for sportsmanship I would prob ask my opponent what he thought of doing this during the game....

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of folks who have not encountered it (or at least thought of it), but it is legal.

Why would you give someone bad sportsmanship scores for doing something that is completely allowed within the rules?

I would not give someone bad sportsmanship scores, I insinuated that if someone did not like it I would agreed to look for an alternitive that suited both parties.

kirsanth wrote:It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of folks who have not encountered it (or at least thought of it), but it is legal.

I'm one of these guys. Nobody's ever really done it in a way that feels abusive in our FLGS, though. It sounds like BS to me, but I've never really looked into the rule. Is it all on pg 57, or are there other references I should know?

I peronally just measure from the leading edge when I start to the leading edge when I finish, so all of the pivoting and turning is accounted for during the move. Maybe I've been missing out on some tricks, but it seems like the straightforward way to do it.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of folks who have not encountered it (or at least thought of it), but it is legal.

It sounds like BS to me, but I've never really looked into the rule. Is it all on pg 57, or are there other references I should know?

You are allowed to measure distance moved from the center point of a vehicle.

If you deploy a rectangular vehicle so that its long edge is against the deployment zone edge, on its first move it can easily claim a bonus 2" move by pivoting its frontage across that line (which will not move its center point).

Best image really is a battle wagon, as it with a deff-rolla is very much longer than it is wide.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm one of these guys.

I was too, but having read up on it. . .it is just one of those things.
Its somewhat annoying to me as a Tyranid player, but that list can get too long to worry about, really.

ElCheezus wrote:I peronally just measure from the leading edge when I start to the leading edge when I finish, so all of the pivoting and turning is accounted for during the move. Maybe I've been missing out on some tricks, but it seems like the straightforward way to do it.

Not a bad way to do it. I kind of like it but if you go round a corner what then?

The way you should move is a straight line measuring from the same point on the tank to the same point on the tank. If you need to go round something you pivot on the spot and then continue.

In the case of things like Battlewagons then yes you will gain 3-4" by starting side on ....

But, and this is a big one, if you start side on you will expose both your side and even rear armour, some weapons may not be able to target anything and most of all its kind of obvious what you're planning to do.

I know the idea, I'm just looking for the references supporting it. I want to make sure I read all the applicable rules for when/if I do this, or it's used against me.

Are there any rules other than the paragraph on pg. 57 that explains why this is considered legal?

Tri wrote:But, and this is a big one, if you start side on you will expose both your side and even rear armour, some weapons may not be able to target anything and most of all its kind of obvious what you're planning to do.

Less of an issue with Landraiders, but definitely something to remember.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:Are there any rules other than the paragraph on pg. 57 that explains why this is considered legal?

Not really looking atm, but I do not think so.

All the pieces of this idea are explicitly allowed, but it never puts them all together, iirc.

kirsanth wrote:

Tri wrote:But, and this is a big one, if you start side on you will expose both your side and even rear armour, some weapons may not be able to target anything and most of all its kind of obvious what you're planning to do.

Less of an issue with Landraiders, but definately something to remember.

you say that but you immobilise that LR you're left with an AV14 box with only one TL-LasCannon pointing the right way. Watched it happen, unit of Terminators had to get out and walk ... in doing so they block the LC LOS. If it had been facing forward it could have still shot both LC and the AC.

I know exactly what people are THINKING you can do. I am not suggesting that you don't pivot from the center. Nor am i suggesting that you are moving more that you actually should be.

I know people want to deploy sideways and pivot to deploy farther. THAT is the problem.

Will anyone explain to me why it is so commonly accepted to ignore one of the most basic rules in the game?

Actually, more specific question. Who here moves there models and them measures the distance traveled? I can assure you that no one here will say "I do"

And please don't say "pivoting isn't moving" because you are ignoring key words in the rule that prevent this to prove you point.

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

ALONE and ONLY. These words suggest, and correct me if i am wrong, that if you do something else, it is not only or alone?

I'm going to make the same point I've made twice before now, which people see fit to ignore in order to continue this crap: the BRB states you pivot 'AS' you move, not before, not after, not when you bloody well feel like. You can feel free to pivot at any point once you put the tape measure down on the table and begin recording movement. If the vehicle (and any part of the vehicle, according to pg4) moves past the end of the bleeding tape measure, you have not followed RAW.

Your landraider can skip, dance, hop, twirl, and roll along to the end of its 12" of allocated movement. I don't care. Its abstract motion, the only, ONLY, physical presence it will have on the field is at the beginning and end of (segments of) movement.

See that segments bit up there? Just because you like to measure in infinitely small amounts does not give you the privilege of ignoring pg4 and the word 'as' in the pivoting rules. Each segment is treated like whole of movement if you choose to do so (like when coming around a corner or something).

From "Vehicles & Movement":
"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Since Raiders (and other skimmers) have a base, I measure 6-12" of movement from them. I gain no movement rotating on the base. The next turn, I measure from the base again and go another 6-12". At no point do I gain any movement for the Raider.

The "gained" movement is from the Open-Topped Transport rule, which allows you to disembark models up to 2" from the hull of the vehicle, which includes the prow of the Raider.

Foo wrote:From "Vehicles & Movement":
"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Since Raiders (and other skimmers) have a base, I measure 6-12" of movement from them. I gain no movement rotating on the base. The next turn, I measure from the base again and go another 6-12". At no point do I gain any movement for the Raider.

The "gained" movement is from the Open-Topped Transport rule, which allows you to disembark models up to 2" from the hull of the vehicle, which includes the prow of the Raider.

You disprove your argument within your own argument. The BRB states that since most vehicles do not have bases, NO vehicle will have its movement measured from a base. At all. In any way. "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore blah blah blah)."

Entirely, 100% legal

Tip: search for this topic. been done to death. Legal since 1998

I think the biggest issue that comes up here is on things like raiders and Vendettas that have the guns mounted on the very nose of the vehicle. Personally I don't have a huge problem with it. If I planned my strategy around 2" then I was risking it all anyway

It also rolls back to the "What counts as hull?" argument. GW minced words when they said you measure LoS from the barrel of the weapon. So if the wing of a vendetta doesn't count as the hull then I can't shoot at it but the TL lascannon has free reign to pot shot at my tanks if the "Hull" is tucked behind a building.

:S tread carefully people, last thread on this subject (started by me) disolved into flame war pretty quickly.

More classic GW fail when writing rules in my opinion.

And from my understanding, it doesn't matter if you measure from the center or from the hull. Take the sideways-deployed Dark Eldar Raider example. I measure 12" from it's hull and move it directly to that location, without pivoting. Once landed, I pivot it perpindicular to it's original orientation to face directly at my opponent. I obviously gained movement by doing this since my Raider is a long rectangular shape. Now, let's say I measured from the 12" from the center of the Raider and then pivoted it after moving it. It doesn't matter. Ends up in the same place. The rules state that pivoting is always free while moving and it is always done about the center of the vehicle. As far as I am concerned, it is perfectly legal. Yes, I agree with some opposers that it dumb, it favors certain armies over others, and that it really just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Well, that is GW for you.

This is actually one of those 'grey areas' that actually has a built-in benefit/drawback combo. All the vehicles with all-around AV14 are pretty much square, so don't benefit much from it. A lot of the vehicles that do benefit from it have weaker side and rear armour than front, so though they might have an inch or two greater range, they are also opening themselves up to free shots in their side and rear armour if they don't get first turn.

This is actually one of those 'grey areas' that actually has a built-in benefit/drawback combo. All the vehicles with all-around AV14 are pretty much square, so don't benefit much from it. A lot of the vehicles that do benefit from it have weaker side and rear armour than front, so though they might have an inch or two greater range, they are also opening themselves up to free shots in their side and rear armour if they don't get first turn.

The army that benefits from this rule the most is Dark Eldar. And their transports are AV 10 all the way around. So, they get all of the postives with none of the negatives.

Kurce wrote:The army that benefits from this rule the most is Dark Eldar. And their transports are AV 10 all the way around. So, they get all of the postives with none of the negatives.

Unless you count the vehicles weapon's arcs.

LucasLAD wrote:I think the biggest issue that comes up here is on things like raiders and Vendettas that have the guns mounted on the very nose of the vehicle. Personally I don't have a huge problem with it. If I planned my strategy around 2" then I was risking it all anyway

It also rolls back to the "What counts as hull?" argument. GW minced words when they said you measure LoS from the barrel of the weapon. So if the wing of a vendetta doesn't count as the hull then I can't shoot at it but the TL lascannon has free reign to pot shot at my tanks if the "Hull" is tucked behind a building.

I had a guy in a game measure to the wing of my Storm Raven to shot it. Next turn I went to measure from the wing to see if a unit was in range of my Preist inside the Raven. He then told me that the wing was not part of the hull, and I could not measure from it for his ability. When I told him he used it for measuring purpose, so I was too. He was not happy with my logic.

Kurce wrote:More classic GW fail when writing rules in my opinion.

And from my understanding, it doesn't matter if you measure from the center or from the hull. Take the sideways-deployed Dark Eldar Raider example. I measure 12" from it's hull and move it directly to that location, without pivoting. Once landed, I pivot it perpindicular to it's original orientation to face directly at my opponent. I obviously gained movement by doing this since my Raider is a long rectangular shape. Now, let's say I measured from the 12" from the center of the Raider and then pivoted it after moving it. It doesn't matter. Ends up in the same place. The rules state that pivoting is always free while moving and it is always done about the center of the vehicle. As far as I am concerned, it is perfectly legal. Yes, I agree with some opposers that it dumb, it favors certain armies over others, and that it really just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Well, that is GW for you.

Actually, you use the edge of the model when measuring distances from it (pg. 3).

Notice the illustration on pg. 12, which demonstrates measuring from the leading face of the model.

I haven't been able to find any really good definition of how to measure movement other than the illustration on pg 12, which shows that they're measuring the displacement between the starting and ending leading edge. Obviously this can't be based on a fixed point on the hull, as then we could pull a 180 and gain the length of the vehicle in movement.

Pivoting can be done while moving, implying that you've already measure the distances and have picked up the model. To mean this means that you'd have to measure based on how the model is sitting, meaning you can't pivot beforehand. "Pivoting on the spot alone. . . " (quoted above) is a case of where the exception proves the rule. The rule in this case being that pivoting is part of moving, not before moving. Along with the sentence of "Vehicles can turn any number of times *as they move*, just like any other model."

If I'm missing some reference, let me know. With so many people certain this goes the other way, I'm hoping I missed something.

ElCheezus wrote:
Actually, you use the edge of the model when measuring distances from it (pg. 3).

Notice the illustration on pg. 12, which demonstrates measuring from the leading face of the model.

I haven't been able to find any really good definition of how to measure movement other than the illustration on pg 12, which shows that they're measuring the displacement between the starting and ending leading edge. Obviously this can't be based on a fixed point on the hull, as then we could pull a 180 and gain the length of the vehicle in movement.

Ok, so if you measure from the leading edge, why could you not move a mm (or less), then pivot during that move with the leading edge now further out (gaining the ~2" or whatever) then measure the rest of your movement?

Pivoting can be done while moving, implying that you've already measure the distances and have picked up the model. To mean this means that you'd have to measure based on how the model is sitting, meaning you can't pivot beforehand. "Pivoting on the spot alone. . . " (quoted above) is a case of where the exception proves the rule. The rule in this case being that pivoting is part of moving, not before moving. Along with the sentence of "Vehicles can turn any number of times *as they move*, just like any other model."

If I'm missing some reference, let me know. With so many people certain this goes the other way, I'm hoping I missed something.

I would have to re-read the rulebook for more on this but what your saying is you measure the distance that your moving, then during your move you can pivot, then must end on the spot you measured too. This does not alleviate any problems as if you can pivot at any point before stopping your move, you will gain extra movement because the point you measured from on the vehicle must be the point you end the vehicle on at the end of the measurement, which if measuring from the leading edge or center, will be behind the front point of the vehicle.

Here, look at this:

<F--------R]

This is a Raider, F = front; R = Rear.

o
|
|
|
o
><F--------R]

This is my measurement (from the furthest front edge of the vehicle).

^
F
|
| o
| |
R |
^ |
------->o

I know this isnt exactly straight, but I am measuring the same distance (2 circles as their points and the three |) but yet the front is sticking out because it pivoted during it's movement. I have measured to the same point on the vehicle. There is just no way around it in the current rules.>

If you pivot to get the front of a vehicle past the 12" mark on your tape measure, you're pivoting AFTER movement and not DURING movement and are not following the Rules As Written.

Its 100% crystal clear. Insisting that this is 'how its always been done' doesn't cut it, never has, never will.

Please, try to explain away the 'as' part of the rule, try to explain your movement-after-movement that is the pivot for gain, try to stop ignoring the word that stops this dead in its tracks.

Even with open-topped vehicles, is this game breaking? Has never been a problem for me which is why I ask. Is it the principle that most object or is that 2" causing turn 1 conceding?

Zyllos wrote:
I would have to re-read the rulebook for more on this but what your saying is you measure the distance that your moving, then during your move you can pivot, then must end on the spot you measured too. This does not alleviate any problems as if you can pivot at any point before stopping your move, you will gain extra movement because the point you measured from on the vehicle must be the point you end the vehicle on at the end of the measurement, which if measuring from the leading edge or center, will be behind the front point of the vehicle.

ElCheezus wrote: Yadda Yadda. . .
Obviously this can't be based on a fixed point on the hull, as then we could pull a 180 and gain the length of the vehicle in movement.

You'd have to use the leading edge in the direction before you move, and the leading edge in the direction after you've moved, none of that depending on orientation, and they can't be more than so many inches apart. This couldn't be the same spot on the hull, for reasons we both mention.

If I have to go around something, I do it in two steps. I use this method to measure to the corner of the ruin or whatever I go around, then measure the remaining inches.

Er, here's my take on it...

Distances with vehicles are measured from the edge of the hull. This means that no part of the hull can move more than the stated movement, or the vehicle is moving more than the stated movement. So, you can measure 12" from the front of the Rhino, and the front of the Rhino can end up exactly 12" away... however, if you pivot then the rear of the Rhino must also be within 12", or else you're breaking the rules (or cheating or however you want to word it).

Say you have a squad of 5 Marines. You measure 6" from the front Marine and move him that far. Your other marines must then move 6" or less - they cannot, for example, move 7" by "leap frogging" the Marine that was in the front. This is a fairly common tactic for cheaters, from what I've seen.

Here is a "picture" of an Ultramarines Rhino that rotates during movement (either the top or bottom Rhino can represent the "after moving" image - it doesn't matter). The brown/red circle denotes the front of the Rhino.



Line 1 denotes the maximum possible movement - it is 12". Every other point on the Rhino must move equal to or (more likely) less than 12" - like line 2, for example.

Note that, no matter how you rotate, you will be losing movement from every point other than the one that you measured for maximum range. So if you want to get the most out of your movement, don't rotate.

As per page 56, distances are measured to/from the hull. However, it doesn't state *where* distance is measured to or from the hull.

A "whatever is slightly legal is completely legal" interpretation means that you must move the vehicle so that any part of the vehicle is within 12" (or whatever) of where the closest part of the vehicle started
A "whatever is slightly illegal is completely illegal" interpretation means that you must move the vehicle so that every part of the vehicle is within 12" (or whatever) of where the furthest part of the vehicle started

Both of these interpretations are silly, however - the first clearly allows a vehicle to move further than maximum allowance, while the second doesn't let a vehicle even move its maximum move without pivoting.

A "since both of the above extremes are stupid, don't make sense, and the rulebook doesn't actually specify exactly which points you measure from" interpretation means that you must move the vehicle so that every part of the vehicle is within 12" (or whatever) of where that particular part of the vehicle started.

Brother Ramses wrote:Even with open-topped vehicles, is this game breaking? Has never been a problem for me which is why I ask. Is it the principle that most object or is that 2" causing turn 1 conceding?

No it isn't game breaking. This has been legal since 1998 and yet it continues to be an issue with some people. I often run my Land Raiders Crusaders side ways and then on turn 1 or 2 depending; turn them frontwards to gain the extra inches before disembarking for a charge. It is legal within the rules and I have NEVER had anyone complain about this except on Dakka, Warseer, and other such sites. This appears, at least to me, to be an entirely internet forum issue and not a tournament or league issue at all.

Slackermagee wrote:

Foo wrote:From "Vehicles & Movement":
"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements)."

Since Raiders (and other skimmers) have a base, I measure 6-12" of movement from them. I gain no movement rotating on the base. The next turn, I measure from the base again and go another 6-12". At no point do I gain any movement for the Raider.

The "gained" movement is from the Open-Topped Transport rule, which allows you to disembark models up to 2" from the hull of the vehicle, which includes the prow of the Raider.

You disprove your argument within your own argument. The BRB states that since most vehicles do not have bases, NO vehicle will have its movement measured from a base. At all. In any way. "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore blah blah blah)."

I do it from the base because there is one and it's easier to keep track of and what's important is the consistency.

That said, even if I measure hull to hull, logically, I should be measuring from the same point on the hull. If I measure two different points, that's not a consistent measure. I could measure from the front of the hull to the back of the hull, otherwise.

pictures would help me visualize this.

It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

+1

I do this with wave serpents as well. More so when Im trying to deploy fire dragons or avoid rear armor hits. I have never had an opponent say anything.

Revenent Reiko wrote:It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

One more point on "it's been legal for many years." 2 editions of 40k and many FAQs/Errata have been done since this issue first came to light. GW is well aware of the tactic and have not changed the wording, FAQ'd, or Errata'd the rules to change this. By the RAW and the RAI, as per GWs silent benelovence on the issue, this is perfectly legal and a non issue.

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

That's wrong.

You're pivoting AFTER measuring and as such you have pivoted AFTER movement and not DURING movement, you 'pivot freely as you move' not 'pivot freely whenever you like to gain an extra x"'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

One more point on "it's been legal for many years." 2 editions of 40k and many FAQs/Errata have been done since this issue first came to light. GW is well aware of the tactic and have not changed the wording, FAQ'd, or Errata'd the rules to change this. By the RAW and the RAI, as per GWs silent benelovence on the issue, this is perfectly legal and a non issue.

I don't have the old books anymore but the wording rather emphatically puts an end to it in this edition. See my constant pointing at the word 'as' in the paragraph on pivoting. They don't need to expound on it, its pretty clear in the book when you pay attention and aren't looking for ways out of legal movement.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Will anyone explain to me why it is so commonly accepted to ignore one of the most basic rules in the game?

It's not. The people advocating the pivot trick aren't ignoring anything.

You are, however. Namely, that measurement should be from the same point on the model to the same point on the model. Otherwise, you aren't measuring actual distance travelled. So you can't measure from the side of the vehicle and then finish the movement measuring to the front. You pick a point on the vehicle (most commonly the front, although some people do still prefer to measure from the centre for some inexplicable reason) and conduct all of your measurement to and from that point for the vehicle's movement.

That's what allows the extra distance from the pivot.

Yes, you are technically correct in that pivoing before you start moving is arguably an issue, as pivoting is done as you move, rather than before. However, just pivoting to begin with is an accepted convenience. It saves you from having to declare that your vehicle is moving an infinitisimle fraction forwards and then pivoting. There's no real point to that sort of nonsense when the end result is the same.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Will anyone explain to me why it is so commonly accepted to ignore one of the most basic rules in the game?

It's not. The people advocating the pivot trick aren't ignoring anything.

You are, however. Namely, that measurement should be from the same point on the model to the same point on the model. Otherwise, you aren't measuring actual distance travelled. So you can't measure from the side of the vehicle and then finish the movement measuring to the front. You pick a point on the vehicle (most commonly the front, although some people do still prefer to measure from the centre for some inexplicable reason) and conduct all of your measurement to and from that point for the vehicle's movement.

In the last edition, yes, that was spelled out and allowed for this trick. In this edition, there isn't a page in the book that tells you to measure from one spot to exactly that spot again. It only, only, demands that you measure consistently and in a fairly round-a-bout fashion in the cartoon description on page 12. How do we move then in this edition? By keeping the entire model behind the end point of the move on the tape measure, as shown in page 12. They don't show pivoting but they do tell you (quite clearly) that moving any part of the model past the end of the tape measure is wrong as it would result in extra (gained) movement.

insaniak wrote: That's what allows the extra distance from the pivot.

Yes, you are technically correct in that pivoing before you start moving is arguably an issue, as pivoting is done as you move, rather than before. However, just pivoting to begin with is an accepted convenience. It saves you from having to declare that your vehicle is moving an infinitisimle fraction forwards and then pivoting. There's no real point to that sort of nonsense when the end result is the same.

So what your saying is, you want to start measuring for movement for a millimeter, then stop measuring. Then you want to pivot the vehicle (which is movement when the vehicle is not simply pivoting on the spot alone) and then start measuring again.

That's not pivoting AS you move. That's pivoting during the break between two segments of move. Pivoting is abstract. It requires no movement as you move, does NOTHING, you simply get to place your model behind the tape (as shown clearly and described in an even more clear fashion on page 12) in whatever fanciful position you please. It may have worked out to tanker's advantage prior to this edition but they left out the little loopholes this time around.

Just to recap:
>Its not written anywhere that you have to measure from one point to one point. Only that your model not move ahead of the tape.
>You cannot pivot without the tape measure being 'in play' and recording movement. There is not penalty to pivoting but neither is there an explicit exemption to the above point.


And to add one thing for the 'But I may measure from the center!' people:

Page 12: "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure"

You may not! There. Right there. It tells you how to measure, explicitly and without room for maneuvering: you measure, then place behind the line. Period. End.

Slackermagee wrote:So what your saying is, you want to start measuring for movement for a millimeter, then stop measuring. Then you want to pivot the vehicle (which is movement when the vehicle is not simply pivoting on the spot alone) and then start measuring again.

That's not pivoting AS you move. That's pivoting during the break between two segments of move.

So how else do you measure non-straight-line movement? When a vehicle moves around a corner, for example?

>Its not written anywhere that you have to measure from one point to one point. Only that your model not move ahead of the tape.

Except that the example provided is showing moving past the tape by measuring to a different point on the model. The mention of not placing the model on the far side of the tape is talking about measuring from the front point on the model, and then moving the model past the end of the tape to finish your measurement to a different part of the model.

>You cannot pivot without the tape measure being 'in play' and recording movement.

The tape measure is 'in play' if you are recording each step of the vehicle's movement.

And to add one thing for the 'But I may measure from the center!' people:

Page 12: "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure"

You may not! There. Right there. It tells you how to measure, explicitly and without room for maneuvering: you measure, then place behind the line. Period. End.

This is a willful misreading of what's actually in the book. All that they are saying there is that your measurement point should be consistent, on the assumption that everyone wil normally be measuring from the front of the base. If you measure from the front of the model, yes, the model should not move past the final distance mark. If you measure from the back of the model and move the model the same distance, the model will move past the measurement mark, but will only have moved the same distance.

Ultimately, it makes no difference where you measure from, so long as you use the same point for the start and the end of the movement.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:So what your saying is, you want to start measuring for movement for a millimeter, then stop measuring. Then you want to pivot the vehicle (which is movement when the vehicle is not simply pivoting on the spot alone) and then start measuring again.

That's not pivoting AS you move. That's pivoting during the break between two segments of move.

So how else do you measure non-straight-line movement? When a vehicle moves around a corner, for example?

>Its not written anywhere that you have to measure from one point to one point. Only that your model not move ahead of the tape.

Except that the example provided is showing moving past the tape by measuring to a different point on the model. The mention of not placing the model on the far side of the tape is talking about measuring from the front point on the model, and then moving the model past the end of the tape to finish your measurement to a different part of the model.

>You cannot pivot without the tape measure being 'in play' and recording movement.

The tape measure is 'in play' if you are recording each step of the vehicle's movement.

And to add one thing for the 'But I may measure from the center!' people:

Page 12: "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure"

You may not! There. Right there. It tells you how to measure, explicitly and without room for maneuvering: you measure, then place behind the line. Period. End.

This is a willful misreading of what's actually in the book. All that they are saying there is that your measurement point should be consistent, on the assumption that everyone wil normally be measuring from the front of the base. If you measure from the front of the model, yes, the model should not move past the final distance mark. If you measure from the back of the model and move the model the same distance, the model will move past the measurement mark, but will only have moved the same distance.

Ultimately, it makes no difference where you measure from, so long as you use the same point for the start and the end of the movement.

You move around objects by bending the very flexible tape measure you've been blessed with. There is no penalty in pivoting, so long as the end movement legally the only problem you should ever face is driving between two very close objects. I couldn't possibly fathom how you might do this with a representative model on the table no more than two feet from the spot in question though.

The tape measure is most definitely not in play if your moving/turning/anything a model without having measured an end point.

Unfortunately, its not a willful misreading. Its the gakking sentence. It never, ever, anywhere says in any way, shape, or form to be consistent. It tells you never to put a model past the end line. That's the consistency were all digging for. But please, do quote from the book where it speaks of consistency, maybe I missed it while re-reading every sentence of the movement phase.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the use of the term pivoting.

1) When a vehicle moves, it does so by pivoting about its center. The total displacement of the vehicle is the final distant traveled by the vehicle.

2) A vehicle that doesn't move is free to pivot about it center and still be considered stationary.

1) is the act of moving a vehicle. 2) is the act of the vehicle Pivoting. You can't do both; it's one or the other.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

One more point on "it's been legal for many years." 2 editions of 40k and many FAQs/Errata have been done since this issue first came to light. GW is well aware of the tactic and have not changed the wording, FAQ'd, or Errata'd the rules to change this. By the RAW and the RAI, as per GWs silent benelovence on the issue, this is perfectly legal and a non issue.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

So...*snicker* you think GW actually updates FAQ's as issues come up, and look through fan sites to get there FAQ's? Think again. There are so many rules contradictions that come up all the time that have yet to get an FAQ, it isn't even funny.

GW is well aware of this issue. It's worked exactly this way since 1998. They've had ample opportunities to change it.

Insaniak has laid it out with precision and perfect accuracy.

Wisdomeyes, your hyperbole about the FAQs doesn't do your argument any favors.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:I think there is a misunderstanding on the use of the term pivoting.

1) When a vehicle moves, it does so by pivoting about its center. The total displacement of the vehicle is the final distant traveled by the vehicle.

2) A vehicle that doesn't move is free to pivot about it center and still be considered stationary.

1) is the act of moving a vehicle. 2) is the act of the vehicle Pivoting. You can't do both; it's one or the other.

Ummm... you can do both. But the total distance of the vehicle as traveled can't pass the maximum movement of the vehicle. People are arguing that if they "don't move" they can ignore this.

It has been legal? I still have yet to have a single person provide a rule that says you can. I have provided several rules that say you can't.

If you believe that Moving sideways 12" and then pivoting making your model 2" closer isn't passing your maximum distance, then I don't know what math you are in... but might want to start reviewing distance.

if this thread has been "done to death" as someone said earlier, then it IS an issue. If as my first quote suggests, you believe that GW would have made an FAQ for it already... then good for you. But there is no part of the rules that suggests that you can get extra movement. it is not meant to be this way, and if Games-workshop does FAQ it, which side is likely to win? Ask yourself that. I have rules on my side... you have twisted rules that have no ability to quote from the book. Only RAI... and fairly sad RAI as well, because it is on interpreted this way by ignoring words in the rule.

Insaniak explained the rules very clearly.

It literally has been discussed dozens of times in the dozen years I've been posting on here. For exactly the reason that it's coming up now. It feels a bit counter-intuitive, and occasionally someone sees someone else get an advantage from it and says to themself "That can't be right, can it?"

GW has discussed it in WD and on their website. In articles and editorials. They conceded that it's not precisely realistic, but an acceptable consequence of the simplicity of the vehicle movement system in 3rd edition going forward, as compared to the more complex movement rules before that, with turn radii and such. Really, you only gain a significant amount of distance when the direction of desired movement is perpendicular to the present orientation of a model whose length is substantially greater than its width. Even the armies which best take advantage of it (DE raider assault) only really gain a couple of inches, and it generally only happens on the first turn.

Mannahnin wrote:Insaniak explained the rules very clearly.

It literally has been discussed dozens of times in the dozen years I've been posting on here. For exactly the reason that it's coming up now. It feels a bit counter-intuitive, and occasionally someone sees someone else get an advantage from it and says to themself "That can't be right, can it?"

GW has discussed it in WD and on their website. In articles and editorials. They conceded that it's not precisely realistic, but an acceptable consequence of the simplicity of the vehicle movement system in 3rd edition going forward, as compared to the more complex movement rules before that, with turn radii and such. Really, you only gain a significant amount of distance when the direction of desired movement is perpendicular to the present orientation of a model whose length is substantially greater than its width. Even the armies which best take advantage of it (DE raider assault) only really gain a couple of inches, and it generally only happens on the first turn.

Exactly the point I was making. GW has recognized this is how it works so why is this still an issue in the "40k You Make Da Call" Forum? It isn't something that requires us to make a call, it has been talked about by the people who wrote the rules. Done and Done.

Obviously it would be helpful if GW did put a note on it in the main rulebook FAQ, so we had an easy place to point when it comes up.

Slackermagee wrote:You move around objects by bending the very flexible tape measure you've been blessed with.

So, by your interpretation, a rhino that turns 180 degrees to move towards something that was behind it has to travel, what, 6 inches? without actually making any ground in order to do so? Despite pivoting not actually (supposedly) reducing the vehicle's movement?

Unfortunately, its not a willful misreading. Its the gakking sentence. It never, ever, anywhere says in any way, shape, or form to be consistent. It tells you never to put a model past the end line. That's the consistency were all digging for. But please, do quote from the book where it speaks of consistency, maybe I missed it while re-reading every sentence of the movement phase.

Sorry, you seriously want me to find a rule that says that you have to measure accurately?

Because that's all the 'consistency' that I'm talking about is there for. You measure from and to the same point on the model because doing anything else is not actually measuring the distance moved in an accurate fashion. If you change your reference point, your measurement is going to be wrong.

That's nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with elementary geometry. They don't really need to spell it out any more than they need to explain how to pick up a die. But they did, in the form of a diagram that shows the correct way to measure: from the front of the base to the front of the base, rather than changing your reference point.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Insaniak explained the rules very clearly.

It literally has been discussed dozens of times in the dozen years I've been posting on here. For exactly the reason that it's coming up now. It feels a bit counter-intuitive, and occasionally someone sees someone else get an advantage from it and says to themself "That can't be right, can it?"

GW has discussed it in WD and on their website. In articles and editorials. They conceded that it's not precisely realistic, but an acceptable consequence of the simplicity of the vehicle movement system in 3rd edition going forward, as compared to the more complex movement rules before that, with turn radii and such. Really, you only gain a significant amount of distance when the direction of desired movement is perpendicular to the present orientation of a model whose length is substantially greater than its width. Even the armies which best take advantage of it (DE raider assault) only really gain a couple of inches, and it generally only happens on the first turn.

Exactly the point I was making. GW has recognized this is how it works so why is this still an issue in the "40k You Make Da Call" Forum? It isn't something that requires us to make a call, it has been talked about by the people who wrote the rules. Done and Done.

Robbin Cruddace intended for poison to Reroll on a 2+ for MC's. He has said this. I don't think that is an actual argument...

--------------------------

So It has been decided on this website one thing, and on other sites it has been decided another. The call is GW's... as that is really the only opinion that matters. Until then... i will use RAW...

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Insaniak explained the rules very clearly.

It literally has been discussed dozens of times in the dozen years I've been posting on here. For exactly the reason that it's coming up now. It feels a bit counter-intuitive, and occasionally someone sees someone else get an advantage from it and says to themself "That can't be right, can it?"

GW has discussed it in WD and on their website. In articles and editorials. They conceded that it's not precisely realistic, but an acceptable consequence of the simplicity of the vehicle movement system in 3rd edition going forward, as compared to the more complex movement rules before that, with turn radii and such. Really, you only gain a significant amount of distance when the direction of desired movement is perpendicular to the present orientation of a model whose length is substantially greater than its width. Even the armies which best take advantage of it (DE raider assault) only really gain a couple of inches, and it generally only happens on the first turn.

Exactly the point I was making. GW has recognized this is how it works so why is this still an issue in the "40k You Make Da Call" Forum? It isn't something that requires us to make a call, it has been talked about by the people who wrote the rules. Done and Done.

Robbin Cruddace intended for poison to Reroll on a 2+ for MC's. He has said this. I don't think that is an actual argument...

--------------------------

So It has been decided on this website one thing, and on other sites it has been decided another. The call is GW's... as that is really the only opinion that matters. Until then... i will use RAW...

First GW has made the call, we have already cited numerous times GW has talked about this issue dating back to 1998.
Second you aren't using RAW your using your interpretation of the RAW. Sorry that isn't RAW that's RAYWTTB, Rules As You Want Them To Be.
Third if you aren't going to listen to the numerous sound reasons pointing to your interpretation of the RAW being wrong then why post? Simply to be as contrary as possible?

Hold on a second? Not a single person has actually given me A RULE that suggests that i am wrong. Only "This has been the way it has been done for a long time"

Come on... you think I am posting to be contradictory? No. I am posting for answers which no one is giving me.

I love how dash says I was uncool for not reading 10 pages of posts... but no one even bothers reading my first or second post and replying to that...
---------------

The only reason I made this post was because I found very interesting contradictions in the way the rules have been presented in the book in comparison to how the game is being played. I could care very little about the extra 2"... it isn't like DE actually NEED the 2"... but I want to find out why people think it is allowed based on the rules which I have pointed out in my first 2 posts. Not a single response has been to my first 2 posts... not even the first comment from another person. Which is sad given the reputation this website has.

also.... can we be civil? I am perfectly fine with a conversation that doesn't turn into a flame war because you don't like my arguments and refuse to respond to them. Instead you say "this is how it has always been played and you are wrong". That is not the kind of answer I want or am looking for. I want legit responses. is that a whole lot to ask from one of the biggest 40k sites online?

Revenent Reiko wrote:It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

Just because people have been doing it for years doesn't mean they've been doing it right.

insaniak wrote:You are, however. Namely, that measurement should be from the same point on the model to the same point on the model. Otherwise, you aren't measuring actual distance travelled. So you can't measure from the side of the vehicle and then finish the movement measuring to the front. You pick a point on the vehicle (most commonly the front, although some people do still prefer to measure from the centre for some inexplicable reason) and conduct all of your measurement to and from that point for the vehicle's movement.

There's no reference to this in the BRB. It never says you have to measure to and from the same point. In fact, you would be breaking the rules even more if it did say that. With you raider perpendicular to the direction of your movement, move 12", then rotate it. Now measure the distance traveled by the nose. More than 12". Ooops.

insaniak wrote:

>Its not written anywhere that you have to measure from one point to one point. Only that your model not move ahead of the tape.

Except that the example provided is showing moving past the tape by measuring to a different point on the model. The mention of not placing the model on the far side of the tape is talking about measuring from the front point on the model, and then moving the model past the end of the tape to finish your measurement to a different part of the model.

That's an interpretation. Another, equally valid, interpretation, is that it's telling you that (in that diagram, for example) the rightmost point after moving can only be 6" away from the rightmost point before moving. My interpretation about being able to spin the model comes from the vehicle movement section, where you can rotate as you move.

And to add one thing for the 'But I may measure from the center!' people:

Page 12: "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure"

You may not! There. Right there. It tells you how to measure, explicitly and without room for maneuvering: you measure, then place behind the line. Period. End.

This is a willful misreading of what's actually in the book. All that they are saying there is that your measurement point should be consistent, on the assumption that everyone wil normally be measuring from the front of the base. If you measure from the front of the model, yes, the model should not move past the final distance mark. If you measure from the back of the model and move the model the same distance, the model will move past the measurement mark, but will only have moved the same distance.

Ultimately, it makes no difference where you measure from, so long as you use the same point for the start and the end of the movement.

Actually, the only instructions about where to measure movement come from the pg 12 diagram, which uses the leading edge. Measuring from elsewhere usually doesn't make much of a difference. Unless, of course, you're moving an oblong vehicle and measure from somewhere other than the leading edge and gain extra range from it. Then it makes a difference of an inch or two.

Since there's obviously a difference, we should investigate which is better. The book shows us measuring the front, and mentions not placing anything "on the far side of the tape." I know which way the book accepts.

insaniak wrote: You measure from and to the same point on the model because doing anything else is not actually measuring the distance moved in an accurate fashion. If you change your reference point, your measurement is going to be wrong.

This really shows me that a lot of the acceptance comes from older editions, since measuring to a fixed point isn't ever mentioned in the book that I have. (unless I missed it. That's entirely possible)

If GW really wanted us to move in a way to get extra movement from pivoting, they could have told us to measure from the center of the vehicle at all times. Instead we measure from the front to the front.

The way I see it, if you're 24" from a spot on the board and move directly toward it 6", you should end up 18" away from it when all is said and done, including any turning or spinning.

Interesting parting thought: if you have a raider that moves so the middle of it's side is 1" from a model, can you then turn it so you're within an inch? If you say that turning isn't movement, then you're not "moving within 1" of an enemy model". If you say you can't do that, then pivoting must be moving closer. If it's movement, it should count as part of how far you moved, right?

(edit: wow, that really looks like I'm picking on insaniak. Not my intent)

ElCheezus wrote:There's no reference to this in the BRB. It never says you have to measure to and from the same point.

It doesn't need to.

If I put a mark on the table, and place the end of my tape there, and then measure out 12 inches to the right with my tape, sliding the end of my tape an inch to the right as I do so, have I measured 12" across the table?

No, clearly I have not. I've measured 13", because I moved my reference point.


The same thing happens when you're measuring movement. If you start at one point on the model, and measure the model's movement to a different point on the model you have not measured the actual distance travelled. You have changed your reference point, so the measurement is invalid.

In fact, you would be breaking the rules even more if it did say that. With you raider perpendicular to the direction of your movement, move 12", then rotate it. Now measure the distance traveled by the nose. More than 12". Ooops.

Except that the rules allow you to 'break' your measurement when the vehicle pivots, by pointing out that pivoting doesn't reduce the vehicle's movement. So you are allowed to move the vehicle, pivot, and then carry on moving, without that pivot factoring into your measurement.

Since there's obviously a difference, we should investigate which is better. The book shows us measuring the front, and mentions not placing anything "on the far side of the tape." I know which way the book accepts.

Again, whether you measure front to front or back to back makes absolutely no difference, regardless of what the book says. The distance moved is going to be the same in either case.

The only way the distance changes is if you change your reference point.

If GW really wanted us to move in a way to get extra movement from pivoting, they could have told us to measure from the center of the vehicle at all times. Instead we measure from the front to the front.

We don't measure from the center because it's less accurate. And because it's less consistent with how we measure based models.

I've played games that measure from the centre, or from the heads of infantry models. It's a pain to be accurate with it. Measuring from the edge is much easier.

The way I see it, if you're 24" from a spot on the board and move directly toward it 6", you should end up 18" away from it when all is said and done, including any turning or spinning.

And where the model moving is perfectly round, that will be the case. But the fact that the rules allow vehicles to pivot without it counting towards their movement allows oblong-shaped vehicles to 'gain' movement distance. It's simply a side effect of the slightly abstract way that the rules handle vehicle movement.

It's possibly not ideal, and yes, it seems a little dodgy at a first glance... But it is how the rules work.

Interesting parting thought: if you have a raider that moves so the middle of it's side is 1" from a model, can you then turn it so you're within an inch? If you say that turning isn't movement, then you're not "moving within 1" of an enemy model". If you say you can't do that, then pivoting must be moving closer. If it's movement, it should count as part of how far you moved, right?

I never said that turning isn't movement. It simply doesn't count towards distance moved. Since the pivot happens as a part of the vehicle's movement, even if it only pivots (in which case it doesn't count as moving afterwards) it is pivoting as a part of its movement... so if that pivot brings it within 1" of an enemy, it can't do it.

And no problem... I'm a big boy

Here a thought, if you are measuring the distance using a specific point on the raider as the reference point for the movement, and can pivot during movement, couldn't you use those rules to spin a raider and gain its full length? for example, a DE raider starts facing backwards, then you measure 12" and place the back of the raider at the 12" mark. I'm not saying this sounds legal at all, but t seems a lot of the "pivot can provide extra distance" arguments would also allow this.

CODY! wrote:Here a thought, if you are measuring the distance using a specific point on the raider as the reference point for the movement, and can pivot during movement, couldn't you use those rules to spin a raider and gain its full length?

You measure from any specific point (usually the front edge) but pivot on the centre of the vehicle. So no, you can't gain the length of the vehicle by pivoting. The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

Slackermagee wrote:If you pivot to get the front of a vehicle past the 12" mark on your tape measure, you're pivoting AFTER movement and not DURING movement and are not following the Rules As Written.

So this is perfectly legal?



The vehicle didn't move past the tape at all. Yet the center of the vehicle is clearly more than 12"from where it started.

Tylarion wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:If you pivot to get the front of a vehicle past the 12" mark on your tape measure, you're pivoting AFTER movement and not DURING movement and are not following the Rules As Written.

So this is perfectly legal?



The vehicle didn't move past the tape at all. Yet the center of the vehicle is clearly more than 12"from where it started.

no that isn't right. You move without rotating. You'd go X" and then rotate round the centre. In this case you would loose 2-3".

Add to this page 57 ..."Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather then 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move."

So you want to move then its in a straight line without rotating. If you want to turn then its round the centre.

insaniak wrote:The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

It's not an assumption. Pg 57, vehicles can only move forwards or backwards.

Of course, this changes the end result in no way; you get the same result moving it sideways then pivoting it as you do pivoting first and then moving it forwards.

wileythenord wrote:Why would you give someone bad sportsmanship scores for doing something that is completely allowed within the rules?

Because the rules also support the Magical Teleporting Yarrick rule, but I would never do that in anything but a fun game either.

I *do* go to tourneys, and I do well. I also have fun with my opponents, and don't have to stretch for every tiny bit of advantage that I can get.

You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

OverwatchCNC wrote:You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

Many believe that as 40k is a permissive rules set, there is no need for a "negative" rule to forbid something, but rather, in the absence of a rule that allows it means that it is not allowed.

I think just fluff that if this were real then DoP should be able to move sideways and then pivot. Its much easier for some flying contraption to move sideways and spin then a tank.

I dont see tanks moving horizontally very easily. Though I can see them pivot. So I guess what Im saying is I think about it as if it were in the real world (I know thats silly), hence I would have no problem with The Flying things doing it, but tanks would be iffy for me.

My two cents:

For the longest time I was under the impression that vehicles could only move in a straight line, until I actually read the rule entry very carefully that said they could move as infantry, pivoting any number of times up to their movement speed. So my rhino, who's 12" I measure from the center of the hull can move diagonally a number of times, forward, back, twirlly, swirly and any combination. But this is as long as it does not exceed its movement. To be honest I can see people getting more movement out of it by simply moving diagonally to the target. Moving 3" diagonally, then measuring another 3", then another, then another.

So, you measure out your distances, then you pivot, if your moving and turning. I usually allow my opponent to pivot after they have moved, because their maneuvering has put them well within boundaries for assault and etc.

But I don't see anything that states that you can't pivot at the end of a movement phase. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't make people set down the ruler before they do that last pivot. But I don't see any rules in the book to support not being able to do that.

I think I see the other side now. I've been picking up my model and putting it down x" from it's starting position in any orientation I desire. That was my interpretation of being allowed to turn any number of times I can while moving.

Now, I see the opposing argument as present moving vehicles more like you would drive hotwheels, where it's on the table the whole time. Turning in this case would be actually rotating it on the board (as opposed to my more abstract way of just choosing orientation). So this makes it a lot more like driving than I've been doing it. One of the consequences of all of this is that you only measure "movement" when you move forward, not when turning, making all of this possible. So I think I finally understand where you guys have been coming from (I pretty much thought you were crazy before, but had faith you weren't total idiots. )

Obviously I like "my" way better, but I think the other way is more what's intended based on how GW usually handles things. Sadly it looks like there's a gap in the RAW, so if you have a different assumption (like I do) about how basic movement is handled, then you can come to a different conclusion.

If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

ElCheezus wrote:If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

... So in other words you're making up your own rules for movement? Only skimmers can move like that as they can jump over things.

Tri wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

... So in other words you're making up your own rules for movement? Only skimmers can move like that as they can jump over things.

In my post explaining why I see your point of view you want to pick apart words? And poorly, at that?

ElCheezus wrote:i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

Looks to me like I recognize that regular vehicles can't jump over things.

You're either trolling or you're assuming I'm an idiot and can't tell the difference between a regular vehicle and a skimmer, both are insulting. Have a little faith in your fellow man's ability to reason, like I demonstrated earlier. Despite disagreeing with the opposing side and not understanding why they thought the way they did, I read and thought before calling them morons. It eventually led to understanding. Try it next time before accusing me of making up rules.

Slackermagee wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

That's wrong.

You're pivoting AFTER measuring and as such you have pivoted AFTER movement and not DURING movement, you 'pivot freely as you move' not 'pivot freely whenever you like to gain an extra x"'

Now you're just making things up. =p

Movement for a unit starts when you measure range with a model and/or pick it up. Movement ends when you take your hand off the model and declare its movement complete.

OverwatchCNC wrote:You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

Um... yes there is. That is the whole point in my posts.

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

So Here is how you are doing it?

1) Move 12" along its side. No rule is broken so far, as there is no rule that says it has to move forward facing the front
2) Pivot so that the long way side is closer to the enemy.

Now, here is where the issue comes in. Measuring distance is from which point. Someone earlier said "It doesn't matter which point you measure from as long as you start and end in the same place" which is not true.

If you measure the distance traveled from the center of the vehicle, then the vehicle has not moved more than 12". If you measure from the hull however, you will find that you have moved past 12".

Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

***Note for all others: Games-workshop never actually "says" anything. There employees tend to only know basic levels of the game. When you go to a Games-workshop store and the store manager comes to correct you on rapidfiring... saying that a rapid firer can't move and shoot if it is within 12", you know there are problems with this.

Calling Games-workshop customer service is one way, but still subject to human error. If I argue your point, the employee would probably agree. However, If I argue my point, they would agree as well. What games-workshop employees say almost never matters. The final decision comes from FAQ's. If it isn't getting an FAQ, it is because no one is bothering to bring the issue up to games-workshop (this isn't games-workshop), they don't care, or they believe that the rules are clear enough on the topic for people to understand.

I'm standing 5' from a wall with my arms outstretched. I pivot 90 degrees. Have I moved toward the wall? No. Are my finger tips closer to the wall? Yes.

The example above should suffice to quash the dissenters. The vehicle is NOT MOVING when it pivots. Pivots do NOT count as movement. Pivoting changes the vehicle's profile. If the people having issue with pivoting would A) take their rulebooks and tape measures to hand and get their models out onto the table and figure this out, and B) had any sense of spacial awareness this thread topic would be extinct. This argument about pivoting at the end of the move not being allowed because the model is "no longer moving" is absurd. The model is no longer moving when you are finished moving it (IE: hands off). How about this: I'm side on to my opponent with a Rhino. I choose to pivot so that the rear of the vehicle is now closer to my opponent, thus making the outline of the firing point closer to my opponent, I get an extra .75" (+/-) closer by pivoting, and THAT counts as movement even though I haven't actually "moved" the vehicle. How about this: I'm the world's penultimate judge of distances, and I know if my enemy moves toward my Rhino in his/her turn he/she will be within rapid fire range, so I pivot so that I am now side on to my enemy, thus leaving me .75" (+/-) outside of rapid fire range...did I "cheat" or knowingly do something "beardy" by doing nothing more than pivoting to be FARTHER AWAY?

The rules clearly state "...a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn, providing it does not exceed its maximum move." (pg 57 BRB), and pivoting does not count toward this movement. This means distance measured from point A to point B has nothing to do with pivoting. The single piece of information I see that keeps failing to show up in these threads is the following: vehicles move FORWARD and BACKWARD, not sideways. So, if you deploy sideways to your opponent and then want to move toward your opponent, you pivot the vehicle so that it is facing toward (or away) from the direction you want to move, then measure from the hull (or center point, as it really doesn't matter), then move the vehicle the distance you choose, near or far. Even if you moved the vehicle backward toward your enemy, when you have finished moving as far as you choose in that direction you may still pivot again to face your opponent. Skimmers have it a bit easier because they can fly over intervening units and terrain, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways. Ground bound vehicles, such as Rhinos, must plan ahead in their movement as they cannot move over intervening units or terrain. If they parked sideways behind a low wall, then want to move out toward the enemy, they must pivot in the direction they wish to move (facing forward or backward as is their choice)...but when the vehicle pivots into the wall it must make a difficult terrain test (pg. 57 of the BRB: roll d6 for every vehicle that has entered, left (meaning exited) OR moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain...A result of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilized damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside.) The vehicle is not immobilized slightly atop the wall (as I've seen many people do at my LGS), rather it stops at the point where its pivot brings it into contact with the terrain.

The issue of pivoting is only an issue because people are moving vehicles sideways, and even then the vehicle doesn't "move" any farther than the distance measured. The profile of the hull changes position, nothing more. Additionally, EVERYONE benefits from the vehicle movement rules, so if someone is getting upset about the "free pivot" then they evidently are not moving their own vehicles correctly.
There is a way that the "free pivot" can get a Rhino @ 1.5" extra distance across the board, but that involves moving the Rhino in a zig-zag pattern, each forward (or backward, for that matter) increment being measured at 1", then pivoting 45 degrees, then moving 1", then pivoting the opposite direction 45 degrees, and so on. Is this tactic worth the effort or the time involved? No. Does this tactic benefit everyone. Yes. Why? Pivoting does not count as movement when determining distance. Obvious EDIT: Pivoting a vehicle means that physics are involved; the spacial profile/boundary of a model cannot conform to distance measured or moved without some outside force truncating that profile/boundary. Should I keep a jeweler's saw handy to lop off the offending track guard of my Rhino when following the pivoting rules leaves me no control over physics?



Re: wisdomseyes1's quote "The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model." Yes, they do, which is taken directly from the BRB. The rules say I can pivot, I'm gonna pivot. The model's profile sticks out farther, maybe closer to my opponent than he feels it should be, but that's too bad. Physics in this dimension cannot be manipulated like movie magic or fantasy role-playing.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

And my raider is stationary. I pivot about the center axis, and am now 3" forward of where I just was. You now need 4+ to hit me, right?

Dashofpepper wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

And my raider is stationary. I pivot about the center axis, and am now 3" forward of where I just was. You now need 4+ to hit me, right?

Not only that, but turning around would take up 6" of movement, apparently.

I've learned to accept this little trick with vehicles, especially Dark Eldar. My current form of protest is to make sure venoms are modeled to the same dimensions as the official GW model. I don't know what those dimensions are, right now, but the model looks a lot more circular in model footprint than the rectangle shape of a raider, so there should be little advantage gained for venoms.

Are you guys purposefully misinterpreting wisdomseyes1? He's well aware that pivoting alone and not moving doesn't count as movement (I got that from reading the thread). You should be, too, by this point in the discussion. At this point it really seems like you're putting words in his mouth to discredit his argument.

I've already said it once, but can we at least *try* for understanding? It makes this whole process more productive.

@dash: That was a pretty lackluster argument.

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

If a vehicle is stationary, it doesn't count as moving. No where in my post do I suggest that it takes up any of the distance you are allowed to travel either. The model itself can not end its move passed the point that is its maximum movement. By pivoting at the end of your move, you put half of the model passed this point. Which is clearly not legal.

I am well aware of how pivoting works. I am well aware of your argument. But the argument has holes in it, that no one seems to be filling.

@commissarkurn:

The rules clearly state pivoting does not count toward movement.

and then from the rules themselves:

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

These words are not in the rule because they wanted to make the rulebook bigger. They actually have an impact on how the models interact with the game, by limiting how and when a model does or does not count as moving. In this case, it DOES count as moving if you move and then pivot. It does not reduce the distance you travel, but is clearly stated on the first page of the movement section that a model may not move past its maximum distance.

, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways.

The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model.

This issue with weather you are actually gaining extra distance is more along the lines... which point on the vehicle must be 12" away? Which point on the vehicle can not pass this distance. If it is from the center, then there is no problem. However, movement, like everything else for a vehicle, is measured from the hull. People measure EVERYTHING from the hull of a vehicle, but stop doing this during this childish trick? No.

The rules haven't changed at all for vehicles. You still measure before you move. Your base (aka the vehicles hull) may not pass the maximum movement distance. The center of the vehicle is not mentioned anywhere save HOW you pivot.

Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

commissarkurn wrote:I'm standing 5' from a wall, with my arms outstretched. I pivot 90 degrees. Have I moved toward the wall? No. Are my finger tips closer to the wall? Yes.

The rules clearly state "...a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn, providing it does not exceed its maximum move." (pg 57 BRB), and pivoting does not count toward this movement. This means distance measured from point A to point B has nothing to do with pivoting. The single piece of information I see that keeps failing to show up in these threads is the following: vehicles move FORWARD and BACKWARD, not sideways. So, if you deploy sideways to your opponent and then want to move toward your opponent, you pivot the vehicle so that it is facing toward (or away) from the direction you want to move, then measure from the hull (or center point, as it really doesn't matter), then move the vehicle the distance you choose, near or far. Even if you moved the vehicle backward toward your enemy, when you have finished moving as far as you choose in that direction you may still pivot again to face your opponent. Skimmers have it a bit easier because they can fly over intervening units and terrain, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways. Ground bound vehicles, such as Rhinos, must plan ahead in their movement as they cannot move over intervening units or terrain. If they parked sideways behind a low wall, then want to move out toward the enemy, they must pivot in the direction they wish to move (facing forward or backward as is their choice)...but when the vehicle pivots into the wall it must make a difficult terrain test (pg. 57 of the BRB: roll d6 for every vehicle that has entered, left (meaning exited) OR moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain...A result of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilized damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside.) The vehicle is not immobilized slightly atop the wall (as I've seen many people do at my LGS), rather it stops at the point where its pivot brings it into contact with the terrain.

The issue of pivoting is only an issue because people are moving vehicles sideways, and even then the vehicle doesn't "move" any farther than the distance measured. The profile of the hull changes position, nothing more. Additionally, EVERYONE benefits from the vehicle movement rules, so if someone is getting upset about the "free pivot" then they evidently are not moving their own vehicles correctly.
There is a way that the "free pivot" can get a Rhino @ 1.5" extra distance across the board, but that involves moving the Rhino in a zig-zag pattern, each forward (or backward, for that matter) increment being measured at 1", then pivoting 45 degrees, then moving 1", then pivoting the opposite direction 45 degrees, and so on. Is this tactic worth the effort or the time involved? No. Does this tactic benefit everyone. Yes. Why? Pivoting does not count as movement when determining distance. Obvious EDIT: Pivoting a vehicle means that physics are involved; the spacial profile/boundary of a model cannot conform to distance measured or moved without some outside force truncating that profile/boundary. Should I keep a jeweler's saw handy to lop off the offending track guard of my rhino when following the pivoting rules leaves me no control over physics?



Re: wisdomseyes1's quote "The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model." Yes, they do, as indicated in the very first sentence of my post, which is taken directly from the BRB. The rules say I can pivot, I'm gonna pivot. The model's profile sticks out farther, maybe closer to my opponent than he feels it should be, but that's too bad. Physics in this dimension cannot be manipulated like movie magic or fantasy role-playing.

I believe the red sections above prove the free pivot is allowed. The rules for tank shocking also prove the free pivot is allowed. You pivot the model to face the direction it will move to tank shock, declare the number of inches it will tank shock, measure and move the full distance declared. You PIVOT to face, THEN measure, THEN move. If the tank shocking vehicle was a Battle Wagon, which I know is a rare occurence , that is sideways and turns to face the target then moves the full 12 inches to tank shock it has, by the rules for tank shock, received bonus inches from the free pivot. There is your rule granting free pivots the extra inches.

Interestingly enough, just read a thread about DashofPepper doing this at the Alamo GT and people flat out calling it cheating despite it being "officially" sanctioned by GW over the years.

As I said, I have never had a problem dealing with it and no one has ever even raised an eyebrow when I have done it. Granted I have usually done it when I see my opponent deployed that way, so done with a mutual understanding.

Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

The vehicle movement rules are a mess.

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

Will you please read my quote from the rulebook before making statements like this. I am tired of repeating myself.

Let me ask you this.

Is a models base allowed to end outside of a vehicles maximum movement range? - Hint: No

Does a vehicle normally have a base? -Hint: No

Does a vehicles hull get treated in the same way as a base for the purposes of how it interacts with the game? -Hint: Yes

Is a vehicle a model? -Hint: yes

-------

Were as people who are arguing in favor of this rule are measuring how far a vehicle has moved from the center of the vehicle, I would like to point out that the rules do not permit this. Never in the movement entry does it specify anything but the hull of a vehicle for the distance traveled. The only time (and correct me with a page number f I am wrong) that the center point of the vehicle comes into play, is when it pivots.

When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point. The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

Will you please read my quote from the rulebook before making statements like this. I am tired of repeating myself.

Let me ask you this.

Is a models base allowed to end outside of a vehicles maximum movement range? - Hint: No

Does a vehicle normally have a base? -Hint: No

Does a vehicles hull get treated in the same way as a base for the purposes of how it interacts with the game? -Hint: Yes

Is a vehicle a model? -Hint: yes

-------

Were as people who are arguing in favor of this rule are measuring how far a vehicle has moved from the center of the vehicle, I would like to point out that the rules do not permit this. Never in the movement entry does it specify anything but the hull of a vehicle for the distance traveled. The only time (and correct me with a page number f I am wrong) that the center point of the vehicle comes into play, is when it pivots.

When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point. The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

No one is missing your point. Your point is just wrong. Pivoting is not movement and therefore the inches pivoting may add to movement does not count toward the total allowance allowed. Please see my post on page 3 regarding tank shocking to see yet another example of how pivoting to "gain movement" is allowed.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

Ironic statement, given you misread the bolded, underlined phrase above.

Your misreading of the rules does, and if you'd had the courtesy to read the thread you would know this, result in pivoting reducing movement. Which it CANNOT DO.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

I think of this like an RC tank: one stick for forward/back, one for turning, and an extra stipulation that you can only use one at a time. Only the forward/back control counts toward your movement distance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

Ironic statement, given you misread the bolded, underlined phrase above.

Your misreading of the rules does, and if you'd had the courtesy to read the thread you would know this, result in pivoting reducing movement. Which it CANNOT DO.

This is just confusing me... maybe change the sentense so that others beside yourself can understand the point you are trying to make?

DarknessEternal wrote:

insaniak wrote:The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

It's not an assumption. Pg 57, vehicles can only move forwards or backwards.

Nowhere on page 57 does it state that vehicles can only move forwards or backwards. It says that they can combine forwards and backwards movement, which is a different kettle of squig entirely.

I can combine apples and oranges. That doesn't mean that apples and oranges are all that I can put in my fruit salad, when other rules already allow me to use whatever fruit I like. If no specific movement direction is specified, then no specific movement direction is required. All the bit about combining forwards and backwards does is explain that you can reverse direction as you move.

Having said that, as I said earlier, it's generally assumed that vehicles do only move forwards. That's certainly how I play it, and how it's always been done where I have played.

Of course, this changes the end result in no way; you get the same result moving it sideways then pivoting it as you do pivoting first and then moving it forwards.

Indeed. The only real issue with the sideways movement comes where the vehicle would be blocked from pivoting by some obstruction.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

A point that you didn't just pull out of your ass! THANK YOU!

Though i do have an issue with this.

You measure the distance before you move correct? To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go. Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

*Also, a common sense argument that has very little relevance to my point and doesn't validate it any more or less. What was intended in this rule? Did the writers of the rulebook (who in my opinion better not be making the 6th edition book) intend for vehicles to gain extra movement in this case? Or was it intended just to allow you to face freely as you wish without having a complex system of measuring?

Scenario: Raider is facing forwards. You move Raider 12" forwards from the rearmost point on the model. After completing that move, you pivot the Raider 180 degrees.

Query: How far has the Raider moved and why?

wisdon- read the other thread.

Your premise leads to an invalid result, namely pivoting reducing movement. If you had read the other thread, as was suggested at the start, you would have seen this.

I don't believe this can be brought to a conclusion. Wisdomseyes1 is clearly not going to change his mind no matter how much evidence is provided. Several people have already proven you can pivot and gain distance but he has ignored those posts, nor is he going to check the other thread as has been suggested numerous times.

Just curious, which "other thread" should be read? I don't think anything has been linked. I'd appreciate a link if there's one that's being refered to (which it sounds like there is).

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You measure the distance before you move correct?

You can measure potential movement before you move. Personally, I measure the actual movement as I move the model. I don't believe the book specifies one way or the other.

To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go.

That's because your initial movement wasn't taking the vehicle's turns into account. That's why you (or I, rather) measure as the vehicle moves rather than beforehand.

Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

You'll find any number of people who will argue that the Trygon will work exactly the same as the vehicle because of the shape of its base. For myself, though, I would say simply that it is different for vehicles because vehicles have different rules.

Here's a different way to look at it: If the vehicle's pivoting is supposed to simply be accounted for in the vehicle's movement, and all that actually happens is that you measure out your distance and place the vehicle at the mark facing whichever way you want, there would be absolutely no point in the vehicle movement rules specifying how the vehicle turns. Whether you pivot the vehicle on its centre point, wheel it on its side, or perform a multiple barrel roll in a reverse pike position by rebounding it off the wall would make no difference whatsever to the vehicle's final position.

The fact that your interpretation renders a portion of the rules meaningless should be sufficient reason to stop and re-think your assumptions.

That explanation of how to pivot a vehicle would still apply if it remained stationary, and only turned.

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

But you cannot Pivot after you move. Which, having moved the vehicle the maximum allowed distance, means you can't pivot after moving. If you pivot before moving, there's no problem, unless you measure the distance to be moved after pivoting, except that after that first pivot, you haven't moved yet, so must now measure for movement.

The pivot only counts as 'not moving' when you haven't moved, either.

ElCheezus wrote:That explanation of how to pivot a vehicle would still apply if it remained stationary, and only turned.

Sure, except that it's specifically talking about turning as the vehicle moves. Pivoting while remaining stationary is mentioned afterwards.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You measure the distance before you move correct?

You can measure potential movement before you move. Personally, I measure the actual movement as I move the model. I don't believe the book specifies one way or the other.

To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go.

That's because your initial movement wasn't taking the vehicle's turns into account. That's why you (or I, rather) measure as the vehicle moves rather than beforehand.

Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

You'll find any number of people who will argue that the Trygon will work exactly the same as the vehicle because of the shape of its base. For myself, though, I would say simply that it is different for vehicles because vehicles have different rules.

Here's a different way to look at it: If the vehicle's pivoting is supposed to simply be accounted for in the vehicle's movement, and all that actually happens is that you measure out your distance and place the vehicle at the mark facing whichever way you want, there would be absolutely no point in the vehicle movement rules specifying how the vehicle turns. Whether you pivot the vehicle on its centre point, wheel it on its side, or perform a multiple barrel roll in a reverse pike position by rebounding it off the wall would make no difference whatsever to the vehicle's final position.

The fact that your interpretation renders a portion of the rules meaningless should be sufficient reason to stop and re-think your assumptions.

You will have to explain this to me, as I do not understand what you are saying.

Not a single time did i render a rule useless. Rather I am advocating that a vehicle in terms of movement must still follow the basic rules of movement. That is, that its base does not pass the farthest point that it is allowed.

I have already established that a vehicle does count as moving when pivoting, even if it does not take up any distance.

Now, your method of measuring the vehicles move is one way, and is completely valid, as there is no real way the book tells you how to start and finish your move. All it says is that the base may not pass the vehicles maximum distance, which then becomes my problem.

You have some very valid arguments :-) I hope games-workshop will FAQ this to finally put the topic to rest...

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You will have to explain this to me, as I do not understand what you are saying.

The point I was making was that if all you have to do to move the vehicle is measure out the distance it can move and place the vehicle down at that point, the rule telling us how to pivot the vehicle as it moves is meaningless. It would be like the rules telling us that in order for a model to turn and face its opponents in close combat, you can't make the model do a somersault, you have to instead turn them around 360 degrees on their centrepoint... which gives us a set procedure for doing something that we simply never, ever have to do, because once models are in assault, the rules don't care which way they are facing. Likewise, you would never have to worry about how to pivot the vehicle if you don't actually pivot the vehicle as it moves.

That's what your interpretation is doing. It's taking a part of the rules for vehicle movement, and rendering it completely meaningless.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of folks who have not encountered it (or at least thought of it), but it is legal.

I'm one of these guys. Nobody's ever really done it in a way that feels abusive in our FLGS, though. It sounds like BS to me, but I've never really looked into the rule. Is it all on pg 57, or are there other references I should know?

I peronally just measure from the leading edge when I start to the leading edge when I finish, so all of the pivoting and turning is accounted for during the move. Maybe I've been missing out on some tricks, but it seems like the straightforward way to do it.

Just wait until you get assaulted on Turn 1 by 16 Hammernators.

It's a blatant abuse of the rules, but it's legal, and we have to understand that we're playing a board game, not a military simulation game.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:It's a blatant abuse of the rules, but it's legal, and we have to understand that we're playing a board game, not a military simulation game.

It's only a 'blatant abuse' if you assume that it's not the way the game is supposed to be played. They've had three editions now to sort this out, and given how much 4th and 5th did to tighten up the bigger issues, the fact that they haven't revised the rules for vehicle movement does strongly suggest that GW don't see it as an issue.

There actually is a good arguement that vehicles can only move forward and backwards...but if vehicles can only move forward and backwards than of course we can only "use up" movement when we are actually moving the vehicle. Which would be forward and backwards so pivoting cannot be movement.

On pg 56 it tells us that vehicle rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here. It then on pg 57 details that vehicles can move forward and backward. Since 40k is a permissive rules set we then find that we can move vehicles forward and backwards, but thats it.


Which actually is a very good thing, since if vehicles *could* move in other directions there are loopholes in the tankshock/ ramming rules.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:On pg 56 it tells us that vehicle rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here. It then on pg 57 details that vehicles can move forward and backward.

That's not actually what it says. I already covered this a while up the thread.

I find it interesting that Yakface's poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page was almost exactly one year ago, and no new points are being raised in this thread.

Take a vehicle that can tank shock (DE Raider with shock prow, or an SM/CSM/whatever land raider, any of the numerous skimmer tanks) and put it parallel to the deployment zone. Then declare a tank shock perpendicular across the deployment zone line. The rules clearly tell you to pivot the vehicle in place (thus moving the front of the vehicle across the deployment zone line) and THEN measure forward the declared distance. The procedure outlined in the rules says explicitly to measure after pivoting the vehicle.

So do you prefer for your opponent's tank to move with a "pivot and move 12 inches in the new direction" using a regular move, or would you prefer that your opponent say the words "tank shock" first?

But here's the scenario that I would like the side that feels that it's unfair to measure while moving to explain to me. I have a vehicle that I'm going to drive around a corner.
1. A vehicle is facing East initially.
2. It turns to face North.
3. The vehicle moves straight forward 6".
4. It then turns to face East.
5. The vehicle then moves straight forward another 6".

How far did the vehicle move after each step? Because if my vehicle has a top speed of 12", I'd like to know where you expect me to stop and the rules to say anything about how to measure vehicle turns except the part about "pivoting on the spot alone doesn't count as movement".

Anvildude wrote:
But you cannot Pivot after you move.

Oh, but I'm not. I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

A: Because you don't measure distance from the base. BRB page 71, skimmers and measuring distances, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull...".

@ Insaniak Im pointing out that there is an interpretation that DOES indicate that vehicles move in this manner.

"their rules differ from other modles in a number of ways, detailed here." from pg 56.

This tells us that the vehicle rules are different from the more general rules in a number of ways, and the vehicles section will then go on to explain the details of how they differ.




"vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn" from pg 57. Its important to also examine the surrounding contextual rules regarding wheeling / pivots here as well.

This section gives us rules for how vehicles may move, and how pivoting doesnt affect the movement limit. If vehilces can move in any orientation then the more specific phrasing for moving forward and backward doesnt make any sense. Its not a redundant rule since it is more limiting than the standard unit movement rules.



These rules tell us that movement (for vehicles) only occurs when the vehicles move forward and backwards. They also tell us that the pivot does not reduce movement, further clarifying that the while pivots may happen during the movement phase they are not actually movement.




If vehciles can move in any orientation, then we have problems with tank shocks/ rams.

Sliggoth

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

... the point is you never gain extra movement. Ignore the vehicle for a moment. I turn 90' move 12" forward I have moved 12". Now we put a vehicle in place and we have to deal with fact that the vehicle is not a point it has a width and hight; same as above but with a raider (6.3" by 2.5" approx) I turn the raider round its centre and move it 12", i have still only moved it 12" but since its rotated it seems like 14".

And all that is fair as that's how the game works. It wasn't always this way in the past vehicles had a limit on how far they could turn as they moved (40K-RT-Vehicle-Manual) GW has removed this. End of the day its a small improvement that happens once.

In our group, we measure as you're moving (we are a bit lax sometimes with rules), as when moving around a bit of terrain, you cant measure in a straight line

ie, move forward 3", pivot 45 degrees, move forward another 3", pivot another 45 degrees, move forward etc etc as you 'wheel' around a dome for example.

Misusing this for those extra couple of inches when not necessary, while seemingly legal, is about as ethical as selling diamonds on a black cloth.

That's why I dont really play non-friendly games. It's like the internet. While in real life only 1 in 50 people are feth-heads, online (and in pro-games) about 1 in 10 people are feth-heads.

It's a good job you cant play tabletop games online!

PrometheusZero wrote:
Misusing this for those extra couple of inches when not necessary, while seemingly legal, is about as ethical as selling diamonds on a black cloth.

This.

Yeah, okay. MAYBE by the letters of the rules, pivoting long vehicles to get a couple extra inches is "legal".

But c'mon.

All you folks who do it KNOW how beardy it is. The only reason that it "works" legally speaking, is because Games Workshop is more concerned about making the vehicle movement rules SIMPLE enough so that casual and young players are easily able to play the game and move their models around, and so that movement for vehicles is not unnecessarily time consuming.

No one I've ever played against has done it, for the same reason we don't fudge dice-rolls. The game isn't about exploiting every loophole in the rules to win at all costs.

Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

This has been legal since 1998! GW are most certainly aware of this, and the continue allowance of it in the rules shows their support for it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

This has been legal since 1998! GW are most certainly aware of this, and the continue allowance of it in the rules shows their support for it.

Lost cause nos. As I already pointed out; simple proof for pivoting granting extra inches can be found in the Tank Shock rules. You pivot to face, declare the number of inches to be moved, measure, and move. If I pivot 90 degrees to face the direction I am going to tank shock with my Land Raider, Battlewagon, Rhino, or Raider I have effectively been granted the extra inches for the models length according to the rules. The Tank Shock rules don't say pivot to face making sure you are no closer the the enemy then you previously were or anything along those lines.

Anyways this is the last I have to say on the topic, it is getting repetitive, especially since this was covered in another thread already and in other editions of 40k.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

Murrdox wrote:Nothing in the rulebook says I can't . . .

Finish that list, in its literal entirety, and then continue. Otherwise, it is just silly to start with one you like.

Silly - yes, that's my point

Murrdox wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

Of course it's cheating. Everyone who has ever played a proper dice game knows that rolling dice properly, not placing or skidding them, is the fair way to play and other tricks are cheating.

The rules of card games don't say that you aren't allowed to sneak in cards from other packs, because everyone knows it is cheating.

I've got a vehicle which is three inches wide and 13 inches long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:I find it interesting that Yakface's poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page was almost exactly one year ago, and no new points are being raised in this thread.

The poll was a 2:1 split. Although the majority agree with the pivot move, a substantial minority don't.

You'll never get agreement when one in three players thinks the move is "morally wrong", whatever the actual rulebook says.

time wizard wrote:

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

A: Because you don't measure distance from the base. BRB page 71, skimmers and measuring distances, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull...".

That's not what I asked. I asked how have I gained any movement. The question remains open.

It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

Murrdox wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

This logic is why rule conficts become so annoying.

1) The rulebook also defines a D6 as a 6 sided dice. No where does it say i can't have all 6's on every side.
2) 40k is a permisive game. The models are just peices of plastic until the rules tell you that you may move, shoot, and assault. You don't have to prove you *CAN'T* do something, you have to prove you *CAN*

Otherwise, it would be possible to move your models along the Z-axis... that would make the game really cheesy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

IIRC, (I will check when I get home), you declare a Tank shock, measure to see it you are in range, pivot, and then move. You also must declare a distance unless you are ramming, in which case you are moving as fast as possible 100% of the time.

and may I ask what the underlined statement means?

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

IIRC, (I will check when I get home), you declare a Tank shock, measure to see it you are in range, pivot, and then move. You also must declare a distance unless you are ramming, in which case you are moving as fast as possible 100% of the time.

and may I ask what the underlined statement means?

You ignored the tank shock argument several times.

When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

ElCheezus wrote:When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

Exactly. This grants you the free inches gained from pivoting. That settles this issue in my mind. I am sure you will continue to beat your heads against the wall and rail angrily at the world for doing you injustice since 1997 when this was first discovered as being legal.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I've got a vehicle which is three inches wide and 13 inches long.

That actually got me thinking that really the reason this is being brought up now is probably due to raiders. Now, what if the new Necron codex actually has transports that are built like this:



Put that vehicle on a flying base and it gets quite a lot of free movement from pivoting. Only then would GW clarify the rule, I would think.

On a side note, could you drill a hole further backwards on the underside of a raider and then glue the flying base there? That would let you pivot from a point that gives even more free movement to the prow of the vehicle.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

"It's been that way for ages" is not a good argument. It's condiered "appeal to tradition," which is a logical fallacy.

The discussion is worth having every once in a while. I never knew the reasoning behind why people thought this worked. Now I do, and I'm glad of this thread. You never know when new arguments will turn up, and theadomancy is generally looked down up, especially of really long threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oaka wrote:On a side note, could you drill a hole further backwards on the underside of a raider and then glue the flying base there? That would let you pivot from a point that gives even more free movement to the prow of the vehicle.

No. You pivot about the center-point of the model, not the center of the base.

Sliggoth wrote:"vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn" from pg 57. Its important to also examine the surrounding contextual rules regarding wheeling / pivots here as well.

It's also important to not chop out the part of the statement that completely changes its meaning.

The rules don't say that vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement, meaning that vehicles can only move forwards or backwards. They make a bunch of statements about vehicle movement, and then go on to say that this means that vehicles can combine forwards and backwards movement so long as they don't exceed their maximum move.

As I explained before, that's not saying that vehicles can only move forwards and backwards. It's saying that they can do both in the same turn. Nowhere outside of the Tank Shock rules do the rules actually define a set movement direction for vehicles.

It should be stated, but isn't.

If vehilces can move in any orientation then the more specific phrasing for moving forward and backward doesnt make any sense.

It makes perfect sense for what it is: It's a clarification that you can move in one direction, pivot, and then reverse direction, if the mood strikes you. For backing into a narrow space between terrain features in order to bring guns to bear while in cover, for example.

However, as I also explained earlier, I do believe the rules are written on the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards. They just never bother to actually clarify that.

Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

bryan40kman2000 wrote:Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

The obvious counter (which has been presented in previous discussions on this) is that tank shock has its own rules that are slightly different to the normal process... otherwise they wouldn't need to specify pivoting before measuring.

Not that I agree with this...

That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

Not that I am saying you disagree with me

If there were well-defined rules for movement (which there aren't), then the tank shock rules wouldn't apply, since they're instructions for a specific type of movement.

Sadly, GW write crappy rules. Therefore, a section on specific movement that shouldn't have bearing on general movement gains creedence.

Basically, the Tank Shock rules don't aplpy. But since we're given so little else to go on, it's easy to think that they do.

I personally see current RAI as supporting the "extra movement through pivoting" argument, but that's only because of certain cues I pick up throughout the book, like the tank shock rules. They seem to strongly indicate a "matchbox car" type movement. I also think this implies moving only forward and back. (I know insaniak, you disagree because it's not spelled out. But then, most of movement isn't spelled out) Ultimately, there's not enough RAW on the subject.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:You move around objects by bending the very flexible tape measure you've been blessed with.

So, by your interpretation, a rhino that turns 180 degrees to move towards something that was behind it has to travel, what, 6 inches? without actually making any ground in order to do so? Despite pivoting not actually (supposedly) reducing the vehicle's movement?

No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out). If it turns 180 degrees on the table, you made it turn 180 degrees on the table. It still has to end up at EOTTM.

insaniak wrote:

Unfortunately, its not a willful misreading. Its the gakking sentence. It never, ever, anywhere says in any way, shape, or form to be consistent. It tells you never to put a model past the end line. That's the consistency were all digging for. But please, do quote from the book where it speaks of consistency, maybe I missed it while re-reading every sentence of the movement phase.

Sorry, you seriously want me to find a rule that says that you have to measure accurately?

Because that's all the 'consistency' that I'm talking about is there for. You measure from and to the same point on the model because doing anything else is not actually measuring the distance moved in an accurate fashion. If you change your reference point, your measurement is going to be wrong.

That's nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with elementary geometry. They don't really need to spell it out any more than they need to explain how to pick up a die. But they did, in the form of a diagram that shows the correct way to measure: from the front of the base to the front of the base, rather than changing your reference point.

Seriously, I want you to find something to support your argument from RAW, not but-this-is-how-I-feel-it-should-be-played.

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on). The end. The only reference points when you move a model are the base of the model or the hull of the vehicle facing the direction you want to move and the EOTTM. There's no geometry involved (much like how there's usually no use of a dictionary in these arguments). The image of a rhino moving from front to front is NOT mutually exclusive with their written declaration that you measure to the EOTTM. You can measure side to front, back to side, or back to front so long as no part of the vehicle goes over the EOTTM. you can measure in such a way as to lose movement (and it's your own bloody fault if you do) but if you measure to the EOTTM you will never, ever gain movement.

Once again, rebut me. With rules. Preferably quoted from the BRB as is traditional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:If there were well-defined rules for movement (which there aren't), then the tank shock rules wouldn't apply, since they're instructions for a specific type of movement.

Sadly, GW write crappy rules. Therefore, a section on specific movement that shouldn't have bearing on general movement gains creedence.

Basically, the Tank Shock rules don't aplpy. But since we're given so little else to go on, it's easy to think that they do.

I personally see current RAI as supporting the "extra movement through pivoting" argument, but that's only because of certain cues I pick up throughout the book, like the tank shock rules. They seem to strongly indicate a "matchbox car" type movement. I also think this implies moving only forward and back. (I know insaniak, you disagree because it's not spelled out. But then, most of movement isn't spelled out) Ultimately, there's not enough RAW on the subject.

Seriously, go the top of page 12 and read that paragraph. Carefully. Notice how it tells you to (and I quote directly here), "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure".

There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

Slackermagee wrote:There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

And denying this "trick" means you are insisting the pivot reduces that move.

Or am I mis-reading again?

kirsanth wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

And denying this "trick" means you are insisting the pivot reduces that move.

Or am I mis-reading again?

You are not thinking about it in the right way. You get a move to EOTTM. Pivoting will not stop your model from putting one of its many faces on the EOTTM regardless of which face movement started from. You will not arbitrarily (like in a certain fantasy game I could name) lose 2" of movement for pivoting while moving.

You (yes, YOU) want to move such that you get to the EOTTM and then push your model beyond that line by pivoting AFTER ending movement (after reaching the EOTTM).

It was done for years. Fifth edition came along with that very specific and clear sentence on page 12. Now it can't be done.

Slackermagee wrote:No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out).

Can you seriously not see how this is a nonsensical interpretation in light of the fact that they specify how we are supposed to pivot the vehicle? There would be absolutely no point in doing that if we are supposed to just place the vehicle down at the final measurement facing whichever way we want.

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on).

Which I do. For what it's worth, under my interpretation (which includes the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards, not sideways) you will never move past the end of the measure. At least not with any vehicle currently in the range, since there are none that are wider than they are long. And even then, the vehicle wouldn't be moving past the end of the tape... it would be moving and pivoting.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:All you folks who do it KNOW how beardy it is.

Once again, it's only dodgy if you assume that it's not the intended way to play the game. As I said before, the fact that they haven't bothered to change it in 3 editions, while they have fixed so many other problem areas, suggests that it is the way it's supposed to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

I think you misunderstood. You have to turn and face before measuring for a Tank Shock because the Tank Shock rules say so. The argument is that this is proof that it's not how it works the rest of the time, because otherwise there would be no need to so specify for Tank Shocks...

It's a rather backwards argument, but there is a certain amount of logic to it. It's just not backed up by the rest of the vehicle movement rules.

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

I think you misunderstood. You have to turn and face before measuring for a Tank Shock because the Tank Shock rules say so. The argument is that this is proof that it's not how it works the rest of the time, because otherwise there would be no need to so specify for Tank Shocks...

It's a rather backwards argument, but there is a certain amount of logic to it. It's just not backed up by the rest of the vehicle movement rules.

Hmmm... I've got my eye on you, and your shifty interpretations!

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out).

Can you seriously not see how this is a nonsensical interpretation in light of the fact that they specify how we are supposed to pivot the vehicle? There would be absolutely no point in doing that if we are supposed to just place the vehicle down at the final measurement facing whichever way we want.

We do this with infantry every single time. You pick it up, put it down where it goes. 'Driving' the model around is okay so long as you pivot/turn/dance/sing your way to the EOTTM having placed the thing down and not manipulating the vehicle in any way after you pick the tape measure back up. When you stop measuring, you stop moving. Whether you pick and place or drive, the trick doesn't jive.

insaniak wrote:

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on).

Which I do. For what it's worth, under my interpretation (which includes the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards, not sideways) you will never move past the end of the measure. At least not with any vehicle currently in the range, since there are none that are wider than they are long. And even then, the vehicle wouldn't be moving past the end of the tape... it would be moving and pivoting.

And this is exactly my point. You want to physically pivot the vehicle once you hit EOTTM. That's NOT in any way, shape, or form pivoting as you move. That's pivoting after you move. Movement is going a measured distance from A to B. If you get to B and then fiddle about some more, you're still moving AND you're moving past the EOTTM which is just as wrong as putting an infantryman's base a quarter inch past the line.

As Walter would say, "OVER THE LINE!"

Slackermagee wrote:We do this with infantry every single time. You pick it up, put it down where it goes.

And, quite coincidentally, infantry don't have rules specifying the correct way to turn them... because such rules would be completely uneccessary.

'Driving' the model around is okay so long as you pivot/turn/dance/sing your way to the EOTTM having placed the thing down and not manipulating the vehicle in any way after you pick the tape measure back up. When you stop measuring, you stop moving. Whether you pick and place or drive, the trick doesn't jive.

Which completely sidesteps the actual question.

Again, why would they specify how the vehicle must pivot as it moves if you don't actually pivot the vehicle as it moves?

insaniak wrote:And this is exactly my point. You want to physically pivot the vehicle once you hit EOTTM. That's NOT in any way, shape, or form pivoting as you move. That's pivoting after you move. Movement is going a measured distance from A to B. If you get to B and then fiddle about some more, you're still moving AND you're moving past the EOTTM which is just as wrong as putting an infantryman's base a quarter inch past the line.

Except, again, pivoting the vehicle as you reach the end of its movement will not result in any vehicle currently in the game winding up past that mark, provided you are moving your vehicle forwards rather than sideways.

Once again, it's only dodgy if you assume that it's not the intended way to play the game. As I said before, the fact that they haven't bothered to change it in 3 editions, while they have fixed so many other problem areas, suggests that it is the way it's supposed to work.

Not nesesarilly true. It could Clearly be that it can't work. Games-workshop has not, to my knowledge, officially ruled it. Therefor this statement actually holds no water...

----------

tanks shock argument. Tank shocking does have explicit rules, as insanik has said, but does not agree with. However, there is something I would like to point out.

When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

The fact that the rulebooks mentions this particular order of operations suggests that it is different from normal order of operations. In normal cercumstances, you measure, and then move, you don't move and then measure.

Now, obviously insanik has a very good point with the pivot during your move argument. That is where I do concede with this. This is indisputable. (but honestly is one of the only arguments that used rules to prove ones point)

Now, on a note, I have never actually told a DE player he could not do this. I only found good arguments somewhere else as to why they can't.

but, those who are saying it isn't game breaking... are incorrect. 3" from a DE raider is a big deal when you apply all the other extra movements they get. the worst a DE wytch's charge range can be when applying all of these buffs and assuring a 1 on the fleet roll, is 24". When you apply the ability to deploy 12" forward in a pitched battle, you dominate the entire board. 21" means that those not deploying as far forward as possible are likely to not get hit by the barrage. It increases the minimum threat range, which for free is a big deal.

Thank you for explaining why you think it to be correct. That is all I wanted.

Slackermagee wrote:You (yes, YOU) want to move such that you get to the EOTTM and then push your model beyond that line by pivoting AFTER ending movement (after reaching the EOTTM).

No, not me.

I have no vehicles in my Tyranid army.

And, quite coincidentally, infantry don't have rules specifying the correct way to turn them... because such rules would be completely uneccessary.

Because most infantry have round bases. Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules, as there is no way to interpret how to pivot a base that is not round. Vehicles "bases" are not round, therefore it is easily assumed you use the same method. Pivot from the center.

Slacker you were wrong the last time this came up and you're wrong again. The votes have been cast and we all know that major tournies allow this to be done. If you want to mark down an opponent at a slacker soft score tournament then that's on you. Frankly if you complained I'd torpedo your score so neither of us could win anything.

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

winterman wrote:

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

Move the tyrgon 3", turn its base via the center point, move it 3" more. Exactly the same as a vehicle.

A) You can argue this is not how it is done, but you would contradict your vehicle argument
B) You could say it isn't pivoted via the center point... but that wouldn't be a very intelligent argument.

All in all, it is the exact same as a vehicle.

insaniak wrote:And, quite coincidentally, infantry don't have rules specifying the correct way to turn them... because such rules would be completely uneccessary.

But they still must adhere to page 12 and stopping at the EOTTM. You can measure from any side of the base in any other direction you please, you can't gain movement. The same applies to vehicles (so you can lose movement but never gain it).

Again, why would they specify how the vehicle must pivot as it moves if you don't actually pivot the vehicle as it moves?

They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how. Movement is abstract (and I'll keep hammering this home with each reply), you don't see your little men marching across the table. You only move the tank across the table because you can and it looks cool. You don't have to, you could (with a few specific exceptions) pick it up and place it down where you want it to have ended up. They tell you how to pivot if and only if you pivot without moving.

insaniak wrote: Except, again, pivoting the vehicle as you reach the end of its movement will not result in any vehicle currently in the game winding up past that mark, provided you are moving your vehicle forwards rather than sideways.

Wait, so how are you advocating for the pivot trick here? You can't go over the finish line and you have to start at the starting line... You've lost me (and I'm not being snarky here).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:Slacker you were wrong the last time this came up and you're wrong again. The votes have been cast and we all know that major tournies allow this to be done. If you want to mark down an opponent at a slacker soft score tournament then that's on you. Frankly if you complained I'd torpedo your score so neither of us could win anything.

Quote me some rules for once. All I hear from you is, "Waah, its always been that way, you're wrong! You're wrong because we do it this way!"

Page 12: GW tells you how to measure (and, spoilers, it doesn't allow for moving things beyond EOTTM)

Page whatever it is: GW tells you to pivot as you move, not before you move, not after you move. You may not, you may never pivot a vehicle over the EOTTM. You can pivot any which way you like up to that point. Golden rule: never go over the movement allowance you're given.

Everything else in this argument is extraneous. Moving only forward or backward? Doesn't matter so long as the vehicle ends up abutting the EOTTM (go over without ending movement, pivot (during movement, because you haven't ended it yet, end movement proper behind the EOTTM.) Tank shock as the exception which proves the rule (wrongly)? Its an exception. With special rules. In a different part of the book. Its stunning.

I know you really, really don't want admit you haven't a leg to stand on in the RAW so you should just keep quiet instead. Page 12 and the magical word 'as' will be there to rebut you until 6th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

winterman wrote:

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

Move the tyrgon 3", turn its base via the center point, move it 3" more. Exactly the same as a vehicle.

A) You can argue this is not how it is done, but you would contradict your vehicle argument
B) You could say it isn't pivoted via the center point... but that wouldn't be a very intelligent argument.

All in all, it is the exact same as a vehicle.

You may not ever have a model move beyond the EOTTM. Ever. It may not pivot over, lean over, or stretch over. When you end movement, if your model is Over The Line, you have cheated.

Slackermagee wrote:They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how.

So when the rulebook says that vehicles don't turn by wheeling around, but rather to pivot them on their centre point, that's not telling you how to pivot the vehicle while moving?

Movement is abstract (and I'll keep hammering this home with each reply),

...and it will keep being incorrect.

Movement is abstract in that yes, the models don't actually march across the table. But it follows the models actual movement path.

hey tell you how to pivot if and only if you pivot without moving.

I would recommend having another look at the vehicle movement rules, because this is blatantly incorrect.

Wait, so how are you advocating for the pivot trick here? You can't go over the finish line and you have to start at the starting line... You've lost me (and I'm not being snarky here).

The pivot trick works by starting the vehicle sideways, pivoting and moving. The reverse (moving sideways and pivoting at the end) only works if you assume vehicles can move sideways, which I (and from my experience most other players) don't.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how.

So when the rulebook says that vehicles don't turn by wheeling around, but rather to pivot them on their centre point, that's not telling you how to pivot the vehicle while moving?

I think it's entirely possible that this is clarification of the difference between this and other editions. You used to have to wheel around, now you don't. There are a number of other places where they explain differences between the editions. The first one that comes to mind is wound allocation, where they tell you a model can't pick up his buddy's weapon, explaining how allocation is different. Just a thought.

Vehicles haven't wheeled since 2nd edition. We've been pivoting on their centre points for 3 editions now.

I'll read from the book when I get back home in an hour, but to address one of your points Insaniak:

Regardless of how you measure the vehicles path, you must actually measure the vehicles path. If you do with without the vehicle on the table (because most of the time the terrain is clear or well wide enough for a rhino) or with the vehicle physically moving around, it won't matter. The distance must be measured.

Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move. Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

I do not dispute that you pivot on the center point and neither do you dispute that pivoting must happen during movement. I don't understand why this is still an issue at this point.

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move.

Arguably, yes. But for the sake of saving arguments, pivoting before move is functionally identical to pivoting after moving .000000000000001 of an inch directly forwards.

Most people just cut the uneccessary first step, and go straight to the pivot.

Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

And that is where I suspect the biggest difference is coming from. You're claiming that you measure the whole distance before moving at all, which renders the rule tellin gyou how to pivot the vehicle completely uneccessary. The opposing argument is that you measure as you move, so you measure up to the first pivot, pivot the vehicle, and then measure on... which is more accurate, and actually gives some point to the rules telling you how to pivot the vehicle.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move.

Arguably, yes. But for the sake of saving arguments, pivoting before move is functionally identical to pivoting after moving .000000000000001 of an inch directly forwards.

Most people just cut the uneccessary first step, and go straight to the pivot.

Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

And that is where I suspect the biggest difference is coming from. You're claiming that you measure the whole distance before moving at all, which renders the rule tellin gyou how to pivot the vehicle completely uneccessary. The opposing argument is that you measure as you move, so you measure up to the first pivot, pivot the vehicle, and then measure on... which is more accurate, and actually gives some point to the rules telling you how to pivot the vehicle.

For the sake of a simple argument, yes, I was treating everything as one move. You can (however, as I discussed at length before) segment your move.

You are totally allowed to go .000000000000001 (but I watching you and your sigfigs young man!) of an inch forward, so long as absolutely no part of your vehicle is in front of the EOTTM at the end of that segment of moving. That's why I couldn't see this as a viable way around. You can't stop measuring and keep calling it movement. That's akin to using half of your marines with bolt pistols in the shooting phase, realizing that its not working out so hot and changing the rest to bolter shots halfway through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify my position a little bit: you measure out an extremely small distance and move your rhino to it, pivoting as you do so. The back of the rhino will now be farther behind than the side used to be, but only for this segment of movement. Total displacement is what you have to watch out for in the end but each and every step must follow the movement rules laid out on page 12 (not going beyond the EOTTM)

Slackermagee wrote:To clarify my position a little bit: you measure out an extremely small distance and move your rhino to it, pivoting as you do so.

Except that doesn't work. You have to pivot once you reach the end point, otherwise, your measurement refernce point has moved and you have no way of knowing how far the rhino actually moved.

What you seem to be saying is that you should measure out your distance and then move to the measure point, rotating the vehicle as it goes.
What I'm saying is that this (a)completely removes any point in the rules telling us how to pivot the vehicle and (b) makes it impossible to accurately measure the vehicle's movement.

If you are using a consistent measurement point (which you should be, for the reasons I explained earlier) the vehicle's orientation has to remain the same as you physically move it. Pivoting can occur between segments of movement, not while the vehicle is physically moving.


So: you want to move your vehicle... You pivot to face the direction you want to go, measure out the first part of the movement and move the model to that point, pivot to face the next direction you want to go, measure out the next part of the movement, rinse and repeat as necessary.

That pivoting is happening as the vehicle moves, by virtue of occuring during the vehicle's movement. Nothing in the rules suggests that the movement is all one big abstract 'the vehicle magically moves from here to [/i] there[/i] with its orientation in between not mattering at all' type affair... Exactly the opposite, in fact, given the explanation on how to pivot the vehicle as it moves.

Total displacement is what you have to watch out for in the end but each and every step must follow the movement rules laid out on page 12 (not going beyond the EOTTM)

Nope, the total displacement is irrelevant, due to the vehicle rules allowing you to pivot as it moves without it counting towards the vehicle's movement allowance. The distance the vehicle actually moves in a forwards or backwards direction in between the pivots is what counts.

@slacker It seems however that your line of arguement is ignoring the part of the rules that says:

"Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move"

This does tell us that turning/ pivoting is not part of the measured movement of the vehicle, so no matter how you want to try and position the tape measure it cannot be used to simply measure from the vehicle's starting location and then bend the tape. Take a vehicle and a tape to a flat surface and try out a few variations on moving with various pivots. The distance is badly warped if one tries to follow this method.

The diagram on pg 12 shows a simpified case of moving in a straight line. This diagram doesnt begin to address what happens when a vehicle pivots.




Sliggoth

Just as a note, it's impossible to gain distance from a trygons pivot before they move, as infantry models may only turn 'as they move' Pg 11
So to pivot and then measure is illegal.

You may not ever have a model move beyond the EOTTM. Ever. It may not pivot over, lean over, or stretch over. When you end movement, if your model is Over The Line, you have cheated.

The rules are made for round bases in the case. games-workshop was so kind to not make any rules for this type of base.

You can move and then pivot the model, and then continue to move it. This is unarguable unless you are one of those people who measure turns by the arc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Just as a note, it's impossible to gain distance from a trygons pivot before they move, as infantry models may only turn 'as they move' Pg 11
So to pivot and then measure is illegal.

I don't see how the timing changes this. Vehicles are also pivoting as they move.

This thread needs diagrams. It's hurting my head and i think at least two of you are arguing the same side with different wordings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foo wrote:

time wizard wrote:

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

A: Because you don't measure distance from the base. BRB page 71, skimmers and measuring distances, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull...".

That's not what I asked. I asked how have I gained any movement. The question remains open.

basically, take a model which is 4x9 (Ork Battlewagon for example). Place it with a East/West Orientation.
On your movement phase do the following:

1) move 1/4 inch East.
2) Pivot about center 90 degrees, (you are now facing North/South)
3) Move an additional 11.75 inches South.

You have moved 12 inches. The southern most point of your Battlewagon after your move is 14.25 inches from your southern most point before your move.

net gain of 2.25 inches!

I suspect that tacking back and forth at 60 degree arcs every inch may increase this discrepancy, but I'm having a bad day and haven't worked the math out yet.

I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

Your aren't actually "gaining" extra movement.

What is happening here is that, unlike infantry, vehicles hulls are not usually round.

Take one of the vehicles you own (if you own any, which i would assume you do). Place it so that the longer edge is the closest thing to where your opponent would be. now, pivot the vehicle on its center 90 degrees. The vehicles hull is now closer to the enemy than it was before you pivoted. This gives one less distance that they have to cover to get to the enemy. \

No extra movement is gained, but more distance is covered.

as you see, the vehicle (the rectangle) only moved 12" (11.99999999" forward, then a pivot, then .000000001" forward...12" of movement) , yet the front of the vehicle, or back if you wanted to expose it for some reason is further ahead

also on a related note. For those who say "no portion of the vehicle may move more than the allotted distance". No matter what (as far as i know), if the vehicle pivots at all, and moves its full distance (leading point to leading point for example) at least one corner of the model will have moved more than 12".

example, a rhino measures from the front grill, 12" forward, pivoting 45 degrees clockwise so that the front left corner is 12" from the starting point. the back left corner will have moved more than 12". Is this therefor illegal as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, sorry for the sloppy drawing, did it up quickly

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

bryan40kman2000 wrote:Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

Kilkrazy wrote:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

Because it never mentions inches. Yes, it does have rules that lead to a potential inch gain, but it's also a VERY specialized sub-set.
1) It only applies to tanks.
2) You must declare distance.
3) You're only allowed to move in straight line.
4) You can move through enemy models.

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

A tank shock is both an attack AND a move, since its referred to as both in its rules. Since its described as move and moving this would mean that it is indeed movement.




Sliggoth

Kilkrazy wrote:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

I have kind of been watching this debate with interest, and am really on one side of this argument; although I can now see the rationale for the other side better delineated.

With that said, this is a really good point. I feel the tank shock rules are a specific exception to the way models and/or vehicles typically are supposed to move, rather than an extra delineation of how they actually move.

Most people in a friendly game would have no issues with playing either way, as long as they can agree on the interpretation. However, in a competitive game, I think you need to get this cleared with a TO, your opponent, etc., ahead of time, as this would have a major affect on how people deploy, move, etc., and what their expectations are. No offense to anyone on the other side of the argument, but pivoting to gain a few extra inches, outside of a specific tank shock move, looks like an Easter egg to me. I'm not adverse to playing it that way though, just let me know ahead of time...

Just chalk this up to the rulebook being full of holes (yet again). Sadly, I am slowly compiling a list of rules I have to discuss with my opponent ahead of time to determine what game mechanics we will use; and this one just got added to it.

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

Foo wrote:

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

except guns are ignored for the purposes of measuring the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

I would still say it is a move. it does not have to happen during the movement phase though, so i am not going to argue either way.

hmm, guess its easy to pull a first turn 26-31" Charge out of a raider with DE.

27-32" with orks.. on 2nd turn

wisdomseyes1 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

I would still say it is a move. it does not have to happen during the movement phase though, so i am not going to argue either way.

Mind explaining how a Tank Shock doesn't happen in the movement phase?

Star Engines

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Foo wrote:

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

except guns are ignored for the purposes of measuring the hull.

Sir, that's what I said.

RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point. If you measure from center, to center the vehicle will gain (or lose) movement based on the orientation at the end of the move. This is not illegal, or cheating as the rules do not specify where you need to measure from on the vehicle. Even if you pivot the vehicle during movement as opposed to before or after, you will still end up in the same spot measuring from center to center. You will end up closer on a pivot without moving the vehicle and simply pivoting in place, and in this scenario the vehicle doesn’t even count as having moved. On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move

Anubis_513 wrote:RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point.

Not that I've ever seen. Reference, please?

If you measure from center, to center the vehicle will gain (or lose) movement based on the orientation at the end of the move. This is not illegal, or cheating as the rules do not specify where you need to measure from on the vehicle.

On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

ElCheezus wrote:On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

Actually, that is for measuring distance between two units, not measuring a unit's move.

The movement rules state only that a model can move up to six inches.

The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

Permissive ruleset. Where else does it tell you how to measure?

Anubis_513 wrote:
RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point.

Not that I've ever seen. Reference, please?

I will try to find it when I get access to my rulebook. If you can not measure vehicle movement from the center(pivot) point then I will change my view on this discussion. If you must measure from an edge then that is no different than measuring from a point on the base of a troop, and spinning your troop so that point is now on the other side, gaining the base in movement, which is specifically stated as illegal I believe...... The only way I can see it makes sence to gain movement from a pivot legaly is if you can measure from the pivot point itself.

pivoting a vehicle to gain extra movement is not allowed.

The distance a vehicle moves is measured from its start point to its end point, not the actual path you intended to move it along.

if its end point is further than its max move it is illegal and is NO.

if the end point is within the max move distance it is legal and YES.

the ruleset is permissive, and it permits you to move a certain amount of distance between 2 points as per the permitted rules on how far a vehicle can move. If at the end of your movement you have beyond that you have not followed the permission the rules have given you and have broken the rules allowed.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

Actually, that is for measuring distance between two units, not measuring a unit's move.

The movement rules state only that a model can move up to six inches.

The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

ElCheezus wrote:Permissive ruleset. Where else does it tell you how to measure?

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:pivoting a vehicle to gain extra movement is not allowed.

Actually the rules state that pivoting does not REDUCE movement.

Measuring to the side, as per the previous quote, no extra movement occurs.

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.

It says no such thing. If you want to interpret the diagram explicitly, you can only move forward, and must measure from the center of the front.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.

It says no such thing. If you want to interpret the diagram explicitly, you can only move forward, and must measure from the center of the front.

.... Ignoring the picture the vehicles rules explicitly tell you that you can only move forward (or backwards) also that vehicles do not wheel; they pivot on the spot. The may pivot as many times as they like during their move.

Can pivoting give a vehicle a shooting advantage? Yes, some vehicle with rear mounted turrets can gain 2-3" by turning 180.

Can pivoting give passengers an advantage? Yes it can boost their charge range by 2-3".

Does pivoting increase the movement of a vehicle? No, if a vehicle was a 1 dimensional point it would move the same distance as a vehicle that was 12" by 1".

Sliggoth wrote:A tank shock is both an attack AND a move, since its referred to as both in its rules. Since its described as move and moving this would mean that it is indeed movement.




Sliggoth

It only applies to tanks, whether or not it is movement, so it cannot be taken as a rule for non-tanks.

This seems to be a common sense thing.
Although, I've never run into this in game because everybody I play with pretty much moves forward and doesn't dance around with pivots.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Just as a note, it's impossible to gain distance from a trygons pivot before they move, as infantry models may only turn 'as they move' Pg 11
So to pivot and then measure is illegal.

I don't see how the timing changes this. Vehicles are also pivoting as they move.

No, Vehicles pivot while stationary as they move to combine forwards and backwards movements.
"Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’
round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move." Page 57

"As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don’t worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional)." Pg 11
So one can't pivot before the start of one's move to 'gain distance' as one can only turn while moving, one already has a reference point of the base and to measure this move it must be done from the same point on the base - otherwise one is performing the type of miss-measurement shown of page 12 - So one can gain at the point of shooting with an oval base as this is the time one's allowed to "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don’t worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase" Pg 11
But again if one couldn't reach the target already people are going to be looking at one quite funnily, "Oh the trygon I moved as far as I possibly could is half an inch out of range, well I'll just 'turn' on the spot and voila pew pew pew".

"A player must move all of the models in each assaulting unit before moving on to the next unit." Pg 34

OK, I ran a half dozen scenarios this morning, and if you treat a vehicle as a single point (such as it's pivot point) then the distance moved will never be more than 12 inches, regardless of how you pivot.

So the max gain is the difference between the long and short radii. So for most this will be less than 2 inches. I think the DE ship thingie that took out my HammerHead one game (NEWB!) will be the worst offender.

Anubis_513 wrote: On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move

The above statement is incorrect.
Pg. 11 of the BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

A Trygon model IS a model in its own unit, therefore I may turn it to face any direction as I move it. I am moving it from the time I touch it to move it until I remove my hand and stop moving it. Simple physics. I interact with it by touching it, so it is therefore moving until such time as I am not interacting with it any longer, and this defines how I may "...move the models in a unit...". So, I turn it, as allowed by the rules on page 11, while I am moving it, so that it faces any direction (again pg. 11), measure the distance I wish to move and then turn it to face any direction before removing my hand, and thus ending the movement of that model. As stated on pg. 11, this turning does not affect movement, which means that any extra distance gained from the movement phase on into the shooting phase (when I will likely choose to Run!) actually does NOT affect the distance the model moved (because the rules on pg. 11 says it doesn't).
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

And just to be clear with regards to facing and its application in the game mechanics...LoS (for the purposes of shooting) is traced from the models-eye view, from a model's eyes (pg. 16 of the BRB). Facing has no bearing on assaults (because pg. 11 says it DOESN'T affect movement).

Of course this does mean that most models that have eyes cannot shoot at something behind them, because facing clearly matters (as outlined on pg. 16 for models with eyes, pgs 56 and 59 for vehicles). It also means models without eyes cannot shoot ranged weaponry...

Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything from this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Edit: Spelling. Shows me to drink and post at the same time...

I'll take a stab at that one, Evil Lamp 6...
While reading through all these comments someone might actually one day stumble upon the Rosetta Stone of GW rules.

P.S. Check out my comment about models not having eyes.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

Tri wrote:Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

Pretty much sums it up.

I would add D)new people have wandered in who didn't participate in the previous discussion, and E)there's no particular reason for people to not discuss it again if they have a mind to do so.


We discourage repeat threads where the previous discussion was just at breakfast time. But once it's slipped back a few pages, it's generally fair game unless it is something that has a history of turning messy.

Anubis_513 wrote:
On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move


The above statement is incorrect.
Pg. 11 of the BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

A Trygon model IS a model in its own unit, therefore I may turn it to face any direction as I move it. I am moving it from the time I touch it to move it until I remove my hand and stop moving it. Simple physics. I interact with it by touching it, so it is therefore moving until such time as I am not interacting with it any longer, and this defines how I may "...move the models in a unit...". So, I turn it, as allowed by the rules on page 11, while I am moving it, so that it faces any direction (again pg. 11), measure the distance I wish to move and then turn it to face any direction before removing my hand, and thus ending the movement of that model. As stated on pg. 11, this turning does not affect movement, which means that any extra distance gained from the movement phase on into the shooting phase (when I will likely choose to Run!) actually does NOT affect the distance the model moved (because the rules on pg. 11 says it doesn't).
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

And just to be clear with regards to facing and its application in the game mechanics...LoS (for the purposes of shooting) is traced from the models-eye view, from a model's eyes (pg. 16 of the BRB). Facing has no bearing on assaults (because pg. 11 says it DOESN'T affect movement).

So, you metioned several times that pivioting, or facing the model Does not affect movement, or the distance you can move. How then do you justify using th pivot to gain extra movement? Seems to me that is clearly affecting movement, and the idstance you are allowed to move. Seems a clear contradiction to me.....

You seem to be confusing movement and distance/ orientation. A model can move as described in the brb. Then a model also can measure distance in various ways as described in the brb. By pivoting a model can change the distance from the model to various points...this does not count as movement however.

So by changing the orientation of a model we can be changing its distance relative to other objects while still not actualy "moving" the model. At least in terms of using up its movement allowance.




Sliggoth

Anubis - displacement is not always equal to the distance moved.

You gained displacement, in one direction, but not movement.

Pg. 11 of BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

Gaining even displacement IS affecting the distance they are able to cover, as they are only able to cover 6" during the move, however you a enabling them to cover more than this 6" with the pivot. Is the trygon and infantry unit (dont have a nid dex) I thought it was an MC.....

No, they are allowed to move 6"

Displacement is not movement.

Please do us the courtesy of reading over this, and the other thread, before giving arguments that have been proven false many, many times.

Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

Tri wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

If by "2/3" split you mean roughly a "2:1 split," then yes. 63% to 35% is not "2:3," it's "2:1." Given the way most rules contentions go, that is a startling majority who play that pivoting to "gain" movement is legal.

There are exactly two camps on this issue. The first camp are playing the rules as they are written and deal with the fact that GW didn't give half a second's thought to non-imperial vehicles (just try to measure the front/side/rear arcs on a Wave Serpent... I dare you), and wrote the pivoting rules with roughly rectangular vehicles in mind. Imperial players have been using this trick for many, many years with sideways-deployed Rhinos but apparently it was not an issue then. Is the rule poorly written? Possibly, but it was intended to make vehicles quite maneuverable and to not penalize them for making turns.

The second camp is the one who have played a game against Dark Eldar who use this method, and merrily assault their way into the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1 (or those who have a good enough imagination to consider the possibilities). Then they are upset that they didn't have enough foresight to realize that Dark Eldar have a significantly longer assault range thanks to this technique, and deploy well within range. This issue pretty much only comes up in deployment for Dark Eldar. I can't deny that pivoting on a Raider/Ravager "feels" wrong, but the rules are quite permissive in allowing you to do so. These people are butthurt by the fact that Dark Eldar can pull this trick off to great effect.

In the end, though, the pivot maneuver is perfectly legal. The fact that Raiders can take great advantage of the rule is not "cheating," it's smart players taking advantage of the ruleset they are given. All I can say is that you should prepare for it, don't deploy too close, and don't get horribly upset when someone does it to you. Don't be the guy who watches their opponent set up their raiders sideways in their Deployment, then deploy 3" too close, and then get furiously upset when the DE player moves and pivots. Suck it up and learn to play the game by the rules, however flawed they may be, and accept that this is a legal maneuver and you MUST plan for it.

Anubis_513 wrote:Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

It hasnt affected the distance, assuming you have measured consistent point to consistent point.

It has affected the displacement of parts of the model, which is not the same as the distance moved.

And again: read the thread, you argument is not only not new, it has been answered many many many many many times. It's called common courtesy.

Anubis_513 wrote:Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

because pivoting on the spot does not increase the amount a model moves.

see bellow two model different dimensions both moving the same speed, At first glance the brown seems to be moving two blocks more.

It hasnt affected the distance, assuming you have measured consistent point to consistent point.

It has affected the displacement of parts of the model, which is not the same as the distance moved.

And again: read the thread, you argument is not only not new, it has been answered many many many many many times. It's called common courtesy.

Just because I don't agree with the stance of those that have declaired that their view is correct many many many times does not mean I have not read the thread. and that type of reply is insulting, especially as this is an opinion based thread. I simply do not agree that it has been case closed answered. I am not trying to be difficult, and I have no hope of changing you mind, but I felt like sharing my view was encourage in this thread. At first I saw nothing wrong with the pivoting trick, until I reasd that statement in the rulebook. As far as I am concerned, I look forward to your rebuttles, makes things interesting...

commissarkurn wrote:
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

"Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry." Pg 51

KestrelM1 wrote:

Tri wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

If by "2/3" split you mean roughly a "2:1 split," then yes. 63% to 35% is not "2:3," it's "2:1." Given the way most rules contentions go, that is a startling majority who play that pivoting to "gain" movement is legal.

There are exactly two camps on this issue. The first camp are playing the rules as they are written and deal with the fact that GW didn't give half a second's thought to non-imperial vehicles (just try to measure the front/side/rear arcs on a Wave Serpent... I dare you), and wrote the pivoting rules with roughly rectangular vehicles in mind. Imperial players have been using this trick for many, many years with sideways-deployed Rhinos but apparently it was not an issue then. Is the rule poorly written? Possibly, but it was intended to make vehicles quite maneuverable and to not penalize them for making turns.

The second camp is the one who have played a game against Dark Eldar who use this method, and merrily assault their way into the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1 (or those who have a good enough imagination to consider the possibilities). Then they are upset that they didn't have enough foresight to realize that Dark Eldar have a significantly longer assault range thanks to this technique, and deploy well within range. This issue pretty much only comes up in deployment for Dark Eldar. I can't deny that pivoting on a Raider/Ravager "feels" wrong, but the rules are quite permissive in allowing you to do so. These people are butthurt by the fact that Dark Eldar can pull this trick off to great effect.

In the end, though, the pivot maneuver is perfectly legal. The fact that Raiders can take great advantage of the rule is not "cheating," it's smart players taking advantage of the ruleset they are given. All I can say is that you should prepare for it, don't deploy too close, and don't get horribly upset when someone does it to you. Don't be the guy who watches their opponent set up their raiders sideways in their Deployment, then deploy 3" too close, and then get furiously upset when the DE player moves and pivots. Suck it up and learn to play the game by the rules, however flawed they may be, and accept that this is a legal maneuver and you MUST plan for it.

If your argument is strong you have no need to resort to Ad Hominem, so please don't tar 1/3rd pf players with a "butthurt by Deldar" brush.

Your point is not logical anyway. The survey was completed a year ago. It is unlikely that more than five or 10% of players had ever faced a Deldar army at that time, so they could not have been butthurt.

Please accept that many people feel the pivot move is beardy and prefer not to play with it.

If you like the rule and play a game with someone who doesn't like the rule, the two of you need to come to some agreement, or abandon your game.

By telling potential opponents that people who have a different approach to playing than you are childish poopy heads, you are being unnecessarily antagonistic and setting yourself up for arguments.

Kilkrazy wrote:It only applies to tanks, whether or not it is movement, so it cannot be taken as a rule for non-tanks.

I had always read that as a clarification that allows turning to occur prior to moving since it is not allowed during, not as a specific allowance given only to tanks. Interesting take, though.

/shrug

... If we're going down the root of you must be moving before turning ... moving 0" is still moving ...

The argument for abstract movement is that once you've started moving, you've already mesured how far away you can end up. So when you turn, you can't start measuring from the front of the vehicle again. So whether you'd actually covered any distance doesn't matter, it's the fact that your movement has started (or ended, if we're talking at the end of the move), and that implies that you've already laid down your tape as in the diagram.

I think of it kinda like this: determine what speed you're moving, and how far that means. Let's say 12" for cruising speed. Then measure 12" from the hull in every direction. The model must end up entirely within this border at the end of the move. If there are obstacles, it gets messier, but you get the idea.

ElCheezus wrote:The argument for abstract movement is that once you've started moving, you've already mesured how far away you can end up. So when you turn, you can't start measuring from the front of the vehicle again. So whether you'd actually covered any distance doesn't matter, it's the fact that your movement has started (or ended, if we're talking at the end of the move), and that implies that you've already laid down your tape as in the diagram.

I think of it kinda like this: determine what speed you're moving, and how far that means. Let's say 12" for cruising speed. Then measure 12" from the hull in every direction. The model must end up entirely within this border at the end of the move. If there are obstacles, it gets messier, but you get the idea.

except you can't move sideways so you have to pivot first.... come on lets face facts. You must turn the vehicle to face the way you want it to go then you measure how far. If you need to pivot mid move you keep track of the little distances and make sure you don't move to far.


Yes you can gain some extra inches at the start of the game by being side on ... but then its only a couple of inches ... from then on its even no matter what you do.

Are we imlpying that any vehicle(tracked or otherwise) can move sideways? That is the only way I can see gaining any movement at all with this trick?

Its rather unfortunate that there is no rule requiring a model to move the direction it is facing.

According to the rules, there is nothing preventing a treaded vehicle from moving sideways.

Or a skimmer moving in a direction its propulsion does not intuitively account for.

I would never play this way, and would auto-lower the sports of anyone who did. Rhinos don't hop sideways, although they can move forwards and pivot at the start/end/mid.

Tri wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:The argument for abstract movement is that once you've started moving, you've already mesured how far away you can end up. So when you turn, you can't start measuring from the front of the vehicle again. So whether you'd actually covered any distance doesn't matter, it's the fact that your movement has started (or ended, if we're talking at the end of the move), and that implies that you've already laid down your tape as in the diagram.

I think of it kinda like this: determine what speed you're moving, and how far that means. Let's say 12" for cruising speed. Then measure 12" from the hull in every direction. The model must end up entirely within this border at the end of the move. If there are obstacles, it gets messier, but you get the idea.

except you can't move sideways so you have to pivot first.... come on lets face facts. You must turn the vehicle to face the way you want it to go then you measure how far. If you need to pivot mid move you keep track of the little distances and make sure you don't move to far.


Yes you can gain some extra inches at the start of the game by being side on ... but then its only a couple of inches ... from then on its even no matter what you do.

Right, but if pivoting is part of movement ("pivot as you move" has been quoted enough by now, I think), shouldn't you measure before you start moving? If you're saying you don't have to measure your max distance before you pick up the model to move it, then how do we determine how far you can move?

Don't the vehicle movement rules state "a vechile can move a combination of Forward and Backward, as long as it does not go over its maximum allowed movement?

Anubis_513 wrote:Are we imlpying that any vehicle(tracked or otherwise) can move sideways? That is the only way I can see gaining any movement at all with this trick?

Whether you move sideways and then pivot forwards at the end, or start sideways, pivot forwards and then move, you wind up in the same position.

ElCheezus wrote: If you're saying you don't have to measure your max distance before you pick up the model to move it, then how do we determine how far you can move?

We've already covered that. You measure as you move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anubis_513 wrote:Don't the vehicle movement rules state "a vechile can move a combination of Forward and Backward, as long as it does not go over its maximum allowed movement?

They do, yes. Which, as I've explained twice now, just means that they can combine forwards and backwards movement. The vehicle movement rules should, but don't make any suggestion that vehicles have to move forwards or backwards. It's just a commonly held assumption.

ElCheezus wrote:Right, but if pivoting is part of movement ("pivot as you move" has been quoted enough by now, I think), shouldn't you measure before you start moving? If you're saying you don't have to measure your max distance before you pick up the model to move it, then how do we determine how far you can move?

... tape measure ... extend to distance you want to move it ... place model at that point ... pivot ... and repeat.

I often extend my tape measure to the maximum I'm going to move and then let it in as I make that movement.

But if you really want to pre-measure you could go from the centre of the vehicle to the end point.

Tri wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Right, but if pivoting is part of movement ("pivot as you move" has been quoted enough by now, I think), shouldn't you measure before you start moving? If you're saying you don't have to measure your max distance before you pick up the model to move it, then how do we determine how far you can move?

... tape measure ... extend to distance you want to move it ... place model at that point ... pivot ... and repeat.

I often extend my tape measure to the maximum I'm going to move and then let it in as I make that movement.

But if you really want to pre-measure you could go from the centre of the vehicle to the end point.

1) If pivoting is part of movement, you're ending your move past the end of the tape measure.

2) You can't measure from the cetner fo the vehicle.

Anubis_513 wrote:
Are we imlpying that any vehicle(tracked or otherwise) can move sideways? That is the only way I can see gaining any movement at all with this trick?

Whether you move sideways and then pivot forwards at the end, or start sideways, pivot forwards and then move, you wind up in the same position.

Ok, that I can agree with, but how does this work if you are moving on from reserves?

And back around we go.

I think this has gone as far as is productive at this time. Since we're just going around in circles, I think it can take a rest before we all get dizzy.