Lately I have seen players turning their vehicles sideways before their movement begins, move "forward" their full distance, then turn their vehicles facing forward again at the end of movement, giving them an extra 1 to 2 inches of movement depending on hull size. It has happened to me a few times allowing tanks that may have been out of firing distance to suddenly be able to hit my units.

Reading from the little book, it says that "pivoting alone on the spot does not count as moving", but this just seems like gaming the rules for advantage. So is this tactic legal?

davidgr33n wrote:Reading from the little book, it says that "pivoting alone on the spot does not count as moving", but this just seems like gaming the rules for advantage. So is this tactic legal?

Using Eternal Warrior to ignore Instant Death seems like gaming the rules for advantage when I play Tyranids.

It is legal. (Though it can be done wrong)

Shoot them while they are sideways.

Yes, but "Eternal Warrior" usr deals specifically to counter the Instant Death rule. To me, turning the vehicle to make a vehicle that is only supposed to move 12" and then gets nearly 15" from its move is like putting a modified turret that is 4" long on my Predator because I can...

davidgr33n wrote:Yes, but "Eternal Warrior" usr deals specifically to counter the Instant Death rule. To me, turning the vehicle to make a vehicle that is only supposed to move 12" and then gets nearly 15" from its move is like putting a modified turret that is 4" long on my Predator because I can...

I was making a silly point.

The rules you stated are [just as] clear, if somewhat mis-applied.

In simple states, it is perfectly acceptable to make a blatant example of a deploy sideways then turn fire. That will have bonus range without moving.
Nothing can possible say otherwise, but modeling.

Do that after moving. Or before. I forget, but it really doesn't matter.

Perfectly legal and very common. Just remember to take it into account when you deploy or during your own turn in games. If you expect and plan for it, it doesn't have a massive impact.

Lately I have seen players turning their vehicles sideways before their movement begins, move "forward" their full distance, then turn their vehicles facing forward again at the end of movement, giving them an extra 1 to 2 inches of movement depending on hull size

This needs more explanation. What everyone above is referring to is pivoting to face a different directing, and then moving 12" in that direction, and the front of your vehicle is 13-13.5 inches in that direction closer to the opponent than at the start of the turn. Perfectly legal.

You're describing something odder, I think. Are they really pivoting back to the original position? Because if you pivot, move 12", and pivot back, you haven't gained any additional move. If they do, they are doing it incorrectly to gain an unfair advantage.

Completely 100 percent legal. People do it all the time and it is well within the raw and is accepted.

Did BoLS spawn this thread?

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/02/bols-academy-9-vehicle-shenanigans.html

Its simple... front of hull to front of hull cannot exceed the movement distance, as per page 12. If they move that Razorback more than 6", can't fire. Too bad, so sad.

If you look at page 57 it also says that pivoting ALONE does not count as movement.... any other movement IS movement and cannot exceed the combat speed to still fire and cannot exceed maximum movement.

RAW and RAI. I've stuck to my guns on this, and so far, I reminder and quick "please, look at pages 12 and 57, and tell me how you can do that" is all its ever taken. Every still plays me, but they know they can't fudge movement on me. I don't make people measure every model, but I don't let them cheat me either.

I just allow it most of the time just to avoid the argument it brings, but no, it's not a legal move as the model exceeds its movement value.

Yep it sucks but people will never give up on it. Just plan on it being used and plan accordingly.

Lobukia wrote:Its simple... front of hull to front of hull cannot exceed the movement distance, as per page 12.

It does not say this at all. It shows you that you should measure from the hull to the hull, not from the front to the back.

Lobukia wrote: If they move that Razorback more than 6", can't fire. Too bad, so sad.

How about back of the hull to back of the hull? There is no "right" way to measure. You can measure from the front of the hull or the back of the hull. But if I am sideways and I pivot, and then I measure from the back of the hull, I am going to be "cheating" as you put it. Even more common, is measuring from the center of the vehicle (where you pivot). If you do it there, it is also legal.

By your logic, if I measure from the back of the hull, I can start sideways, then move up 12", then pivot, and since the back of my tank is about 2-3" behind where I originally moved, I can continue to move, since where I measured from is not 12" away, exactly.

The point is, this tactic is legal. It is not cheating in any way, shape or form. It leaves a sour taste in some peoples' mouths, but it is legal.

Edit: The easiest method is to measure from the center. It is universal (give or take a micrometer) and illustrates why this tactic works. If you're looking for specifics, check out page 56. It simply says "measure to and from the hull." Nothing about back, middle, side or front. You measure from where you measure. If you measure from the front, it looks like you gain ground. If you measure from the back, it looks like you lose ground. If you measure from the middle, everything works out.

1-2 inches is nothing. Try doing this with a ghost ark.

The ghost ark is about 8-10 inches long on a 2 inch base somewhere in the middle.

Lets say it's facing forward 12" from an enemy unit. If I measure from the tip of the hull 6" then PLACE THE MODEL SIDEWAYS, then rotate it to face forward. From the starting point of the tip of the hull to the ending point of the tip of the hull, it will have probably moved 10 inches.

I would not do this because from the start of the move to the end of the move, the hull moved 10". If I'm moving it the full 12", at the end of my move it will probably have moved 16". It's obviously cheating.

I re-read BRB p12 and p57. I don't see this as cheating. I would be willing to hear more about it, but to call this cheating vs RAW seems like assumptions are being made.

Nemesor Dave wrote:1-2 inches is nothing. Try doing this with a ghost ark.

The ghost ark is about 8-10 inches long on a 2 inch base somewhere in the middle.

Lets say it's facing forward 12" from an enemy unit. If I measure from the tip of the hull 6" then PLACE THE MODEL SIDEWAYS, then rotate it to face forward. From the starting point of the tip of the hull to the ending point of the tip of the hull, it will have probably moved 10 inches.

I would not do this because from the start of the move to the end of the move, the hull moved 10". If I'm moving it the full 12", at the end of my move it will probably have moved 16". It's obviously cheating.

How so?

1) The ghost ark deployed sideways -- Nothing wrong with that
2) You pivot on the spot to face forward -- Rules say that pivoting does not count as moving...nothing wrong with that.
3) You move 12" forward measuring hull-to-hull -- Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see how the above violates any rules in the book.

And really all you've done is move your giant bunker closer to the enemy and putting you well within melta range of mech troops or very close to assault troops. Sure you "gained" movement, but you're you're risking your 115 point repair bunker.

Pros and Cons here. Pros and Cons.

Nungunz wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1-2 inches is nothing. Try doing this with a ghost ark.

The ghost ark is about 8-10 inches long on a 2 inch base somewhere in the middle.

Lets say it's facing forward 12" from an enemy unit. If I measure from the tip of the hull 6" then PLACE THE MODEL SIDEWAYS, then rotate it to face forward. From the starting point of the tip of the hull to the ending point of the tip of the hull, it will have probably moved 10 inches.

I would not do this because from the start of the move to the end of the move, the hull moved 10". If I'm moving it the full 12", at the end of my move it will probably have moved 16". It's obviously cheating.

How so?

1) The ghost ark deployed sideways -- Nothing wrong with that
2) You pivot on the spot to face forward -- Rules say that pivoting does not count as moving...nothing wrong with that.
3) You move 12" forward measuring hull-to-hull -- Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see how the above violates any rules in the book.

And really all you've done is move your giant bunker closer to the enemy and putting you well within melta range of mech troops or very close to assault troops. Sure you "gained" movement, but you're you're risking your 115 point repair bunker.

Pros and Cons here. Pros and Cons.

You're not seeing it.

1) I deploy sideways.
2) I free rotate forward, gaining 4 inches.
3) I move 6" and place the model perpendicular, sideways. Tip of hull to forward facing side of hull is correctly only 6".
4) I free rotate forward gaining 4 inches. Tip of hull start to tip of hull finish is 10".

Nemesor, that doesn't make any sense, unless you're moving the model as you pivot.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Nemesor, that doesn't make any sense, unless you're moving the model as you pivot.

The Ghost Ark is long and narrow with the pivot point in the middle. I don't have my base glued on, so I don't even have to lift it up to spin the model on the base. No way does it move while pivoting. It's the same as a land speeder without the base glued on. You can spin the model on the base.

Perhaps someone else can better explain the whole gain distance while moving.

Entirely legal, and entirely known about since 3rd ed. 1998. 14 years.

It is a necessary consequence of the simplified vehicle rules, and the studio are fully aware of it.

So no, ND, it is not "obviously" cheating - it isnt cheating at all. You are talking displacement, not movement. The rules care about movement 99.9% of the time, and only care aboutdisplacement when they explicitly state so - e.g. turboboost and hitting vehicles in CC

ND, I wasted my time building this diagram to show how your steps don't work:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Entirely legal, and entirely known about since 3rd ed. 1998. 14 years.

It is a necessary consequence of the simplified vehicle rules, and the studio are fully aware of it.

So no, ND, it is not "obviously" cheating - it isnt cheating at all. You are talking displacement, not movement. The rules care about movement 99.9% of the time, and only care aboutdisplacement when they explicitly state so - e.g. turboboost and hitting vehicles in CC

You can pivot while you move any number of times, which makes this seem legal. However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

Legal to turn. Legal to measure 12" from front of hull to side of hull place model turned. Legal to turn again. Starting most forward point of hull, to ending most forward point of hull being 16" is not legal. They are making legal moves to result in an illegal result.

Read As Written it is legal.

But anyone that does this smells of desperation...
In friendly games, its sad.
In tournaments.... well so be it, but getting points deducted for sportsmanship.

"Everyone does it so its ok?" that logic is why the world is awful...

As for how much extra distance is moved *assuming we pivot from center of model.

Then the total extra distance is exactly 50% of vehicle's length.

this is a legit tactic, just ask dash who use's it for his raider rush

Nemesor Dave wrote:However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

This is the assumption I was referring to earlier. Please find me the rule that says movement is measured from most forward point to most forward point. It's not.

Since pivoting does not reduce distance moved, I believe the PRO position has made the (logical) inference that it is measured from model center to model center. More specifically, it is a measure of any and all forward or backwards movement on the part of the model, with an unlimited number of pivots that do not change the model's central point location.

This is part of the reason that a particularly evil RAW opponent can point and laugh when you deploy with one of your side armor edges flush with a table edge. You can never turn that vehicle.

Here you go MasterSlowPoke.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

This is the assumption I was referring to earlier. Please find me the rule that says movement is measured from most forward point to most forward point. It's not.

Since pivoting does not reduce distance moved, I believe the PRO position has made the (logical) inference that it is measured from model center to model center. More specifically, it is a measure of any and all forward or backwards movement on the part of the model, with an unlimited number of pivots that do not change the model's central point location.

This is part of the reason that a particularly evil RAW opponent can point and laugh when you deploy with one of your side armor edges flush with a table edge. You can never turn that vehicle.

You don't have to deploy sideways even. You can deploy forward, measure, move and place sideways, pivot forward. There is no downside.

LunaHound wrote:As for how much extra distance is moved *assuming we pivot from center of model.

Then the total extra distance is exactly 50% of vehicle's length.

Actually it's half length minus half width.

It looks to me like you are doing it wrong in step 2+3. You cannot move the model sideways or pivot it while you are moving. You must stop, pivot, move, stop, pivot, move, etc

foolishmortal wrote:It looks to me like you are doing it wrong in step 2+3. You cannot move the model sideways or pivot it while you are moving. You must stop, pivot, move, stop, pivot, move, etc

For the sake of this, step 1 is unnecessary. If you can't pivot while moving, this is not a legal move.

Macok wrote:Actually it's half length minus half width.

Math FTW, it's like a super-power


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you do have to be careful to pivot at the center of the vehicle. In the diagrams posted above, it looks like the pivot point is off center.

I agree that many people are sloppy and careless in their movement of vehicles, especially in casual games, but you are looking at the wrong thing. If this is still not clear tomorrow, I will generate some pretty pictures.

I don't know. Sounds pretty cheesy to me

ND - "You can pivot while you move any number of times, which makes this seem legal. However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move. "

So, youre breaking the rules by changing where you are measuring from, and claim that by thus breaking the rules you can show how someone else has broken the rules?

Wrong.

This has been legal since 1998.

Here's a simple concept that should end this whole argument: if you think you are getting away with something, its probably a sign that you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.


Thankfully, I haven't confronted any one pulling these shenanigans, but the base point is the same. If the vehicle moves too far, it is an illegal move.

So can we all stop trying to bend every rule and just play the freaking game?

This was argued out a while ago in Dashofpepper's Dark Eldar Tactica, as Raiders are another vehicle that get a reasonably big 'bonus move' from pivoting. The diagrams in Dash's guide make things a lot clearer.

In that thread Dash explains about making a single pivot at the start of your movement to gain a few extra inches movement. RAW, this is competely legal and has been for several editions. There's a copy of the sort of relevent parts in the spoiler thing below, I just spoilered it so it doesnt take up miles of space




But what I think the OP is talking about is something like this:



Pic 1 is where you start sideways right up against the imaginary "edge of deployment zone" line

Pic 2 is where you pivot around the vehicles center point before moving (completely legal). With rectangular vehicles vehicles, this means you're hull is already further forward (2" inches further forward in a Raiders case) than it was when deployed.

Pic 3 is moving 12" forward and ending up facing sideways again (I'm not sure if this is legal, but cant find anything to say it isn't)

Pic 4 is after pivoting yet again at the end of your 12" movement to face forwards, gaining more distance again (roughly 4" in total when using a Raider)

This example seems to get more people annoyed than the first (obviously as you're getting twice the amount of "bonus movement"), but I'm not sure if this is legal. I cant see anything that suggests it isn't, but still it seems to bug some players.

Hopefully the pics make it a little clearer for some

1) It isnt an illegal move, as has been proven every single time this has been asked.
2) You havent moved too far. The vehicle has displaced at points further than your movement rate, but then it has also at points displaced not as far as your movement rate. Luckily the rules dont care about displacement for 99.99% of the time
3) We are doing. The Studio are fully 100% aware of this, and dont see it as a problem - given the alternative is the painful, slow vehcile movment of 2nd ed.

This is the way the game has been played since 1998

If all pivots take place at the center of the vehicle, you shouldn't gain any additional inches (as shown by previous diagram). Rule book says, "Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather then 'wheeling' around."
Anything else is rule breaking. Otherwise, a player could alternate nose and tail pivots to move infinite distance while claiming a combat move.

Gorechild wrote:
Pic 3 is moving 12" forward and ending up facing sideways again (I'm not sure if this is legal, but cant find anything to say it isn't)

Ah, now I see. It doesn't quite work for me though. Pivoting isn't some magical ability that just happens. It's specifically part of the vehicles movement. You can sidle up to the line sideways, as in pic 3, but pivoting on the spot puts your hull outside of 12 inches from the original line drawn. Pivoting is part of movement,"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move." Not after, not before, but as. Taken RAW, that should disallow a pivot to move you beyond 12 inches.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - "You can pivot while you move any number of times, which makes this seem legal. However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move. "

So, youre breaking the rules by changing where you are measuring from, and claim that by thus breaking the rules you can show how someone else has broken the rules?

Wrong.

This has been legal since 1998.

Is this an argument? What rule are you referring to?

Ok, let me see if I can explain RAW vehicle movement.

The short answer is read BRB (5th) p57, 63 and 68.

The medium summery is...
1) A vehiclce can move forward, backwards and pivot
2) Pivoting does not reduce the vehicle's move

I don't know off hand how long a land raider is, but assuming it is 7" long, a land raider that pivots 180 degress then moves forward 1" counts as moving 1", not 8"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:2) You havent moved too far. The vehicle has displaced at points further than your movement rate, but then it has also at points displaced not as far as your movement rate. Luckily the rules dont care about displacement for 99.99% of the time

I wouldn't estimate measuring vehicle movement for assault to hit rolls .01% of the time, but yes. Check p63 BRB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, oh, turbo boosting minimum movement also p76

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here you go MasterSlowPoke.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

This is the assumption I was referring to earlier. Please find me the rule that says movement is measured from most forward point to most forward point. It's not.

Since pivoting does not reduce distance moved, I believe the PRO position has made the (logical) inference that it is measured from model center to model center. More specifically, it is a measure of any and all forward or backwards movement on the part of the model, with an unlimited number of pivots that do not change the model's central point location.

This is part of the reason that a particularly evil RAW opponent can point and laugh when you deploy with one of your side armor edges flush with a table edge. You can never turn that vehicle.

You don't have to deploy sideways even. You can deploy forward, measure, move and place sideways, pivot forward. There is no downside.

if this interpretation of the rules is correct, then you can in theory move infinitely, just pivot a lot during your movement phase.

step 1: vehicle turns forward.
step 2: pivot while moving 0.1" forward, ending with your side 0.1 ahead of where your nose used to be.
step 3: pivot vehicle forward again.
step 4: repeat as necessary.

So it's clearly incorrect.

Palmar wrote:if this interpretation of the rules is correct, then you can in theory move infinitely, just pivot a lot during your movement phase.

step 1: vehicle turns forward.
step 2: pivot while moving 0.1" forward, ending with your side 0.1 ahead of where your nose used to be.
step 3: pivot vehicle forward again.
step 4: repeat as necessary.

So it's clearly incorrect.

The problem is that he's not pivoting around the center of the vehicle, which is required by the rules. See below.

davidgr33n wrote:Lately I have seen players turning their vehicles sideways before their movement begins, move "forward" their full distance, then turn their vehicles facing forward again at the end of movement, giving them an extra 1 to 2 inches of movement depending on hull size. It has happened to me a few times allowing tanks that may have been out of firing distance to suddenly be able to hit my units.

Reading from the little book, it says that "pivoting alone on the spot does not count as moving", but this just seems like gaming the rules for advantage. So is this tactic legal?

The group of people I play with always measure from the centre of the model to avoid things like this. Doesnt matter if your turning or standing still, the centre of the model still stays in the same position. Has worked flawlessly so far.

ND - "Is this an argument? What rule are you referring to? "

Yes, it is an argument. The rule about where you measure your move from - or have you forgotten that you pick a consistent point to measure from?

You are breaking a rule (changing how you measure) in order to claim someone else is breaking a rule. Oddly enough that isnt a particularly valid argument.

Oh, and by the way - your argument still doesnt work, as if it were true then you are also making a pivot reduce available movement - when you are told it doesnt. If you did some research on this 14 year old topic you would see the number of times it has been discussed.

Just for reference (as this seems to come up over and over again), here's the poll on the subject:

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


A pretty healthy majority feel it is fine to pivot at the start of the game to essentially gain a bit of extra movement. Although if you're always pivoting on the center of the vehicle you're never technically 'gaining' any more movement from that point on.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here you go MasterSlowPoke.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

This is the assumption I was referring to earlier. Please find me the rule that says movement is measured from most forward point to most forward point. It's not.

Since pivoting does not reduce distance moved, I believe the PRO position has made the (logical) inference that it is measured from model center to model center. More specifically, it is a measure of any and all forward or backwards movement on the part of the model, with an unlimited number of pivots that do not change the model's central point location.

This is part of the reason that a particularly evil RAW opponent can point and laugh when you deploy with one of your side armor edges flush with a table edge. You can never turn that vehicle.

You don't have to deploy sideways even. You can deploy forward, measure, move and place sideways, pivot forward. There is no downside.

This is illegal. By doing a series of these moves, you could add many feet, not just inches to your movement. Pivot forward, advance forward 1" while 'pivoting while moveing' to get the ark sideways, pivot forward, rinse and repeat.

You can gain a couple of inches off the first pivot (sideways to forward). After that, if you do it by the rules (pivot from the center point of the vehicle), you are unable to gain any additional distance as the pivot back and forth will never change the actual position of the model.

mikhaila wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here you go MasterSlowPoke.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:However, if you measure the starting most forward point against the ending most forward point in this case you've clearely moved beyond your allowed move.

This is the assumption I was referring to earlier. Please find me the rule that says movement is measured from most forward point to most forward point. It's not.

Since pivoting does not reduce distance moved, I believe the PRO position has made the (logical) inference that it is measured from model center to model center. More specifically, it is a measure of any and all forward or backwards movement on the part of the model, with an unlimited number of pivots that do not change the model's central point location.

This is part of the reason that a particularly evil RAW opponent can point and laugh when you deploy with one of your side armor edges flush with a table edge. You can never turn that vehicle.

You don't have to deploy sideways even. You can deploy forward, measure, move and place sideways, pivot forward. There is no downside.

This is illegal. By doing a series of these moves, you could add many feet, not just inches to your movement. Pivot forward, advance forward 1" while 'pivoting while moveing' to get the ark sideways, pivot forward, rinse and repeat.

Good point. Lets say, a 6" move with a ghost ark and you're nice and only move 1" at a time, gaining 4 extra inches each move. That's only 24". I will barely be able to get within rapid fire range 1st turn.

Pretty bad. I wouldn't play this way at all in good sportsmanship.

don_mondo wrote:You can gain a couple of inches off the first pivot (sideways to forward). After that, if you do it by the rules (pivot from the center point of the vehicle), you are unable to gain any additional distance as the pivot back and forth will never change the actual position of the model.

Well, the first turn you can gave forward displacement, the second turn sideways displacement, then the third turn forward displacement.

So yeah.

rigeld2 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:You can gain a couple of inches off the first pivot (sideways to forward). After that, if you do it by the rules (pivot from the center point of the vehicle), you are unable to gain any additional distance as the pivot back and forth will never change the actual position of the model.

Well, the first turn you can gave forward displacement, the second turn sideways displacement, then the third turn forward displacement.

So yeah.

No, the second turn wil gain you nothing since it should put you right back where you were to begin with. So then the third turn puts you in the same exact spot that the first turn did.

don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:You can gain a couple of inches off the first pivot (sideways to forward). After that, if you do it by the rules (pivot from the center point of the vehicle), you are unable to gain any additional distance as the pivot back and forth will never change the actual position of the model.

Well, the first turn you can gave forward displacement, the second turn sideways displacement, then the third turn forward displacement.

So yeah.

No, the second turn wil gain you nothing since it should put you right back where you were to begin with. So then the third turn puts you in the same exact spot that the first turn did.

Yeah, it went wrong in my head. Nevermind.
(you'll gain sideways movement, but not any more forward movement)

"Good point. Lets say, a 6" move with a ghost ark and you're nice and only move 1" at a time, gaining 4 extra inches each move. That's only 24". I will barely be able to get within rapid fire range 1st turn.
"

So, you dont realise youre required to pivot about the centre of your vehicle, and that therefore if you pivot twice (90 degree, -90 degree) then you havent changed position at all?

Still breaking rules....

The pivot trick gives you a once only boost in a direction. Thats it. Repeatedly pivoting does not increase this displacement.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here you go MasterSlowPoke.

See now this right here is illegal as you cannot "place the model sideways" after moving. You can only move straight forward or backwards, if you want to change direction you must pivot. I agree that what you have shown there is 100% illegal.

However MasterSlowPoke's diagram is 100% correct and legal.

LunaHound wrote:Read As Written it is legal.

But anyone that does this smells of desperation...
In friendly games, its sad.
In tournaments.... well so be it, but getting points deducted for sportsmanship.

I've honestly never seen people complain about this in a "friendly" (why the hell do people use that term? A game is a game is a game....the same ruleset applies in all cases.) And I've never seen someone docked sportsmanship points in a tournament......if you can call an event that uses soft scores a competitive event a "tournament". Sportsmanship IMO should be a yellow card/red card deal (two yellows and you're booted from the tourny or one red and you're done) determined by judges/TOs rather than affect overall scores. Could also have a sportsmanship award or be part of the Best Overall.....but not something that affects Best General.

"Everyone does it so its ok?" that logic is why the world is awful...

It's allowed by the rulebook, it's no problem. I don't care if my opponent uses this tactic. I don't use it much as it usually doesn't benefit my army (and IGs boxy vehicles don't can much distance).

One more chime in. I play in the same pool as poster OverwatchCNC. Big 40k community. Years & years of experience.

It's legal. DoP's diagram shows it best.

To avoid getting assaulted by contents of SRGs, LRs or DE raiders, just be sure to drop back those extra ~2 inches.

Like Nos has said, it has been ingrained in the game for 14 years.

If you think it's douchey, then chipmunk your opponent on sportsmanship.

'Course, that'd be douchey.

Palmar wrote: step 1: vehicle turns forward.
step 2: pivot while moving 0.1" forward, ending with your side 0.1 ahead of where your nose used to be.
step 3: pivot vehicle forward again.
step 4: repeat as necessary.

So it's clearly incorrect.

This is why it's illegal, you could gain movement across the entire table.

Lets break this down simply. By measuing the movement form front to side you say thats legal, following that logic I could say I move 0" just by placing the side of the vehicle where the front was. Wash and repeat I could move the entire table (and back again) and still shoot with all weapons

vehicles turn by pivoting at their center

RAW you can deploy sideways and pivot.

That however is not free movement and anyone who pivots then moves, then measures how far the vehicle mo ed from end to where it was after pivoting has technically broken the rules. Distance moved is measured from front facing if a model to front facing from start of move to end of move. The only diagrams of how movement takes place in the BRB depict this. Diagrams and tables in the BRB are rules.

By placing your model sideways and pivottinv you have moved some distance as the fron facing of the vehicle is no longer in the same place.

It is not possible to pivot to gain extra movement unless you ignore parts of the movement rules

blaktoof wrote: vehicles turn by pivoting at their center

RAW you can deploy sideways and pivot.

That however is not free movement and anyone who pivots then moves has technically broken the rules. Distance moved is measured from front facing if a model to front facing from start of move to end of move. The only diagrams of how movement takes place in the BRB depict this. Diagrams and tables in the BRB are rules.

By placing your model sideways and pivottinv you have moved some distance as the fron facing of the vehicle is no longer in the same place.

It is not possible to pivot to gain extra movement unless you ignore parts of the movement rules

I believe we have seen a couple of references in this thread where exactly the opposite has been stated. Please provide page references to your claims, as they have. Preferably disproving those points made by previous posters.

blaktoof wrote: vehicles turn by pivoting at their center

RAW you can deploy sideways and pivot.

That however is not free movement and anyone who pivots then moves, then measures how far the vehicle mo ed from end to where it was after pivoting has technically broken the rules. Distance moved is measured from front facing if a model to front facing from start of move to end of move. The only diagrams of how movement takes place in the BRB depict this. Diagrams and tables in the BRB are rules.

By placing your model sideways and pivottinv you have moved some distance as the fron facing of the vehicle is no longer in the same place.

It is not possible to pivot to gain extra movement unless you ignore parts of the movement rules

This is flat out wrong.

As posted earlier, if a vehicle pivots 180 degrees, do you now measure from where the front was to where it is now? (i.e. you have just moved the length of the vehicle by your definition).

blaktoof wrote: By placing your model sideways and pivottinv you have moved some distance as the fron facing of the vehicle is no longer in the same place.

Right here, you are contradicting the rules. Per the brb, pivotting is not movement. However, you have just stated that if a vehicle pivots, it has moved some distance. So, by your logic, if I pivot a land raider 90 degrees, it has now moved 2"? So, I can now only fire as if I moved at cruising speed?


Here is a little way to figure it out. Imagine moving a ghost ark, or any other vehicle on a flying stand. It is "sideways" to the direction you want to go. At this point in time, you take the ark of its stand. Now, all you have is a circular stand with a peg in the middle. Move that stand 6" in any direction you like. Now, put the ark back on in any facing you want. That is the amount of movement you would be allowed for "6 inches." In the case of any oblong vehicle, any movement you "gain" in one direction is offset by the movement "lost" in the perpendicular direction. While in some cases, it is more convenient to measure front to front, in these cases, the only TRUE measurement is going from center to center.

Vehicles may only move forwards and backwards, but they may pivot as much as they want without it counting as movement.

A landraider deployed at the edge of your deployment zone sideways may, on it's next turn, pivot 90 degrees and move it's full move.

There was a video on BOLS that got this wrong, and caused a gak storm. Don't worry, it's a trick that the current ruleset allows due to the wording on how vehicles pivoting works. It's legal.

juraigamer wrote:Vehicles may only move forwards and backwards

I am not sure that is explicitly true.

kirsanth wrote:

juraigamer wrote:Vehicles may only move forwards and backwards

I am not sure that is explicitly true.

It isn't at all.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It isn't at all.

Page 57, second paragraph after the bullet points.

Nungunz wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It isn't at all.

Page 57, second paragraph after the bullet points.

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

That does not say what you think it says.

Nungunz wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It isn't at all.

Page 57, second paragraph after the bullet points.

Being allowed to turn as many times as you like does not prevent you from moving sideways.

Actually, this is illegal because if they are moving straight and then swing to the side so their side endge is where the front of the vehicle was they are not actualy pivoting they are swinging foward. you can prove it to them by piveting across the board.

When an tank pivets put your finger in the middle of the vehicle and rotate. your finger should not move. If you pivote corectly the side edge will be shorter than where the front egdge was, unless the vehicle is a squar or circle. Most players dont pivet the models this way and generaly an inch or so is not worth being finicky about, but if it's bothering you insist that they pivet through this procedure and the problem will be solved.

Pony_law wrote:Actually, this is illegal because if they are moving straight and then swing to the side so their side endge is where the front of the vehicle was they are not actualy pivoting they are swinging foward. you can prove it to them by piveting across the board.

When an tank pivets put your finger in the middle of the vehicle and rotate. your finger should not move. If you pivote corectly the side edge will be shorter than where the front egdge was, unless the vehicle is a squar or circle. Most players dont pivet the models this way and generaly an inch or so is not worth being finicky about, but if it's bothering you insist that they pivet through this procedure and the problem will be solved.

So... you're calling it illegal, then exactly describing how to do it legally.

Wat.

mandor's diagram is correct, the others show turning and moving at the same time, and they all end up measuring front to side.

the first pivot is fine

any subsequent pivoting whilst moving breaks the rules as you cannot measure front-to-side! (or turn and move at the same time!)

lukyboi wrote:any subsequent pivoting whilst moving breaks the rules as you cannot measure front-to-side! (or turn and move at the same time!)

Except the rules explicitly allow pivoting while moving. Page 57, 2nd paragraph after the bullet points.

rigeld2 wrote:

Pony_law wrote:Actually, this is illegal because if they are moving straight and then swing to the side so their side endge is where the front of the vehicle was they are not actualy pivoting they are swinging foward. you can prove it to them by piveting across the board.

When an tank pivets put your finger in the middle of the vehicle and rotate. your finger should not move. If you pivote corectly the side edge will be shorter than where the front egdge was, unless the vehicle is a squar or circle. Most players dont pivet the models this way and generaly an inch or so is not worth being finicky about, but if it's bothering you insist that they pivet through this procedure and the problem will be solved.

So... you're calling it illegal, then exactly describing how to do it legally.

Wat.

No i'm saying if the opponent is doing what original poster is describing (moving the side edge to where the from edge ended after max movement) he is not actually pivoting and thus is making illegal moves. Then I describe what legal pivoting looksl like which will not allow a player to gain more range/move closer

Nemesor Dave's image is the situation I was originally referring to, where the vehicle moves its limit and finishes its move "sideways", then pivots forward to complete its move, thus giving it extra inches of movement.

It seems that most people are opposed to this situation, but not to the initial pivot and then straightforward movement. I tend to agree that if GW saw a problem with these situations they would have FAQ'd it long time ago with a simple sentence, such as "the forward-most portion of the hull at the end of the vehicle's movement cannot exceed the distance allowed (12" for cruising speed, etc) from the forward -most portion of the hull when it began its movement" or some such wording.

Yeah, the above diagram is illegal and I have never once seen someone even attempt to do this. Anyone that does should just see what this move will look like with a 2" x 8" Ghost Ark: 20" movement!

Here is how to move your transport without being TFG:
Step 1: Measure from the forward-facing side 6"
Step 2: Move however the hell you like; 6" ahead is an invisible wall that cannot have its threshold broken.
Step 3: Rejoice in knowing that you are not treating 40k like fun is a zero-sum commodity.

EDIT: Spoiler tag

It's simple really, especially for skimmers on bases, just measure the distance from the base, pivoting wont change how far the base can (or has) move(d)

@ Nemesor Dave, you can't do what you have so beautifully illustrated, because as nosferatu has stated, you aren't measuring to the same point on the vehicle. This is a different manoeuver from starting sideways, moving sideways and then pivoting to face the front.

grrr

A vehicle is allowed to pivot after their movement, however that pivot cannot add to their total movement.

There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls a day or so ago that explains this in detail.

MasticatorDeelux wrote:A vehicle is allowed to pivot after their movement, however that pivot cannot add to their total movement.

There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls a day or so ago that explains this in detail.

Since that's only possible if you don't pivot around the centerpoint, you're correct... but it's easier to say "You must pivot around the center point."

Distance moved is measured from one point on a vehicle before you move it or pivot it, to the same point at the end of its movement.

If you have a vehicle sideways and pivot it about its center, you have moved some distance already because that point has moved.

You don't get to change the place you measure from the vehicle on. No rule in the book says you can start moving from any point on a vehicle and then finish moving and the distance moved is any combination of points you make up.

blaktoof wrote:Distance moved is measured from one point on a vehicle before you move it or pivot it, to the same point at the end of its movement.

If you have a vehicle sideways and pivot it about its center, you have moved some distance already because that point has moved.

False.
Pivots explicitly do not cost movement.

It's legal, but as

Makes me rage when I see it, and everyone I play does it, except me.

"Why don't you place you tanks horizontal along the boundary? Hurdurrrrrrrr"

BECAUSE YOU'RE A CHEATING BUTT HAT!

"Distance moved is measured from one point on a vehicle before you move it or pivot, to the same point at the end of its movement."



This concept simply doesnt work.

The simplest way is to start with a rhino on the table. Pivot the rhino 180 degrees and move it forward 6". Now at this point most people would say that the rhino has moved 6", However, if we use the above system we find that the rhino may have moved as far as 12" (if we used the front middle of the rhino at start and finish as the measuring point) or it may have moved 0" (if we use the rear middle of the rhino as the measuring point). This is based upon a rhino 6" in length.

Pivots dont add to the distance moved. Pivoting doesnt cost movement. Pivots occur during the movement phase but arent movement. Use any or all of these if they help you consider the situation anew.



Sliggoth

MasticatorDeelux wrote:A vehicle is allowed to pivot after their movement, however that pivot cannot add to their total movement.

Uhm......care to give a page number for this?

There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls a day or so ago that explains this in detail.

You're trusting BoLS? That's actually worse than using the INAT. Fail....

Blaktoof - except that isnt how the rules work. Pivoting doesnt cost any movement.

You are getting confused between displacement and movement.

Pivoting doesnt cost movement but you cannot gain movement by it either.

the max distance a vehicle can move is its movement value measured from one point to one point on the vehicle.

if you pick the front tip of a raider as the start point. then pivot it 90 degrees then move it forward 12" you have moved more than 12". Because the mistake was made that you measure the distance moved after the pivot as opposed to where the vehicle was before you began moving it.

Pivots do not cost extra movement, but they count as movement and pivoting before you move it still movement it just doesnt cost extra to pivot. However as pivoting is still movement the distance you measure from a point on a vehicle initial state to final state can change and net movement.

Just because you pivot from the center of the vehicle does not mean you measure movement from the center of the vehicle. The only rule showing where you measure movement from a model is a diagram in the movement section which clearly depicts movement from the front facing of the model before movement to the front facing of the model at the end of movement. There is no rule giving permission to measure from the center of the model for movement.

This effect is not seen when you include pivoting as part of distance traveled only when you do not move the center of the vehicle and pivot does this become an issue.

displacement does not exist in the BRB in any form.

blaktoof wrote:Pivots. . .count as movement

Nope.

"Pivots do not cost extra movement, but they count as movement "

No. Wrong. Incredibly wrong.

kirsanth wrote:

Nungunz wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It isn't at all.

Page 57, second paragraph after the bullet points.

Being allowed to turn as many times as you like does not prevent you from moving sideways.

Vehicles are never given any permission to move sideways, is the thing. They can move forwards, they can move backwards, and they can pivot, but the rulebook never says they can move sideways. Since 40k is a permissive ruleset, that means they can't.

This is the reason that you can never turn a vehicle that starts flush with the table edge; it can move forwards and backwards fine, but if it wants to move in any other direction it has to pivot, and that would take it off the table.

You aren't allowed to move a vehicle sideways; you can pivot as many times as you want during your move, but that changes your direction of travel. That being so, you can only ever gain any displacement from the 'pivot trick' on your first move, by deploying flush with the deployment line and then pivoting forward at the start of your first move.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Vehicles are never given any permission to move sideways, is the thing. They can move forwards, they can move backwards, and they can pivot, but the rulebook never says they can move sideways.

No, it says they can move.

It never states that the facing has any value other than for being shot at.

kirsanth wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Vehicles are never given any permission to move sideways, is the thing. They can move forwards, they can move backwards, and they can pivot, but the rulebook never says they can move sideways.

No, it says they can move.

It never states that the facing has any value other than for being shot at.

The rulebook describes how vehicles move. My rulebook isn't available at the moment, but I am quite confident that sideways movement is never mentioned. Permissive ruleset, remember; if the book doesn't say a vehicle CAN move in a certain way, it can't.

Consider that the case of a vehicle deployed flush with a table edge has come up repeatedly in one thread or another; that vehicle can't pivot. Why? Because it can't move sideways. If it could, it could simply move (sideways) away from the table edge,then pivot freely. The whole reason such a vehicle ends up stuck along that table edge is that sideways movement is not possible for vehicles.

A permissive rules set that allows movement does not disallow sideways movement.

Editing to add the obvious:
Without stating such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Consider that the case of a vehicle deployed flush with a table edge has come up repeatedly in one thread or another; that vehicle can't pivot. Why? Because it can't move sideways.

This is patently false. It cannot pivot because that would move it off the table (note that this occurs without moving). It CAN just slide sideways.

I don't have access to my rulebook right now, so I can't quote you chapter and verse at the moment. However, I don't believe the sentence "Vehicles may move." or a near-identical variant exists anywhere, which would give the blanket permission you are asserting. I've certainly never played with anyone who claimed it did; as a matter of practically I've seen plenty of people move vehicles without turning them, but that has always represented pivoting, moving, and then pivoting back to the original orientation, not actually "moving" sideways. As I said before, this is why a vehicle that starts flush with a board edge can never get away from that board edge, which is a situation I've seen happen several times, including once or twice to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Consider that the case of a vehicle deployed flush with a table edge has come up repeatedly in one thread or another; that vehicle can't pivot. Why? Because it can't move sideways.

This is patently false. It cannot pivot because that would move it off the table (note that this occurs without moving). It CAN just slide sideways.

You didn't finish reading the post.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You didn't read the post.

I did. You said you were right because you were right. (It cannot move sideways because of a[n incorrect] ruling about why it cannot move sideways) I am saying were you are wrong in your assumption.

The pivot issue is a problem when the vehicle just wants to pivot.

If it wants to move, it can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Pivots do not cost extra movement, but they count as movement "

No. Wrong. Incredibly wrong.

false. just false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Pivots. . .count as movement

Nope.

pivoting freely during movement and pivoting not costing movement are not the same statement.

keeping a vehicle stationary and pivoting is movement, as the facing you measure from your vehicle wherever that may be has changed and has a net physical distance.

try it.

blaktoof wrote:pivoting is movement

Literally true, but the rules do not count it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:In simple states, it is perfectly acceptable to deploy sideways, then turn and fire. That will have bonus range without moving.
Nothing can possibly say otherwise, but modeling.

Do that after moving. Or before. I forget, but it really doesn't matter.

Editing silly words.

Careful re-reading indicates that I was wrong; vehicles can, in fact, move sideways. My bad, kirsanth, you're right.

But that still doesn't allow you to gain distance twice by pivoting; if you start facing sideways, then turn forwards and move in a straight line, pivoting back and forth at any other point just won't change anything. You can only pivot around your centerpoint, and you must measure to and from the same point on the model; that is, you can't place one end of your 12" measuring tape on the front of your model and pivot it on the way so that the side ends up flush with the 12" mark.

Why not? Because you're moving and not accounting for it when you do that; and not just by pivoting, either. Gaining length by pivoting is legal; however, in order to gain any benefit a second time, you have to literally scoot the model forwards and then claim you didn't move, which isn't true. Simple way to tell; just count the inches you've moved out loud every time you move the model in any way except by pivoting around the center point (without the center point itself moving at all). It's pretty obvious when the vehicle moves and when it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

pivoting freely during movement and pivoting not costing movement are not the same statement.

keeping a vehicle stationary and pivoting is movement, as the facing you measure from your vehicle wherever that may be has changed and has a net physical distance.

try it.

Except that the rules EXPLICITLY say that isn't the case. You've been given the quote a couple of times. You're wrong; what you're saying is flatly contradicted, in very plain language, by the rule book. Pivoting is NOT moving; if you pivot but do not move, the vehicle is stationary. That's what it says.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But that still doesn't allow you to gain distance twice by pivoting

Agreed.

This is the thing that people thinks this silliness implies.

It doesn't.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Pivots do not cost extra movement, but they count as movement "

No. Wrong. Incredibly wrong.

false. just false

Well given the rules sya the exact opposite to your position, with the relevant quotes being given a number of times now, I know who I will believe in this.

Pivoting does not count for movement, and does not cost you movement. I guess that means it doesnt cost you any movement then - your position makes it so it does.

Gameplay wise i would believe you have to pivot to point in the direction you are going to drive, and then you have to move the distance measured from a point, if you measure from the tip of a skimmer, that tip is what is going to reach the point you measured to, and not the back or middle of the skimmer. ( same for any other vehicle too )

So basically you cant move tip-to-tip and "gain" anything...
If you moved from tip-to-centre/back you are cheating.

also Page 57:

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model, Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than "wheeling" round, Turning does NOT reduce the vehicles`s move. This means that a vehicle can combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move. PIVOTING ON THE SPOT ALONE DOES NOT COUNT AS MOVING, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary ( however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot ). Just like other units, vehicles cannont move over friendly models."

However, you can Deploy "sideways" and be within the deploy zone and then pivot to gain a little distance, nothing in the rules say that you cant, but if you arent the first one to go, your vehicles got their side armor against the enemy.

Edit: made it easier to see the qoute from the rule book

The main problem in the interpretation has been stated. You must remember that you have to end your movement in same angle that you have started it. Whenever distance is calculated, the vehicle must stay in the same angle. If you're measuring from the center of the base, that amounts to the same thing.

To take this interpretation to a greater level, someone with a barge could start his move pointing forward, rotate 180 degree, calculate his distance from prow to prow, and then rotate another 180 degree. Therefore gaining the entire length of the barge. That is clearly cheating. Pivoting while calculating distance is therefore illegal. Pivoting before or after is legit.

Yes, you can gain a few inches by turning your vehicle before or after a move and that is legit.

It's also legit, to move (i.e calculate distance), rotate, move, rotate, and move again if the distance isn't exceeded.

@ Melek:

You said: "You must remember that you have to end your movement in same angle that you have started it."

Where is that in the rule book?

Meleck wrote:The main problem in the interpretation has been stated. You must remember that you have to end your movement in same angle that you have started it. Whenever distance is calculated, the vehicle must stay in the same angle. If you're measuring from the center of the base, that amounts to the same thing.

Uhhh.....wrong. Could you quote a page number for that?

No?

Oh....because it doesn't exist!

To take this interpretation to a greater level, someone with a barge could start his move pointing forward, rotate 180 degree, calculate his distance from prow to prow, and then rotate another 180 degree. Therefore gaining the entire length of the barge. That is clearly cheating. Pivoting while calculating distance is therefore illegal. Pivoting before or after is legit.

Once again, do you have page numbers for that?

It's also legit, to move (i.e calculate distance), rotate, move, rotate, and move again if the distance isn't exceeded.

Yes exactly, but those rotations cost no movement as pivoting doesn't not reduce movement nor does it count as moving. Page 57.

There actually is a reading of the rules that does limit vehicles to only moving forwards and backwards.

At the start of the vehicle rules we are told that vehicles follow the general rules, except where the vehicle rules change this. In a following paragraph we are then told that vehicles can pivot, move forwards and move backwards.


Two possibilities:


1) This does not put any kind of limit on vehicle movement, they merely are talking about some of the ways that a vehicle can move but they do not explicitly state that vehicles cant move sideways.


2) This means that vehicle movement is being described completely, since we atold that these rules do change the general rules. So vehicles can move forward, backwards and pivot during movement.






Unfortunately neither reading is clearly correct, since the limit to forward/ backward movement is implicit, not stated as clearly as we might wish.





Sliggoth


PS One other effect of sideways vehicular movement however would be the effect on ramming/ tank shocking. If a vehicle performs a ram we are told to aim the vehicle and then move the vehicle. We are limited to moving it in a straight line, but if vehicles can move sideways.....then remember that pivots are not movement. Pivots can occur during movement at any time, and the ramming rules do not discuss pivots. So if vehicles can move sideways, it follows that during a ram a vehicle can pivot thereby swinging sideways to tank shock extra units. Or it can also pivot to avoid terrain etc.

The limit on vehicles tank shocking straight forward is based upon the idea that vehciles can only move forward and backwards.

I always pivot before moving to gain that extra inch, doesn't break the rules or anything.

I'm quite confused over what is being argued here though.
You cannot pivot during movement of the model (that is the physical push of the model) you can only pivot in bursts. Plus the pivot is done in the centre of the model so I cannot quite work out how you can possibly get infinate movement.

From what I read it seems the guy is pivoting as he is phsyically pushing the model which if I remember is not allowed, you pivot before and after each movement.
E.g.
Pivot - Move inch - pivot - move 4 inches - pivot - move inch.

He seems to be be going
pivot - move inch while pivoting - pivot.
Sounds like his almost doing wheel-skids with his tanks.

I don't really see how infinite movement would be possible either (under the legal interpretation of the strategy).

While the initial pivot then move can legally add forward distance to models that are substantially longer than they are wide, I don't do it and I don't take kindly to opponents who do.

Remember that if someone isn't using the designated model for the vehicle then it's perfectly alright to call shennanigans on them for modeling for advantage. Most TOs will side in your favor. Dashofpepper had some issues with that a few years back with his "converted" venoms (it was before the venom model had come out so he wasn't entirely in the wrong) that were just old raiders and he was using the pivot for extra movement every time he moved them. It was perfectly legal but he was pushing it and his sportsmanship score suffered.

The thing is, maybe with the exception of a monolith I assume that a vehicle has to move in the direction its logicly meant to go (god knows if this is mentioned in the rulebook).
Therefore pivoting than moving is kind of expected as I doubt my raider can strafe its way around, the same as a leman-russ side-shuffling around corners.
Although no idea if this is actually written, I have this nagging feeling that I bet they haven't mentioned it.

Say you were deploying in table quarters. I dont think anyone would have an objection if you placed your rhino facing 'forward' and then turned it and moved it parallel to the long board edge. It is only when they are gaining on you that people feel cheated. It's cheesy but legit.

Pivoting alone does not count as moving.

There is nothing saying pivoting is a free movement, but there is something saying pivoting does not reduce your movement.

There is nothing saying you may gain movement from pivoting or movement from pivoting doesn't count towards a vehicles max movement.

There are limits on how each vehicle can move, and there is a line about ombining forward and backwards movement while turning not being allowed to exceed your maximum move.

Raw you cannot gain distance moved by pivoting, to due so violates not exceeding your vehicles max move.

I have yet to find this displacement lie people keep mentioning in the brb.

I have yet to find any text saying pivoting doesn't count as moving, other than the stateent that pivoting alone doesn't count as the model moving for stationary purposes. Which of course means you pivot your model about it's center point and do not move in any direction other than pivoting.

I have yet to see anyone quote a rule saying you can exceed your normal move distance by pivoting.

blaktoof wrote:Pivoting alone does not count as moving.

Correct.

There is nothing saying pivoting is a free movement, but there is something saying pivoting does not reduce your movement.

Page 57 BRB wrote:Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move,
just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on
the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’
round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.

Raw you cannot gain distance moved by pivoting, to due so violates not exceeding your vehicles max move.

Correct. Pivoting around your centerpoint, however does not increase movement distance.

I have yet to see anyone quote a rule saying you can exceed your normal move distance by pivoting.

I would care if this strawman were actually valid. No one is saying that you can increase your move distance.

"I have yet to find this displacement lie people keep mentioning in the brb.
"

So we're liars now? Displacement is a very simple term, and 40K MOVEMENT is not the same as displacement.

You are not increasing a vehicles move, you are increasing its displacement in one direction, while reducing (by the same amount) the displacement in another.

If your interpretation were correct, then pivoting WOULD decrease movement, when going round terrain - breaking arule. That is just ONE of the clues that you are wrong.

If you want to not play with this, fine - but calling people liars, and claiming they are cheating? Not a hope.

All I know is that I'm going to start scratch building looted wagons out of stretch limos. Oh what dont like that extra 6" in my movement?

Modelling for advantage. Enjoy not finding opponents to play with

You know what would solve this, VEHICLE BASES.
It would work, but...

I think people are confusing two different types of pivoting.

I think what is universally considered cheating is pivoting off an edge, and not from center. This creates a walking effect that could potentially give you extra movement.

Now, pivoting on center - which is how the brb specifically states you are to do it - will inherently give any oblong vehicle a gain or loss in movement without ever moving one inch. This is simple physics, geometry, whatever you want to call it.

Let's try a different example to see if we can't illustrate this point:

I have a land raider filled with terminators in it.
I pivot on center - as specifically stated by the rules how I am to do it - 90 degrees.
The terminators now disembark out the front, which used to be the back.

At this point in time:
a. My land raider can fire all its weapons as it has not moved, per the brb.
b. My terminators are disembarking 3 or so inches further than they would have, had the LR not moved.

How can this happen? I have magical non-movement?

Before we go any further, can we ALL agree to the following:

a. The LR has not moved yet, only pivoted. Therefore it is eligible to fire all of its weapons. Additionally, where my weapons are measured from may have gotten closer to the enemy, even though my LR has NOT moved, only pivoted.
b. My terminators have gained an additional few inches even though my LR has not moved.

Or, are you going to claim that since my weapons on the LR are closer to you, I have moved and can only fire 1 (plus 1 for PotM)? If you are holding to your claim that displacement is movement, you have to make this claim. But, since the rules say I can pivot and count as stationary, you would be incorrect.

Taking this one step further, since I have not moved yet (only pivoted), I am now entitled to move my full distance of the vehicle.

Mr.Church13 wrote:All I know is that I'm going to start scratch building looted wagons out of stretch limos. Oh what dont like that extra 6" in my movement?

You're using looted wagons? Okay....go nuts....I'll give you that "advantage"

To me it all comes down to intent. Sure lots of times players may end up gaining movement just by following the rules. Whenever you pivot an oblong vehicle and move max distance for whatever speed you want to move, you will probably gain some amount of distance, but that may or may not be the intent. Abusive (opinion) players are only getting significant free movement on their first turn unless they are changing direction by 90 degrees each turn (they can change direction by less but they won't get as much free movement).

Players that line up lengthy vehicles sideways along a deployment line and then do the pivot move usually know that they are getting extra distance and that is a significant motive behind their intent. Sure they may also be lining up that way to provide a lengthy amount of cover to whatever it is behind it, but we all know that lots of people use this in their deployment to squeak out extra movement or else this wouldn't be such a debate.

Yes it is legal, yes lots of times players will innocently benefit from it, yes lots of times people will blatantly take advantage of it on their deployment>pivot>movement. I consider it a WAAC move when done intentionally during deployment and 1st turn, despite it's legality.

This is not cheesy. In fact, cheese is merely a name people give to tactics they don't like for any number of reasons (e.g: i didn't know it worked like that; I don't like how it works; etc).

Either its legit or cheating, there is no in between.

For all the reasons already mentioned, you do change effective "displacement" without actually altering your movement by pivoting a non-square/non-circular object about its center axis. If you don't want to use this tactic, that's your own choice. But that choice is no different than not using any other option available to you.

There is no statement in the brb that pivoting doesn't count as moving, except if all you do is pivoting.

pivoting doesnt reduce a vehicles movement, does not mean pivoting can increase a vehicles movement.

raw you cannot exceed your max movement distance from where your model is before you touch it to where it is when you finish your movement.

There are no raw exceptions, including pivotting.

there is no comment about displacement anywhere in the movement section and although it is a real life term it is not a rule regarding any form of movement in the game.

You are not allowed RAW to exceed your allowed movement distance at the end of your. Move p57 brb.

Therefore if your vehicle has moved 14" when it can only go 12" you have not followed the rules. Its not a tactic, its violating RAW.

Start a Ghost Ark sideways.
Turn the Ghost Ark 90 degrees.
Move the Ghost Ark 6 inches.

What in that sequence is illegal?

blaktoof wrote:pivoting doesnt reduce a vehicles movement, does not mean pivoting can increase a vehicles movement.

You are wrong.

Rotating a rectangle is not allowed to reduce the center points forward move.

Math - and the rules - agree with my statement.'


Editing to add:
Moving a rectagle and turning it will always either increase or decrease an edge's movement. (Barring degree rotations that are multiples of 180)
It is against the rules to say it must decrease.

rigeld2 wrote:Start a Ghost Ark sideways.
Turn the Ghost Ark 90 degrees.
Move the Ghost Ark 6 inches.

What in that sequence is illegal?

Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all

War!

It specifically states you cannot exceed the max movement at the end of your move. That is a specific rule.

I am aware it states turning during movement does not count against movement. I can't find anything saying turning before moving of at the end of movement doesn't reduce movement.

can you comment on the rules specifically stating on p57 that you cannot exceed your maximum movement at the end of the mo e. Because math and rules mean 12" movement is 12" of maximum distance moved not 14+"

No one has managed to find a single rule saying you can violate that specific statement.

Why would it be in there if it wasn't a rule.

blaktoof wrote:No one has managed to find a single rule saying you can violate that specific statement.

You don't.

No one tries to.

Because you can't. And no one is saying you can.

Pivot 90 degrees.
Move 6".

Please explain what is illegal about that statement.

The spot that is measured never moves more than 6 inches.
The vehicle turns around its center.
Math wins!

Editing to add:
Full disclosure, I argued against this for quite a while until I realized that its really hard to argue with mathematics.
Itself.

You measure movement from before you move to end of movement.

You turn by pivoting about the models center.

Your distance moved at the end of your move cannot exceed your move.

You are measuring movement from the center of the model to the center which there isn't actually a rule for. Good luck finding that.

Models are moved from the edge of their bases, and vehicles are moved from their front facing to their front facing RAW not from their center point to center point, refer to the movement diagram in the brb.

blaktoof wrote:Models are moved from the edge of their bases, and vehicles are moved from their front facing to their front facing RAW not from their center point to center point, refer to the movement diagram in the brb.

Now you are getting somewhere, but missing where that is.

The point measured needs to be the same one both times.

You have no basis in the rules for your first sentence. None.

Also - I'm the same as kirsanth. I also argued against it.

If what I am saying is incorrect, turning 45 degrees will always reduce the amount the vehicle can move forward (as per its facing prior to moving).

If what I am saying is correct, the vehicle can turn as much as it likes without reducing its forward movement.

You can only pivot during your move, if it is during your move you have started moving. Therefore by the time you have pivoted you have moved. If you do nothing other than pivot you are given an exemption that you can count as remaining stationary in the brb.

So movement is measured from the vehicle before you do any moving, which includes turning as that happens during movement, not before movement. To the models position at the end of movement

rigeld2 wrote:Also - I'm the same as kirsanth. I also argued against it.

Tyranid player too, it has absolutely no advantage.

Although I have had really crazy luck with Seize the Initiative in tourneys (something like 8/13), so maybe that is a bias?

kirsanth wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Models are moved from the edge of their bases, and vehicles are moved from their front facing to their front facing RAW not from their center point to center point, refer to the movement diagram in the brb.

Now you are getting somewhere, but missing where that is.

The point measured needs to be the same one both times.

I agree the point has to be the same from start to end.

blaktoof wrote:You can only pivot during your move, if it is during your move you have started moving. Therefore by the time you have pivoted you have moved. If you do nothing other than pivot you are given an exemption that you can count as remaining stationary in the brb.

So movement is measured from the vehicle before you do any moving, which includes turning as that happens during movement, not before movement. To the models position at the end of movement

So do that? Its what we have all been saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do not mean this to read as bad as it may, but have you actually gotten a ruler and tried this?

A single move can gain 'distance' this way, without the vehicle moving further than it is allowed.
If it turns again, it loses that distance.

blaktoof wrote:
So movement is measured from the vehicle before you do any moving, which includes turning as that happens during movement, not before movement. To the models position at the end of movement

This is not true. And this is what you are failing to understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Also - I'm the same as kirsanth. I also argued against it.

Tyranid player too, it has absolutely no advantage.

Although I have had really crazy luck with Seize the Initiative in tourneys (something like 8/13), so maybe that is a bias?

I seize maybe 1/10 so that's not it.

If you have a vehicle with a move of 6 that is 5x25 are you ever allowed to move it if it rotates 90 degrees?

Or do you need to back it up to move forward?

Also, what about a raider? I think a raider is about 5" long. If I turn it 180 degrees how far can I then move it at combat speed? IF you say anything less then 6", you start to realize how wrong that interpretation is.

How do you guys feel about the following scenarios?

Scenario A:

1) Deploy a rhino facing forward
2) On turn 1, rotate the rhino 90 degrees (clockwise or counterclockwise; doesn't matter)
3) On turn 1, Move the rhino forward 12 inches

Scenario B:

Turn 1: I move my rhino forward 12 inches
Turn 2: I rotate my rhino 90 degrees and then move it forward 12 inches

Scenario C:

1) Deploy a rhino facing sideways
2) On turn 1, move the rhino 6 inches
3) On turn 1, rotate the rhino 90 degrees
4) On turn 1, move the rhino 6 inches

I'm ok with all of the above. I'm also ok with:

Scenario D:

1) Deploy a rhino facing sideways
2) On turn 1, rotate rhino 90 degrees
3) On turn 1, move forward 12 inches

This ^^^ is just being clever. No rules broken.

I don't understand how one can argue against any of these scenarios if they have read page 57 of the big rulebook.

Ever use a remote control that has two sticks on it (or play "Battlezone" at an arcade)? If you push both sticks forward, you move forward. If you push the left stick forward while pulling the right stick back, you pivot clockwise (the same sort of pivot described on page 57 of the big rulebook). I'll spare the descriptions of pivoting counter-clockwise and moving in reverse; you get it, right? This is how vehicles move in Warhammer.

mgraham wrote:How do you guys feel about the following scenarios?

Scenario A:

1) Deploy a rhino facing forward
2) On turn 1, rotate the rhino 90 degrees (clockwise or counterclockwise; doesn't matter)
3) On turn 1, Move the rhino forward 12 inches

Scenario B:

Turn 1: I move my rhino forward 12 inches
Turn 2: I rotate my rhino 90 degrees and then move it forward 12 inches

Scenario C:

1) Deploy a rhino facing sideways
2) On turn 1, move the rhino 6 inches
3) On turn 1, rotate the rhino 90 degrees
4) On turn 1, move the rhino 6 inches

I'm ok with all of the above. I'm also ok with:

Scenario D:

1) Deploy a rhino facing sideways
2) On turn 1, rotate rhino 90 degrees
3) On turn 1, move forward 12 inches

This ^^^ is just being clever. No rules broken.

I don't understand how one can argue against any of these scenarios if they have read page 57 of the big rulebook.

Ever use a remote control that has two sticks on it (or play "Battlezone" at an arcade)? If you push both sticks forward, you move forward. If you push the left stick forward while pulling the right stick back, you pivot clockwise (the same sort of pivot described on page 57 of the big rulebook). I'll spare the descriptions of pivoting counter-clockwise and moving in reverse; you get it, right? This is how vehicles move in Warhammer.

all scenarios go against raw since you have moved further then the allowed movement. If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong. Nothing in the BRB allowes you to move further then allowed .

kambien wrote:all scenarios go against raw since you have moved further then the allowed movement. If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong. Nothing in the BRB allowes you to move further then allowed .

a) you're wrong
b) So your assertion is that a Ghost Ark cannot pivot 180 degrees in one movement phase?
... that doesn't sound *slightly* ludicrous to you?

of course you can pivot 180 degrees in onve movement phase . You can pivot alone as much as you want.

kambien wrote:of course you can pivot 180 degrees in onve movement phase . You can pivot alone as much as you want.

You just can't pivot then move?

Be careful with your answer.
If you're allowing a Ghost Ark to pivot 180 degrees then move 6", then you're allowing every scenario you just disagreed with.
If you're not allowing a Ghost Ark to pivot 180 degrees then move 6", then you're breaking the rules that explicitly say pivots do not cost movement.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:of course you can pivot 180 degrees in onve movement phase . You can pivot alone as much as you want.

You just can't pivot then move?

Be careful with your answer.
If you're allowing a Ghost Ark to pivot 180 degrees then move 6", then you're allowing every scenario you just disagreed with.
If you're not allowing a Ghost Ark to pivot 180 degrees then move 6", then you're breaking the rules that explicitly say pivots do not cost movement.

correct you cannot pivot then move . You move and pivot at the same time or pivot alone and not move .

The pivot did not reduce the movement . Example - You did not measure from the front side of the hull before and after you pivoted and reduced it form the total allowed to move . That is free . Pivoting does not reduce movement.
The forward distance gained however isn't a pivot. Last i knew pivoting isn't a forward and backwards movement , which would measured , it's lateral movement.

kambien wrote:correct you cannot pivot then move . You move and pivot at the same time or pivot alone and not move .

Please cite a rule.

The pivot did not reduce the movement . Example - You did not measure from the front side of the hull before and after you pivoted and reduced it form the total allowed to move . That is free . Pivoting does not reduce movement.

So after pivoting, I still have 6" of movement left?

The forward distance gained however isn't a pivot. Last i knew pivoting isn't a forward and backwards movement , which would measured , it's lateral movement.

Right... so you don't measure pivots... so...

I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

kambien wrote:

The pivot did not reduce the movement . Example - You did not measure from the front side of the hull before and after you pivoted and reduced it form the total allowed to move . That is free . Pivoting does not reduce movement.
The forward distance gained however isn't a pivot. Last i knew pivoting isn't a forward and backwards movement , which would measured , it's lateral movement.

Wait. . . what?

Pivoting isn't movement of ANY kind; forward, backward, or lateral. Shuffling side to side (lateral movement) is not pivoting. Pivoting is the act of turning around the center point of the vehicle.

And you are, quite explicitly, allowed to pivot and move, both. And pivoting does not reduce your movement.

Regardless of whether or not you pivot, you may then, AFTER DOING SO, move 12" in any direction. In doing so, the front end of your vehicle might end up more than 12" away from where it started; the BACK end of your vehicle, however, will in that situation end up LESS than 12" away from where it started. You will still have moved 12" exactly.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kambien wrote:

The pivot did not reduce the movement . Example - You did not measure from the front side of the hull before and after you pivoted and reduced it form the total allowed to move . That is free . Pivoting does not reduce movement.
The forward distance gained however isn't a pivot. Last i knew pivoting isn't a forward and backwards movement , which would measured , it's lateral movement.

Wait. . . what?

Pivoting isn't movement of ANY kind; forward, backward, or lateral. Shuffling side to side (lateral movement) is not pivoting. Pivoting is the act of turning around the center point of the vehicle.

And you are, quite explicitly, allowed to pivot and move, both. And pivoting does not reduce your movement.

Regardless of whether or not you pivot, you may then, AFTER DOING SO, move 12" in any direction. In doing so, the front end of your vehicle might end up more than 12" away from where it started; the BACK end of your vehicle, however, will in that situation end up LESS than 12" away from where it started. You will still have moved 12" exactly.

Just for clarification i thought lateral in my above post was the correct word however after this responce you made me realizes you might think i ment the actualy moveing a modle sideways which i am not trying to imply .

Pivoting moves your model does it not ? Pivoting is movement . I can even measure the distance of the pivot if i wanted to . But the rules tell me the Pivot doesn't reduce the movement. So there is no point. What i am trying to say is that everyone seems to include forward movement gained with "pivot does not reduce movement" while they are still breaking rules by adding the distance gained in the pivot ( which it doesn't tell you to do ) and then proceed to move further then the allowed movement .

Simple question for your example. Do you measure the move before you touch the model or after you already started moving it ? Because i play you have to measure before you start moving the modle , unless someone has a rule for doing otherwise. So its actually really difficult to exceed the allowed movement. My book is pretty shoddy atm so i could be missing something .

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

i'll guess in the movement section unless you measure movement after you moved

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

i'll guess in the movement section unless you measure movement after you moved

You'll guess? What do you mean you'll guess? I'm looking at the movement section of the rulebook right now; I see nothing about "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". You're telling me that my scenarios all go against raw, but you can't tell me where your so called "rule" is written in the rulebook.

So a Space Marine player has two Land Raiders deployed sideways on his deployment zone.

For the first Land Raider, he declares a 12" tank shock perpendicular to the way the vehicle is facing. Then points at the tank shock rules on page 68 which clearly indicate that you pivot the vehicle on the spot, declare a distance, and then move the declared distance. So the side ways land raider ends up with its front side somewhere around 13" to 14" (I don't have a land raider handy to measure at the moment) from the starting line, if there's nothing in the way. Because that's explicitly what the Tank Shock rules say to do.

Then the Space marine player doesn't declare a tank shock for the second Land Raider, pivots it 90 degrees on the spot, and drives it forward as far as it will go. So the words "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move." does or does not mean that the second Land Raider moves just as far as the first one?

Note: Pay close attention to the fact that if a tank was going to be moving in a straight line anyway, the only penalty associated with a Tank Shock is the need to declare a distance before moving.

solkan wrote:So the words "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move." does or does not mean that the second Land Raider moves just as far as the first one?

They will both move the exact same distance, and have the front of the vehicle at approximately (human error) the same distance from his table edge.

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

i'll guess in the movement section unless you measure movement after you moved

You'll guess? What do you mean you'll guess? I'm looking at the movement section of the rulebook right now; I see nothing about "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". You're telling me that my scenarios all go against raw, but you can't tell me where your so called "rule" is written in the rulebook.

i guess because my book is mostly destroyed so i can't just look it up. Are you saying it is against raw to measure the distance you declare you are moving ?

kambien wrote:
Simple question for your example. Do you measure the move before you touch the model or after you already started moving it ? Because i play you have to measure before you start moving the modle , unless someone has a rule for doing otherwise. So its actually really difficult to exceed the allowed movement. My book is pretty shoddy atm so i could be missing something .

It doesn't matter for me, because I measure my vehicle's movement from the center point.

This is the difficulty with claiming that pivoting changes the distance you are allowed to move; the AMOUNT by which a pivot alters your move changes according to where you measure from! And there's no rule that says you have to measure from any specific spot.

Assume that you start perpendicular to your line of travel, pivot, and then move, ok? Furthermore, for the purpose of this exercise we'll assume the vehicle in question is 4" long.

According to the general reading (ie you are allowed to pivot and then move your full distance), you pivot on the spot and then move forward; you will gain half the length of the vehicle, or 2". The front of your vehicle ends up 14" ahead of where the side of your vehicle was before you moved.

According to your reading (measure, then pivot and move freely so that the point from which you measured ends up within your maximum move from the point it began the turn at);

If you measure from the front, the front will end up 12" away from where the side was before the move.

But if you measure from the center, the front will end up 14" away from where the side was last turn. Why? Because the center didn't move at all.

And if you measure from the rear, the front will end up 16" away, because the pivot moved the rear of your vehicle backwards!

Please note that according to your interpretation, all three of these moves are legal.

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

i'll guess in the movement section unless you measure movement after you moved

You'll guess? What do you mean you'll guess? I'm looking at the movement section of the rulebook right now; I see nothing about "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". You're telling me that my scenarios all go against raw, but you can't tell me where your so called "rule" is written in the rulebook.

i guess because my book is mostly destroyed so i can't just look it up. Are you saying it is against raw to measure the distance you declare you are moving ?

I'm saying there is no rule in the rulebook that states, "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". The rulebook does state that "vehicles turn by pivoting", "turning does not reduce a vehicle's move", "pivoting does not count as moving", and "a vehicle that only pivots does not count as moving".

In my original post, I said, "I don't understand how one can argue against any of these scenarios if they have read page 57 of the big rulebook. ". Guess that page is destroyed in your rulebook.

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:

mgraham wrote:

kambien wrote:
If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong.

Which page in the rulebook can I read about measuring from where you started to where you finished?

i'll guess in the movement section unless you measure movement after you moved

You'll guess? What do you mean you'll guess? I'm looking at the movement section of the rulebook right now; I see nothing about "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". You're telling me that my scenarios all go against raw, but you can't tell me where your so called "rule" is written in the rulebook.

i guess because my book is mostly destroyed so i can't just look it up. Are you saying it is against raw to measure the distance you declare you are moving ?

I'm saying there is no rule in the rulebook that states, "If you can use a ruler and measure from where you were to where you are and it's further then the allowed movement , you have done something wrong". The rulebook does state that "vehicles turn by pivoting", "turning does not reduce a vehicle's move", "pivoting does not count as moving", and "a vehicle that only pivots does not count as moving".

In my original post, I said, "I don't understand how one can argue against any of these scenarios if they have read page 57 of the big rulebook. ". Guess that page is destroyed in your rulebook.

you are correct it does not say that . Page 57 does includeTurning does not reduce the vehicles move, This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn provided that it does not exceed it's maximum move.
It also says on page 11 under movement distance that "it is percectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else ( even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move at all.

also you are only partialy correct in your previous statements .
Vehicles turn by pivoting - is correct
Turning does not reduce a vehicles move - is also correct
pivoting does not count as moving - this is incorrect , it should say Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving , so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary(however immoblize vehicles may not even pivot )
A vehicle that only pivots does not count as moving - This should be included in the above statement because it's in the same sentence .
i am having issues reading the top of page 57 so if it says something useful go ahead and qoute it for me .

How ever with both rules telling me not to exceed movement and being able to measure i am allowed to measure max distance from the hull of a vehicle in every direction to determine max movement . JSo if for any reason i go beyond that , i have just broken RAW because i don't have a rules that tells me otherwise.

kambien wrote:also you are only partialy correct in your previous statements .
Vehicles turn by pivoting - is correct
Turning does not reduce a vehicles move - is also correct
pivoting does not count as moving - this is incorrect , it should say Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving , so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary(however immoblize vehicles may not even pivot )
A vehicle that only pivots does not count as moving - This should be included in the above statement because it's in the same sentence .
i am having issues reading the top of page 57 so if it says something useful go ahead and qoute it for me .

Turning does not reduce a vehicles movement, and it does not add to a vehicles movement... Turning has no effect on a vehicles movement, except to show where the vehicle is pointing.

No one has ever said to move more than the maximum move. If you think someone has, please quote where they have.
You're showing a gross misunderstanding of how vehicle movement works.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:also you are only partialy correct in your previous statements .
Vehicles turn by pivoting - is correct
Turning does not reduce a vehicles move - is also correct
pivoting does not count as moving - this is incorrect , it should say Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving , so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as stationary(however immoblize vehicles may not even pivot )
A vehicle that only pivots does not count as moving - This should be included in the above statement because it's in the same sentence .
i am having issues reading the top of page 57 so if it says something useful go ahead and qoute it for me .

Turning does not reduce a vehicles movement, and it does not add to a vehicles movement... Turning has no effect on a vehicles movement, except to show where the vehicle is pointing.

No one has ever said to move more than the maximum move. If you think someone has, please quote where they have.
You're showing a gross misunderstanding of how vehicle movement works.

Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

kambien wrote:
Vehicles turn by pivoting - is correct
Turning does not reduce a vehicles move - is also correct

Thank you.

kambien wrote:Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

So that thing you were accusing people of saying - no one has.

You're just misunderstanding how the rules of vehicle movement work.
That's okay - I used to make the same incorrect assumptions.

Re-read the thread, making sure to examine all the pictures as well.
What you're saying now is that long vehicles (Ghost Ark, Valkyrie, Stormraven) cannot pivot and then move their full distance.
Well, no vehicle can, but those are the worst offenders.

Edit: oh, and no, I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. The vehicles have not moved farther than their maximum movement.

Nungunz wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1-2 inches is nothing. Try doing this with a ghost ark.

The ghost ark is about 8-10 inches long on a 2 inch base somewhere in the middle.

Lets say it's facing forward 12" from an enemy unit. If I measure from the tip of the hull 6" then PLACE THE MODEL SIDEWAYS, then rotate it to face forward. From the starting point of the tip of the hull to the ending point of the tip of the hull, it will have probably moved 10 inches.

I would not do this because from the start of the move to the end of the move, the hull moved 10". If I'm moving it the full 12", at the end of my move it will probably have moved 16". It's obviously cheating.

How so?

1) The ghost ark deployed sideways -- Nothing wrong with that
2) You pivot on the spot to face forward -- Rules say that pivoting does not count as moving...nothing wrong with that.
3) You move 12" forward measuring hull-to-hull -- Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see how the above violates any rules in the book.

And really all you've done is move your giant bunker closer to the enemy and putting you well within melta range of mech troops or very close to assault troops. Sure you "gained" movement, but you're you're risking your 115 point repair bunker.

Pros and Cons here. Pros and Cons.

Your Ghost Ark is a vehicle with a base, you must always measure from the base with it. You are cheating measuring from the hull.

About the original question: it is not a cheat by RAW, it is just a rule exploration, that could be seen as cheesy and bad...

kambien wrote:

Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

Look at my last post, kambien. Your argument actually allows someone to move FURTHER than rigelds and mine does.

Your Ghost Ark is a vehicle with a base, you must always measure from the base with it. You are cheating measuring from the hull.

Please read the rules for skimmers.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're just misunderstanding how the rules of vehicle movement work.
That's okay - I used to make the same incorrect assumptions.

Re-read the thread, making sure to examine all the pictures as well.
What you're saying now is that long vehicles (Ghost Ark, Valkyrie, Stormraven) cannot pivot and then move their full distance.
Well, no vehicle can, but those are the worst offenders.

Edit: oh, and no, I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. The vehicles have not moved farther than their maximum movement.

Correct , not the way you are measuring it.

and your edit . Are you telling me , if you move the way you say you do . and i place a ruler on the table and it shows the distance you started movement from to where your model ended , using the furthest point traveled on the model, that it would not be further then 12 inches ?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kambien wrote:

Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

Look at my last post, kambien. Your argument actually allows someone to move FURTHER than rigelds and mine does.

no it doesn't allow it to move further at all .

BeRzErKeR wrote:It doesn't matter for me, because I measure my vehicle's movement from the center point.

- thats nice but goes against raw

BeRzErKeR wrote:This is the difficulty with claiming that pivoting changes the distance you are allowed to move; the AMOUNT by which a pivot alters your move changes according to where you measure from! And there's no rule that says you have to measure from any specific spot.

- p12 the diagram shows it is incorrect to measure from a differant spot. even says NO! when they show the measuring from the front pre movement to the back post movement.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assume that you start perpendicular to your line of travel, pivot, and then move, ok? Furthermore, for the purpose of this exercise we'll assume the vehicle in question is 4" long.
According to the general reading (ie you are allowed to pivot and then move your full distance), you pivot on the spot and then move forward; you will gain half the length of the vehicle, or 2". The front of your vehicle ends up 14" ahead of where the side of your vehicle was before you moved.

Not sure why you are pivoting then moving and not pivoting and moving. The actual wording is Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. That line right there clarifies you turn when moving or further down it alows you to turn and it would count as stationary.

BeRzErKeR wrote:According to your reading (measure, then pivot and move freely so that the point from which you measured ends up within your maximum move from the point it began the turn at);
If you measure from the front, the front will end up 12" away from where the side was before the move.
But if you measure from the center, the front will end up 14" away from where the side was last turn. Why? Because the center didn't move at all.
And if you measure from the rear, the front will end up 16" away, because the pivot moved the rear of your vehicle backwards!

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

It would show a displacement furhter than 12". Good job that isnt equal to the vehicles movement, which isnt measured how you say it is measured (to the furthest point)

If I measure from the centre to the centre, I have moved 12".

Repeat: this has been legal, and a consequence of the vehicle simplified rules, since 1998. This is not cheesy, as it is known by the studio. You can choose not to do it - but that is your choice to restrict yourself.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It would show a displacement furhter than 12". Good job that isnt equal to the vehicles movement, which isnt measured how you say it is measured (to the furthest point)

are you saying the model has moved further than 12 ?

No, I am saying the model has a displacement, in one direction, greater than 12". It has a displacement in other directions less than 12". It has moved 12", however, when you actually read the rules for movement

Move is a 40k defined term. Displacement is only used on 2 occasions i can think of - TB and to-hit against vehicles in close combat

If we ttake your misreading of the rules as being correct, then pivoting ends up reducing movement. Which we know it cannot do. So your reading is wrong. Its that simple

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am saying the model has a displacement, in one direction, greater than 12". It has a displacement in other directions less than 12". It has moved 12", however, when you actually read the rules for movement

Move is a 40k defined term. Displacement is only used on 2 occasions i can think of - TB and to-hit against vehicles in close combat

If we ttake your misreading of the rules as being correct, then pivoting ends up reducing movement. Which we know it cannot do. So your reading is wrong. Its that simple

ah but did the pivot reduce the movement or did the displacment reduce the movement ?
quick question , when do you measure during the movement phase ?

The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

davidgr33n wrote:Lately I have seen players turning their vehicles sideways before their movement begins, move "forward" their full distance, then turn their vehicles facing forward again at the end of movement, giving them an extra 1 to 2 inches of movement depending on hull size. It has happened to me a few times allowing tanks that may have been out of firing distance to suddenly be able to hit my units.

Reading from the little book, it says that "pivoting alone on the spot does not count as moving", but this just seems like gaming the rules for advantage. So is this tactic legal?

I had been watching a couple of the local WH40K game nights @ the comic shop in town. the group there when turning a vehicle count that as part of the movement.

Example; a rhino moves straight ahead 5"'s then rotates to the right 3"'s then moves ahead further (and yes they to measure how far they are turning) one player even made a rule/template for just that

Yesterday I played GK at a tournament, with pitched battle deployment and got a first turn charge with my two squads of wyches. Their raiders were deployed sideways, turn 1 I pivot which gains me 2" or so, then the raider moves 12", fleet and assault. Its a tactic that I've used a lot against optimistic marine players who deploy on the 12" mark.

But I can absolutely tell you folks that at no point did the flying stands on my raiders move before I did my 12" so it is completely legal. And I use the old raiders, which are about an inch shorter than the new ones!

This is common practice in my aread with LR's, raiders ghost arks or battlewagons. You could even try it with a monolith .....
No one bats an eyelid about it. And it can backfire. I tried it with a CSM land radier a couple of weeks ago and it was immobilised in that position ha!

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

No idea where that came from , clarification ?

Agen wrote:I had been watching a couple of the local WH40K game nights @ the comic shop in town. the group there when turning a vehicle count that as part of the movement.

Example; a rhino moves straight ahead 5"'s then rotates to the right 3"'s then moves ahead further (and yes they to measure how far they are turning) one player even made a rule/template for just that

They're doing it wrong.

kambien wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

No idea where that came from , clarification ?

Clarification: He's laughing and making fun of you, then attempting to disprove what you said by using your rules to do something nonsensical, going for the win by a logical strategy called "proof by absurdity".

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

But the less square a vehicle is, the more it reduces your movement. In other words, for every other vehicle in the game, pivoting using your rules reduces movement.

Also, page 12 isn't showing what you state it shows. There is no requirement to measure from the front of a vehicle.
You are only required to measure from/to the same point - front to front, rear to rear, center to center... It doesn't matter. The result will always be the same.

kambien wrote:

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

I am not talking about measuring to a different point.

If you measure from a point along the front of the vehicle, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the front of your vehicle reaches the point you measured to, it will be 12" away from where it started.

If you measure from the center, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the center reaches the point you measured to, it will end up 12" away; but the FRONT will be 14" away.

If you measure from the rear, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the rear reaches the point you measure to, it will end up 12" away, but the FRONT will be a whopping 16" away.

There is no rule telling you where you must measure from on a vehicle; you've asserted that, but it simply doesn't exist. There is a rule saying that you cannot measure from one point on the hull to a DIFFERENT point on the hull; in none of these examples have I done that. I have followed your reading of the rule in question precisely; and, as you can see, you are actually allowing people to gain MORE distance from pivoting, not less.

lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

Instead of making snide comments with an insulting tone, why not try and explain why you think it's illegal?

Also, addressing what you're talking about would be good - there are two methods described since the OP - the one in the OP is illegal, the other is legal. There's even pictures you can use to show which method you're talking about.

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

The YMDC community has made a choice to discuss 40k rules in a particular manner. We find it to be both entertaining and eventually productive (usually). Read the tenets for a better understanding. You are not forced to be here. If you think that a serious discussion of RAW vs RAI vs HIWPI for a game of toy soldiers is un-believable and not for you, then I suggest you do something else. I hear the internet also has pictures of catz doing silly things asking for fast food.

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

Instead of making snide comments with an insulting tone, why not try and explain why you think it's illegal?

Also, addressing what you're talking about would be good - there are two methods described since the OP - the one in the OP is illegal, the other is legal. There's even pictures you can use to show which method you're talking about.

Do you know what an exploit is? It's an abuse of a glitch in the system, in the case of videogame software an exploit of the functioning rules of the game world in order to break the rules of the gameplay itself.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd. The rule that you must measure move distance from the front hull edge is clearly designed for the sake of consistency, and it's being broken for the sake of a few extra inches.

That you would actually play with anyone that abides by this rule blows me away. If you start allowing exploits, you're essentially allowing cheaters, allowing your community to get shredded with foolishness and chicanery.

Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening.

foolishmortal wrote:If you think that a serious discussion of RAW vs RAI vs HIWPI for a game of toy soldiers is un-believable and not for you, then I suggest you do something else. I hear the internet also has pictures of catz doing silly things asking for fast food.

Oh of course, the only things there are on the internet are cheezburger and 40k. Those are the only two options. The internet was not constructed as a university database or a communication model for scholarly work. There is no biology or technology or political science or current events on the internet, there is only srs bsns RAW discussions for 40k and cat pictures, and anyone daring to have the audacity to suggest RAI over RAW in a RAW designated thread must be relegated immediately to cat picture hell.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kambien wrote:

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

I am not talking about measuring to a different point.

If you measure from a point along the front of the vehicle, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the front of your vehicle reaches the point you measured to, it will be 12" away from where it started.

If you measure from the center, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the center reaches the point you measured to, it will end up 12" away; but the FRONT will be 14" away.

If you measure from the rear, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the rear reaches the point you measure to, it will end up 12" away, but the FRONT will be a whopping 16" away.

There is no rule telling you where you must measure from on a vehicle; you've asserted that, but it simply doesn't exist. There is a rule saying that you cannot measure from one point on the hull to a DIFFERENT point on the hull; in none of these examples have I done that. I have followed your reading of the rule in question precisely; and, as you can see, you are actually allowing people to gain MORE distance from pivoting, not less.

i'm totaly missing the point where they can move further then 12 inches, Is there a better example you could give ?

TedNugent wrote:Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening.

I have been playing 40k for only a few years, but some posters here have been playing for a very long time. Nosferatu is not infallible, but when he says that this has been the rule since 1998, I take that seriously. I invite you to show me a rule from 40k from the past 12 years that contradicts this.

I also invite anyone currently in the NO position to explain to me how far a 6" long vehicle can tank shock if it turns 180 degrees then tank shocks for maximum distance. I would say 12", I seem to be hearing 6"

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

But the less square a vehicle is, the more it reduces your movement. In other words, for every other vehicle in the game, pivoting using your rules reduces movement.

Also, page 12 isn't showing what you state it shows. There is no requirement to measure from the front of a vehicle.
You are only required to measure from/to the same point - front to front, rear to rear, center to center... It doesn't matter. The result will always be the same.

Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

as for page 12 you state several times you measured from the front to side/center/rear unless i read it wrong

If you measure from the front, the front will end up 12" away from where the side was before the move.
But if you measure from the center, the front will end up 14" away from where the side was last turn. Why? Because the center didn't move at all.
And if you measure from the rear, the front will end up 16" away, because the pivot moved the rear of your vehicle backwards

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

The only way I can see you gaining a significant amount of distance is with the vehicle facing in one direction, and rotating 180 degrees while moving. So for example, you start, with the back of your tank facing your opponent, while moving 12" you "pivot" the vehicle 180 degrees. Since you measured from the back of the tank to the back of the tank, that 1 point moved 6", however you just gained the entire length of the tank as well. Pivoting 90 degrees then moving, or moving then pivoting 90 degrees can gain you a couple of inches of displacement, however, you still only moved X number of inches.

foolishmortal wrote:

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

Please state where i am confused about this. Are you confused to why i am confused on how people confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is ?

TedNugent wrote:Do you know what an exploit is? It's an abuse of a glitch in the system, in the case of videogame software an exploit of the functioning rules of the game world in order to break the rules of the gameplay itself.

I'm well aware of the definition of what an exploit is. It's also an unintended consequence of how the "rules" (code in the case of a video game) work.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd.

Really? They've had 2 full editions and 14 years of FAQs to clear it up, and they haven't. That tells me that it's intended.

The rule that you must measure move distance from the front hull edge is clearly designed for the sake of consistency, and it's being broken for the sake of a few extra inches.

There is no rule requiring you to measure from the front hull edge.

That you would actually play with anyone that abides by this rule blows me away. If you start allowing exploits, you're essentially allowing cheaters, allowing your community to get shredded with foolishness and chicanery.

Your implication is disturbing - I don't mind people that do this because - wait for it... it's not that big a deal. On turn one, for some vehicles, it adds a couple of inches. ohdeargod.

Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening.

Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

there is only srs bsns RAW discussions for 40k and cat pictures, and anyone daring to have the audacity to suggest RAI over RAW in a RAW designated thread must be relegated immediately to cat picture hell.

Well, since the tenets of this subforum imply that, then yes. Also, you're arguing RAI with absolutely no backing. As I said - 14 years of precedent and 2 full editions (likely 3 since I'd bet 6 doesn't change this) means you're wrong on what's intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

Please state where i am confused about this. Are you confused to why i am confused on how people confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is ?

You're confused because you're saying with one breath that pivoting does not reduce movement, but with another breath that a non-square vehicle that pivots cannot move it's full 6 or 12" allotment.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd.
Really? They've had 2 full editions and 14 years of FAQs to clear it up, and they haven't. That tells me that it's intended.
the rule that you must measure move distance from the front hull edge is clearly designed for the sake of consistency, and it's being broken for the sake of a few extra inches.
There is no rule requiring you to measure from the front hull edge.

Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening
Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

This vehicle issue has not existed 14 years. I'm also fairly certain that it's an issue with only this edition, fairly certain 4th you turned by wheeling at the front of the vehicle. Previous e dirk nagas limits on number of 45degree turns you could make depending on vehicle speed, turns being done by wheeling at the front of the vehicle.

Also the only rule for where you measure vehicle movement is a diagram that specifically shows measuring from the front to the front. There is no raw mention of any other way to measure.

kambien wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

Please state where i am confused about this. Are you confused to why i am confused on how people confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is ?

You're confused because you're saying with one breath that pivoting does not reduce movement, but with another breath that a non-square vehicle that pivots cannot move it's full 6 or 12" allotment.

I like how the people supporting the idea that you measure your total distance before any pivots are completely unable to address the 180 degree pivot.

A 180 degree pivot turns the vehicle completely in the opposite direction. Yet, the front of the vehicle will now be the vehicle's length away from the starting position despite the fact that the vehicle occupies virtually the same space. If you had a 12" non-fast vehicle, this would result in the front having been displaced 12" away from its original location. The results of which are a vehicle that is unable to move [under this interpretation] after a simple pivot. Even better, if there was a vehicle longer than 12" or able to move less than 12", it would be unable to pivot the entire 180 degrees.

This example is why the rules were not written to work this way. This way a pivot CAN and WILL reduce movement of the vehicle which is explicitly what the rules are designed to prevent.

Dracos wrote:I like how the people supporting the idea that you measure your total distance before any pivots is complete unable to address the 180 degree pivot.

A 180 degree pivot turns the vehicle completely in the opposite direction. Yet, the front of the vehicle will now be the vehicles length away from the starting position despite the fact that the vehicle occupies virtually the same space. If you had a 12" non-fast vehicle, this would result in the front having been displaced 12" away from its original location. The results of which are a vehicle that is unable to move [under this interpretation] after a simple pivot. Even better, if there was a vehicle longer than 12" or able to move less than 12", it would be unable to pivot the entire 180 degrees.

This example is why the rules were not written to work this way. This way a pivot CAN and WILL reduce movement of the vehicle which is explicitly what the rules are designed to prevent.

Wow, great example, well said; I can't wait to see the response(s) to this one.

It's easy to address.

If you follow raw correctly, the movement rules are broken.

If you follow raw incorrectly,even in the case of measuring after pivoting which is against raw, the movement rules are broken.

The only way to follow ra for a non square vehicle and not break a rule as written in the movement section, is to move only in a straight line the whole game.

The original question in this thread was is it legal to gain extra movement by pivoting.

It is not legal.

Although it is not legal to not gain movement because doing so breaks that pivoting doesn't reduce a vehicles movement, but by not reducing a vehicles movement you break that the distance from start to finsih of a vehicle cannot exceed it's movewment.

People for this edition and the past few years play in a way that disregards the written rules regarding either when or where you measure vehicle movement from to from, or that a vehicle move a distancera further than it's actual movement. Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

I'm still confused as to how pivoting and then moving breaks the movement RAW. You may have greater displacement from where you originally were, but the rules say you can move 12". How far did you move? 12".

You don't have greater displacement. Your vehicle is taking up the exact same amount of space. It's just a differently configured amount of space.

Poor wording on my part. Trying to remember what word GW used, in regards to vehicles and movement, etc.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening
Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

This vehicle issue has not existed 14 years. I'm also fairly certain that it's an issue with only this edition, fairly certain 4th you turned by wheeling at the front of the vehicle. Previous e dirk nagas limits on number of 45degree turns you could make depending on vehicle speed, turns being done by wheeling at the front of the vehicle.

Also the only rule for where you measure vehicle movement is a diagram that specifically shows measuring from the front to the front. There is no raw mention of any other way to measure.

I fixed the quoting for you.

I played some 3rd ed. and there was no wheeling, 45 degree limits, etc. that I can recall (I played nids back then too, so for whatever that's worth).
I tend to take nosferatu1001 at his word - if he says the rules have read similarly since 1998, they probably have.

As far as where to measure movement...
a) it just doesn't matter as long as you pick the same point (front left to front left, back right to back right, center to center)
b) The diagram shows a right vs wrong way to measure - and the only "wrong" is front to back. (ie not the same point both times). There is no rule saying that front-front is the only way to measure.

1998 was when 3rd ed came out. The vehicle movement/pivoting rules have been functionally identical in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. The last one which had wheeling and such was 2nd edition.

Yes, you pivoting "gains" you a little bit of distance when you want to move at an angle to the direction your vehicle was pointed at the start of its move, if it's a vehicle which isn't a perfect square or circle. No, it's not a big problem, unless possibly someone converts a vehicle to be humongously longer than it is wide, in which case that falls under modeling for advantage, and you refuse to play against it in a friendly (unless you can see your opponent is deliberately not taking advantage of it), and the TO disqualifies it in a tournament.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Nope, just you, over and over and over. You have yet to actually find a single rule that says what you claim are the rules.

You are also wildly incorrectly on your history. 3rd 4th and 5th have all used the same fundamental system for vehicle movement.

The RAW fully allows you to perform this "trick", and have done for 14 years. Theyre not going to change just because you've decided they dont work.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Please cite the page number. I'll be nice and not require the paragraph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Nope, just you, over and over and over. You have yet to actually find a single rule that says what you claim are the rules.

You are also wildly incorrectly on your history. 3rd 4th and 5th have all used the same fundamental system for vehicle movement.

The RAW fully allows you to perform this "trick", and have done for 14 years. Theyre not going to change just because you've decided they dont work.

by following RAW you have move your vehicle further then allowed because you added the displacement and no where in the rules does it tell you to.If so site the page

Do we really need to do this thread again? We do it about once a year. Can't we put up an FAQ somewhere that....oh...wait, we did that. If you are new to 40k, and you are new to understanding the rules, do not immediately assume you know more than people who have been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you. There are no rules mentioning displacement for people to quote because the rulebook does not talk about displacement; it talks about movement.

If I was playing Necrons (my main army) and you told me I couldn't pivot and move my ghost arks, that would be our last game. If I wanted to move 6" with my monolith, and turn it around to dump guys out behind it so they could get cover, and you told me I couldn't pivot it because its front had already moved 6" that would also be our last game.

To deny necrons an entire movement phase with one of their vehicles simply because you have a minority (and also incorrect) interpretation of the rule is more cheating to me than simply allowing it to happen. The vehicle movement rules break down if you understand them incorrectly.

Oh, and good luck turning to assault a unit 8" behind your defiler. You can't reach it.

rigeld2 wrote:You don't have greater displacement. Your vehicle is taking up the exact same amount of space. It's just a differently configured amount of space.

Happyjew wrote:Poor wording on my part. Trying to remember what word GW used, in regards to vehicles and movement, etc.

No, perfectly fine wording on your part, consistent with the past usage in this thread. Really good ambiguous English language nitpicking on rigeld's part.

The 40k 5th ed BRB doesn't use the term 'displacement' AFAIK. p63 (rolling to hit against vehicles) and p76 (turbo-boosters) describe a very similar concept, and I believe that is what most people here are referring to when they talk about displacement.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Do we really need to do this thread again? We do it about once a year. Can't we put up an FAQ somewhere that....oh...wait, we did that.

Please link it.

Also, thank you for your work on the necron faq thread.

I think he means the first seven pages of this thread.

Ghaz wrote:I think he means the first seven pages of this thread.

No, I found it http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page Great reading. Interesting to see who is still here, who has mellowed over time, and who was always cynical.

Edit: I had a thought last night. For those that think that a pivot is somehow counts as movement without counting as movement. If a vehicle pivots in area terrain, does it take a DTT? I believe it is generally established that it does not, but I'm not sure how you would reconcile this with your position.

"by following RAW you have move your vehicle further then allowed because you added the displacement and no where in the rules does it tell you to.If so site the page "

Cite

That is a nonsense sentence - I have not "added the displacement" - whatever that means

Pivoting does not reduce movement. Your interpretation, as has been shown by *many* examples now (which you failed to address, ever), results in a reduction in vehicles movement. Your interpretation is refuted, simply by this fact.

I was joking with the monolith earlier BTW incase anyone thought i was serious..

Here's my interpretation:

Distances are measured as if from the pivot point, always. Measuring from the tips of the hull is just a shortcut that works 99% of the time. Pivoting thus NEVER makes the model move forward. It's just a tactic that takes advantage of using an imperfect shortcut to the rules instead of going by the rules.

That's RAI for me.

So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

yellowfever wrote:So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

No, you can't. You always pivot around the center of the vehicle; you don't get to pick which point you pivot around.

Pivoting will, once, gain you half the length of your vehicle in displacement towards the enemy. That's all.

The funny thing is that you don't even gain half the vehicle's length. You gain half the vehicles length MINUS half the vehicle's width.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

yellowfever wrote:So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

No, you can't. You always pivot around the center of the vehicle; you don't get to pick which point you pivot around.

This.

Dracos wrote:The funny thing is that you don't even gain half the vehicle's length. You gain half the vehicles length MINUS half the vehicle's width.

And this.

I turn the vehicle with the front facing the direction I want to go. Then I measure my movement. Then I pivot again if I want. This way I'm not gaining any extra distance and still freely pivoting. No one has ever complained about it.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:ND, I wasted my time building this diagram to show how your steps don't work:

This is the way I play it, and seems legit. It's impossible to gain extra inches so I don't see the issue...

Cryage wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:ND, I wasted my time building this diagram to show how your steps don't work:

This is the way I play it, and seems legit. It's impossible to gain extra inches so I don't see the issue...

Stop at step 2 and you gained a few inches compared if the vehicle deployed facing forward. You can disembark from the front part of the hull. Seems to work just fine.

Sorry to butt in but are we suggesting that vehicles can move sideways?

Probably ok for 'copters and skimmers etc but seems a bit odd for wheeled or track vehicles?

I think is very illegal. Like the previous poster said, skimmers and flyers only. Ive seen guys do that with tanks but they clearly are stated that they must PIVOT on SPOT and then move. If they pivot into a wall or something then its a dangerous terrain test.

They cant just simply move sideways to avoid it.

Whether vehicles can move sideways is ambiguous in the rules. By default the basic infantry movement rules apply to all other unit types, except where those unit types tell you they work differently. Infantry can move sideways or in any direction. The vehicle rules tell us that vehicles can combine forward and backward movement, which implies that maybe they can't move sideways, but they don't come out and say that explicitly. I've seen it played both ways, though most commonly as not allowing sideways.

I agree with Mannahnin.

Though not stated outright, it is heavily implied that vehicles can only move backwards and forwards.

This has the added bonus of negating the "infinite movement"-trick that the No-crowd uses as a scare tactic.

Which is negated already by the requirement to pivot around the centre.

The very beginning of the rules for vehicles states that vehicles follow the other rules for units, except where the vehicle rules change things (very bad paraphrase on my part but my brb isnt here at the moment). This is what gives strength to the idea that the later wording on vehicles moving forward and backwards places a limitation on how vehicles may move.



Sliggoth

Except where they *specify* otherwise. Being told you can combine forwards and back movement doesnt alter that you are initially given permission to move in any idrection (infantry), and does not specifically state otherwise

Right, thats one of the readings of how those two rules apply.

The other is that since the vehicle rules specify that vehicles can move forward and/ or backwards, then thats how they can move.




Either seems to be a valid interpretation given the minimal information in the brb. However, allowing vehicles to be moved in any direction regardless of orientation does create some strange possible situtations then in tank shock/ rams. Tank shocks do have slightly different rules yet for movement...but if vehicles can be moved in any direction regardless of orientation then we do have a problem. Since pivots can be taken at any time during movement, there is then no reason that a tank shocking vehicle cannot pivot during a tank shock--- under this reading of the rules.

There are convoluted ways to argue that tank shocking vehicles cannot pivot, altho the simple answer to the tank shock problem is to simply follow the idea that the vehicle rule telling us that vehicles can move forward and backward is indeed a limitation imposed on vehicles.


Sliggoth

man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

I don't see why people get so hung up on moving sideways. As long as you are not going through other models, what is the difference between:

a. pivoting model to face "travel" direction
b. moving model said amount of distance
c. pivoting back to original facing

vs.

a. move model said amount of distance

As for the rest, I am just of the opinion now that if you consider gaining extra movement off of pivoting, you just don't have a good grasp of geometry. I would put it on par with people who say the probability of rolling 5 dice and getting all 1's is greater than rolling a 1 on the same die 5 times in a row.

totentanzen wrote:man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

then dont deploy within 26" of the enemy (or 32" with the 12" charge....)

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You don't have greater displacement. Your vehicle is taking up the exact same amount of space. It's just a differently configured amount of space.

Happyjew wrote:Poor wording on my part. Trying to remember what word GW used, in regards to vehicles and movement, etc.

No, perfectly fine wording on your part, consistent with the past usage in this thread. Really good ambiguous English language nitpicking on rigeld's part.

The 40k 5th ed BRB doesn't use the term 'displacement' AFAIK. p63 (rolling to hit against vehicles) and p76 (turbo-boosters) describe a very similar concept, and I believe that is what most people here are referring to when they talk about displacement.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Do we really need to do this thread again? We do it about once a year. Can't we put up an FAQ somewhere that....oh...wait, we did that.

Please link it.

Also, thank you for your work on the necron faq thread.

And thank you for your interest. Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

totentanzen wrote:man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

then dont deploy within 26" of the enemy (or 32" with the 12" charge....)

Ok i was a youngin back then and thought it was always best to cram everything to the front line.... i didn't really think much back then ha

Just to get this clear in my head is this the situation we are saying?

Distance A and Distance B are the same but in the top example the vehicle starts facing perpendicular to its axis of movement, measures its move from the side of the hull moves sideways for distance A then pivots the front around and ends up slightly over the line.

B simply drives forward measuring the distance from the front of the hull?

Your beginning and end situations are correct for A and B. For A, instead of moving sideways, you
1) pivot 90 (pivot on center of vehicle)
2) travel forward full move

edit : the question at hand is whether or not A has broken any rules. Read the post for rules citations and tell us what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

No problem. 9 times out of 10 I either enjoy people's snarkiness or just smile and move on. That tenth time, my own snarkiness reacts to set up some sort of snarkiness reverberation field and I end up saying something quite funny or something that I regret. Or both.

foolishmortal wrote:Your beginning and end situations are correct for A and B. For A, instead of moving sideways, you
1) pivot 90 (pivot on center of vehicle)
2) travel forward full move

edit : the question at hand is whether or not A has broken any rules. Read the post for rules citations and tell us what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

No problem. 9 times out of 10 I either enjoy people's snarkiness or just smile and move on. That tenth time, my own snarkiness reacts to set up some sort of snarkiness reverberation field and I end up saying something quite funny or something that I regret. Or both.

Yeh I have read the posts mate, it just seemed there was a bit of confusion as to what actually was being done to get the extra movement I think it is the A case.

The way you say A is I think the correct and legal way, i.e. you must point in the direction of travel, A as I have drawn it is I think "not cricket" as it requires the vehicle to move sideways and gains you a small bit of extra distance travelled.

The point is it doesnt matter what you do; if you are sideways, and pivot 90 degrees, you gain displacement in one direction whether you do the pivot at the beginning or end.

Yeh I am seeing that, it's why I asked as I couldn't see how you were really gaining anything.

I suppose if you deploy sideways it could be seen as a bit cheesey without being actually illegal.

I feel it important to note that it states you "turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point". The wording clearly indicates you will never actually be moving the model and turning it at the same time. Instead you stop so you can "pivot on the spot" and then resume moving in the desired facing. Each time you do this though the relative positions of the vehicles sides by which you are measuring the vehicles movement will all change in relation to their points of origin so to get an accurate measure of the total movement every move in a different facing should be measured separately and totaled.

"You can pivot any number of times while moving" (is the rough quote) - you dont stop moving, pivot, resume moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"You can pivot any number of times while moving" (is the rough quote) - you dont stop moving, pivot, resume moving.

Yes and it says you do so by "pivoting on the spot". This indicates the player must halt the models movement to change it's facing.

The words your looking for are
"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model"
The very next sentance says
"Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round"

A spot being a single point to change the models facing from which the player may then resume measuring out the models movement. They may do this as my times as they like.

If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement.

"If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement."


LOL if you want to get silly you can do this you are just pivoting an infinite amount of times over an infinite amount of "spots" as your moving.

Magpie wrote:"If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement."


LOL if you want to get silly you can do this you are just pivoting an infinite amount of times over an infinite amount of "spots" as your moving.

Yes, you could do that so long as you measure and tally the total move between each 'spot' you're legit. Of course getting that opponent to play with you again might be hard after you took an hour to move one model. Especially if your moving in a straight line where you could just move the model in the original facing to where you want it to be and then turn for your final facing for the same end effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as moving sideways I don't thingk it's possible to drift a Land Raider but the rules don't say you can't so I'd let it slide.

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Do you know what an exploit is? It's an abuse of a glitch in the system, in the case of videogame software an exploit of the functioning rules of the game world in order to break the rules of the gameplay itself.

I'm well aware of the definition of what an exploit is. It's also an unintended consequence of how the "rules" (code in the case of a video game) work.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd.

Really? They've had 2 full editions and 14 years of FAQs to clear it up, and they haven't. That tells me that it's intended.

That doesn't tell you it's intended. There are two possibilities outside of it being intended, both of which appear to me to be plausible. One, they were unaware of the specific rule issue by means of oversight or lack of specific complaints. Two, they are aware of the issue but could not craft a rule with language that specifically barred this exploit without affecting the language in some other undesirable way. In either case, the rule could be unintended.

rigeld2 wrote:

The rule that you must measure move distance from the front hull edge is clearly designed for the sake of consistency, and it's being broken for the sake of a few extra inches.

There is no rule requiring you to measure from the front hull edge.

That is correct. I expressed that poorly.

On page 12 of the rulebook, you get a diagram that looks something like this



The accompanying description is something to this effect:

The top picture is an incorrect way to move your models. The bottom picture is the correct way to move your models. When moving your model, do not place the model on the far side of the tape measure (as in the top picture). Place your model such that the far side touches the end of the tape measure (bottom picture). While this is not a significant difference for small base models, when using a large base model such as a Rhino, "it might almost double the move."

My interpretation of this rule is as follows. First, notice the interest from GW in controlling movement distances. They recognize that adding the length of a base is a significant addition to the listed movement distance. Second, the actual diagram itself illustrates a translation movement. While I don't think this limits your ability to negotiate impassable terrain and negotiate it accordingly, I think it is intended to illustrate that the maximum distance you are intended to cover is represented by the max distance allowed in a movement as measured by a translated model, end to end, both ends being identical.

However, page 11 in the BRB says that you are allowed to turn your models in any direction during the actual move. This means that you can turn your model while negotiating the actual movement. The same section also says that models can be turned at any time during the shooting phase. It also says, however, that moving your models during the movement phase does not affect "the distance they are able to cover," e.g. as measured by translation of the model, end-to-end, as previously established. This means that you can turn as you like during the actual move, but for purposes of determining the total move distance, the model must be placed the total move distance as measured end-to-end from a translation movement, as per the diagram. No turning shenanigans can affect your total move distance.

Interpreted in the preceding fashion, the rules now establish that you can turn sideways before the start of the turn, ending it also facing sideways. In the subsequent shooting phase, you could turn the model to face lengthwise. Technically this means that you have covered a greater distance, however, if you think about it, not only is this legal in RAW, but it isn't even a greater distance covered than if you had simply translated the model across the same distance while facing lengthwise, since the distance covered by the end of the turn in the shooting phase would be exactly the same as the distance between the models end to end facing lengthwise. This is consistent with the rules as intended revealed on page 12, because the author clearly states that the difference between measuring ends on a base, even when it is a trivial amount, affects the distance measured and has to be controlled to prevent abuse when moving models with large bases. The same principle applies here. The only thing we are prohibiting here is the ability to measure from the end of a base different from the farthest end at the start of the motion, which is not specifically allowed anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magpie wrote:Just to get this clear in my head is this the situation we are saying?

Distance A and Distance B are the same but in the top example the vehicle starts facing perpendicular to its axis of movement, measures its move from the side of the hull moves sideways for distance A then pivots the front around and ends up slightly over the line.

B simply drives forward measuring the distance from the front of the hull?

That diagram is inaccurate because the bottom example does not begin at the same position as the top example. Rather than measuring from the center pivot point to determine whether the models were at the same distance, you just put them on the same starting point. If you pivot the top example and then translate the same move, you would get the same distance covered as in the top example.

e.g. it should look more like this

TedNugent wrote:That doesn't tell you it's intended. There are two possibilities outside of it being intended, both of which appear to me to be plausible. One, they were unaware of the specific rule issue by means of oversight or lack of specific complaints. Two, they are aware of the issue but could not craft a rule with language that specifically barred this exploit without affecting the language in some other undesirable way. In either case, the rule could be unintended.

Fourteen years of Grand Tournaments, Games Days, etc. Makes the chance of number one being true so minute it doesn't even bear consideration.

Number two also doesn't stand up. If they know it is in the game and it was not fixed, then it is intentionally in the game. Its not like they're looking for a cure for cancer.

Why is it ignored that you must turn by "pivoting on the spot about their centre-point" according to the RAW? As in you turn, move a bit, turn, move a bit turn, etc. as many times as you like. You measure each move and keep the total under your max movement.

TedNugent wrote:My interpretation of this rule is as follows. First, notice the interest from GW in controlling movement distances. They recognize that adding the length of a base is a significant addition to the listed movement distance. Second, the actual diagram itself illustrates a translation movement. While I don't think this limits your ability to negotiate impassable terrain and negotiate it accordingly, I think it is intended to illustrate that the maximum distance you are intended to cover is represented by the max distance allowed in a movement as measured by a translated model, end to end, both ends being identical.

You're still confusing movement with displacement. You should stop doing that. Once you do, you realize that we are 100% in agreement that you cannot move more than your allowed movement. You'd also understand why the pivot trick works and why longer vehicles gain more distance.

TedNugent wrote:[That diagram is inaccurate because the bottom example does not begin at the same position as the top example. Rather than measuring from the center pivot point to determine whether the models were at the same distance, you just put them on the same starting point. If you pivot the top example and then translate the same move, you would get the same distance covered as in the top example.

yes it SHOULD look like your example but what I was asking is it the A case where the vehicle moves sideways, measuring it's distance from side of hull start to side of hull end then turns to face front, thus gaining a bit.

I wasn't suggesting what you should do it , rather asking if CASE A is how people move to cheat the extra distance.

Seems funny to me that you would allow a tracked vehicle to move sideways, but maybe not so for a skimmer.

Magpie wrote:yes it SHOULD look like your example but what I was asking is it the A case where the vehicle moves sideways, measuring it's distance from side of hull start to side of hull end then turns to face front, thus gaining a bit.

I wasn't suggesting what you should do it , rather asking if CASE A is how people move to cheat the extra distance.

Seems funny to me that you would allow a tracked vehicle to move sideways, but maybe not so for a skimmer.

It's not "cheating" the extra distance. It's a different displacement.

And please, for the love of the Emperor, stop trying to apply real world physics to 40k rules. It does not work out in your favor.

Point is tho' is the example case A I drew they way the additional displacement or what ever is gained?

Magpie wrote:Point is tho' is the example case A I drew they way the additional displacement or what ever is gained?

It's one way. Or, you pivot before moving, then move. Same end result with less "sideways" movement.

Yeh OK I see now, I have to say I can't really see anything wrong with that, it could be an intentional grab for extra or it could simply be a function of a normal move.

Magpie wrote:Yeh OK I see now, I have to say I can't really see anything wrong with that, it could be an intentional grab for extra or it could simply be a function of a normal move.

Your diagram doesn't illustrate that it's possible to grab extra distance by pivoting before movement. Your diagram illustrates that if you move the center point of a model forward then the center point will move farther.

If you put the center points of a model at the same starting point, the distance covered by pivoting about that center point does not change regardless of whether you pivot at the start of the move or afterwards. Notice how my corrected diagram reflects this by placing the center points at the same starting point. Both the top example and the bottom example cover the exact same distance.

TedNugent wrote:If you put the center points of a model at the same starting point,

But you can't do that. The original line is the limit of your deployment zone and you're not allowed to cross it.
So you deploy sideways, with the side of your vehicle on the deployment line.
The center of the model will be closer to the deployment line than the center of the same model if you deployed facing forward.
Sideways deploy, pivot forward will have the centerpoint ahead of a vehicle deployed with the front of the model at the deployment line.

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:If you put the center points of a model at the same starting point,

But you can't do that. The original line is the limit of your deployment zone and you're not allowed to cross it.
So you deploy sideways, with the side of your vehicle on the deployment line.
The center of the model will be closer to the deployment line than the center of the same model if you deployed facing forward.
Sideways deploy, pivot forward will have the centerpoint ahead of a vehicle deployed with the front of the model at the deployment line.

Oh. That makes sense.

Then you could gain a head start at the start of deploment.

TedNugent wrote:Then you could gain a head start at the start of deploment.

Which is what this entire thread has been about.

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Then you could gain a head start at the start of deploment.

Which is what this entire thread has been about.

Oh. Derp. Well I've got nothing else to say then. I agree.