So I've heard this theory that placing a Land Raider sideways at the edge of your deployment zone and then, on your first turn, pivoting it to face forward before movement is a legal way of gaining a couple extra inches of movement, the downside being, that your tank's side armor is exposed to enemy fire (not a problem though, if it is a Land Raider or Rhino - obviously this trick wont go well with Chimeras) if your opponent goes first or manages to steal the initiative.

I tried it with my Crusader and actually it's not possible - it only works if the hull of the Land Raider is at the edge of your deployment zone, but that would be illegal as then the weapon sponson would be jutting beyond the edge of your deployment zone. So, if you place your LR sideways in such a way that the side sponson is also within the deployment zone, then pivoting it around will make no difference (I measured).

However, it works with Rhinos, although, due to their smaller size, the additional movement you gain is, at best, 1 inch.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I do it all the time. Totally legitimate. And despite seeing some pretty intense venom for the practice spewed here on Dakka, I've never had an opponent even blink an eye over it.

I would have no issue with this at all and I may try it myself. Besides, I don't think anyone is going to get worked up over a land raider doing this.

Some of the Dark Eldar or Necron vehicles, which are longer and slimmer (and open topped!) can get a little more advantage out of the maneuver.

Except if you are pre measuring to keep the land raiders multi melta from getting bonus armor pen.

Any turn you pivet should reduce your movement by an inch its only fair. It's OK though I do it with ork trukkz.

Never even considered it. THen again, most everything that starts near the enemy on my table is Scouting, heh.

That sounds pretty silly and pretty gamey. It seems perfectly legal, but not like something I'd do because of the aforementioned factors.

If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

I think I'd just say "dude, really?" before causing property damage.

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

If someone did that to my Raider I would report them to the police and demand restitution.

@Rismonite

Pre measuring of any sort is Kosher in 40k.

If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

If people will go to tricks to gain an advantage.

Why put the guns at the back? Exposing more of the tank to fire, surely they would want the best cover save.

Because then the doors will be closer to the front. Personally, that's MORE of an advantage to me, since my Land Raider's primary purpose is as a terminator transport, not a firing platform. And honestly, I give less than two farts about exposing my tank to enemy fire. I have yet to have my Land Raider shot open in this edition. Thus far every time it's been destroyed has been in assault. For me, having the bolters in the forward slots is far more effective than the other way around.

 loki old fart wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

If people will go to tricks to gain an advantage.

Why put the guns at the back? Exposing more of the tank to fire, surely they would want the best cover save.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, people do everything they can just to gain an advantage. Some people will model their Wraithknights/Riptides to be squatting/kneeling for LOS bonuses and whatnot. This is usually called MFA and is frowned on though not against the rules.

There is some debate whether putting the Land Raider guns on the front is okay or not. I don't really understand it myself since if GW didn't want us to they wouldn't make it so easy to model it that way. I suppose people just don't like it when you give yourself an advantage before the game even starts.

Next land raider I get, both weapons are going to be on one side. That way I can use the LR hull to BLOS to a unit and then fire all weapons from the other side.

We can call it the Land Raider broadside.

I use it with Trukks and Battlewagons. They both have massive sides, so gain at least a solid 3 inches or so. One advantage of having a tiny front section and ridiculously long side sections is this tactic, and helps recoup at least some of the disadvantage of having a side 3 times as long as the front (or more, with a Deffrolla)

And nobody can really cry about it because hey, guess what, it's Orks.

It is gaming the rules and borderline cheating. While I wont throw the models across the room as one person suggested, you will not be getting another game from me if you cheat like this. I think my group would politely ask them to stop doing it or leave and not return.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
There is some debate whether putting the Land Raider guns on the front is okay or not. I don't really understand it myself since if GW didn't want us to they wouldn't make it so easy to model it that way. I suppose people just don't like it when you give yourself an advantage before the game even starts.

In 5th edition and prior, having the exit doors at the front helped unloading a huge squad (like a Crusader squad) as you couldnt place all of them within 2" of the assault ramp.

In 6th edition it is pretty moot as your squad can conga line out of the assault ramp and upto 6" away.

So here is what it really boils down to:

A) Put the guns on front: 1.5" more forward range (useful for double-tapping the Hurricane Bolters or being able to "lick" the enemy gunline with your Flamestorm Cannons)

B) Put the guns at the back: the guns can target units that are trying to assault the land raider's rear quarter. If the guns are at the front it is pretty easy for the enemy to flank attack the Raider as the sponsons do NOT have a 180° fire arc, but a 90° one due to the shield blocking the sponsons from fully turning.

So as you can see both mounts have their advantages and disadvantages

Stormbreed wrote:If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

No, no you wouldn't.

Col. Dash wrote: While I wont throw the models across the room as one person suggested, you will not be getting another game from me if you cheat like this. I think my group would politely ask them to stop doing it or leave and not return.

I don't really think it's "cheating". Is it making pivot rules work to your advantage in a way the writers may not have intended? Sure. But Cheating implies breaking a rule, not abusing it's loophole.

It's more of a cheap-trick that's maybe a little underhanded.

Definitely within the rules as written though.

-TheCaptain

I have less of a problem with this than I do with people putting non-skimmer tanks on top of the Skyshield.

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

And then the real fun would ensue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have less of a problem with this than I do with people putting non-skimmer tanks on top of the Skyshield.

What's the rationale for them doing that? They were placed up there by fliers before the battle?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have less of a problem with this than I do with people putting non-skimmer tanks on top of the Skyshield.

Doesnt the Skyshield have a lift?

 Sir Arun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have less of a problem with this than I do with people putting non-skimmer tanks on top of the Skyshield.

Doesnt the Skyshield have a lift?

No. The extent of it's access methods is ladders. Or jumping.

-

Wouldn't bother me to have an opponent do it, it's not game breaking and frankly i want them to get closer to me.

If it sounds truly dumb to a new person then I dont do it.

"Why is the tank sideways?"

"to squeeze in extra movement."


That to me sounds really really silly so I wouldnt do it. Nor would I be pleased if my opponent did it. Tanks have movement values for a reason, keep to it in my opinion. Otherwise why not give everything else extra movement. Its the same thing.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If it sounds truly dumb to a new person then I dont do it.

"Why is the tank sideways?"

"to squeeze in extra movement."


That to me sounds really really silly so I wouldnt do it. Nor would I be pleased if my opponent did it. Tanks have movement values for a reason, keep to it in my opinion. Otherwise why not give everything else extra movement. Its the same thing.

To be fair, you could say the land raider was driving in that direction until the enemy appeared on their sensors. I understand what you mean though.

To those who are against it, why? It is not like its a whole lot of extra movement and it probably wont alter the course of the game. Is it the principle?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
To those who are against it, why? It is not like its a whole lot of extra movement and it probably wont alter the course of the game. Is it the principle?

It's just silly, exploiting a hole in the rules. Not illegal, not cheating, just feels against the spirit of the rules.

If they are gonna bend the rules for a few inches on movement, what else are they gonna do in the game?

They also have the wrong attitude if they are behaving this way. They dont seem fun to play against at all.

You can tell a lot about your opponent in the movement phase.

I have seen it done with landspeeders. Its situation dependent, as in they have first turn and there are meltas on the landspeeders. Also deployment type aids or hampers this tactic huge. that extra inch can mean the difference between 1 or 2 dice for a possible pen with melta.

RAW, Its not cheating, but it does tell you the type of player you are about to throw down with.

It pretty much only nets bonus movement on the first turn, but is indeed silly.

Sometimes I wish you measured movement of models from their center and not the edge of their base...but then people would argue over where the center is.

I've done this a few times, and really don't see the issue.
In my case it was to use the Devilfish with Pathfinders and recon drone. With the pivot, scout, and flat out move it gets you within 6" of the back table edge turn 1.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue. It's a small movement increase due to planning out a movement. Would you also declare someone to be abusing what's allowed by shooting a FMC with a skyfire weapon first to try and knock it down? If someone can show me how it's unsportsman like or against the rules, I'd change my mind. Nobody in my area has ever had an issue doing this and it comes up pretty frequently.

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

No you wouldn't

Totally legal, and known to the studio since 1998.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've done this a few times, and really don't see the issue.
In my case it was to use the Devilfish with Pathfinders and recon drone. With the pivot, scout, and flat out move it gets you within 6" of the back table edge turn 1.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue. It's a small movement increase due to planning out a movement. Would you also declare someone to be abusing what's allowed by shooting a FMC with a skyfire weapon first to try and knock it down? If someone can show me how it's unsportsman like or against the rules, I'd change my mind. Nobody in my area has ever had an issue doing this and it comes up pretty frequently.

Shooting down a creature and then shooting it on the ground while having an easier time makes sense. Turning your vehicle to GET EXTRA (HUGE EMPHASIS ON EXTRA) movement is rediculious.

The FMC is more like a tactic, the pivoting tank is more shady.

I dont see why its so hard to move your tanks normally like most people do.

Move normally? You mean like pivoting in place and then moving forward?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Move normally? You mean like pivoting in place and then moving forward?

That is not normal. Infact its freakishly anti normal...

Its pretty clear where i satnd on this. If someone did this at my club id give them one warning to be sensible or leave. The hobby doesnt need people like this

So you can go to your next game feeling smug as a bug, but at the end of the day, doing this makes you a jackass in my books...

That's fine. If I saw anybody trying to move flat out with a vehicle I'd tell them I never want to play against them either. Just because it's in the rules and perfectly allowed doesn't give them the right to do it. The nerve of some people. Doing things within the confines of the rule set.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
That's fine. If I saw anybody trying to move flat out with a vehicle I'd tell them I never want to play against them either. Just because it's in the rules and perfectly allowed doesn't give them the right to do it. The nerve of some people. Doing things within the confines of the rule set.

Just because you can doesnt mean you should...

I wouldn't be happy using this, it kinda reeks of people patting themselves on the back and feeling smug about how they'v "beat" the system.

I doubt its intended... i mean a tank that pivots shouldn't move farther in fluff reasons if im understanding what we are talking about....

Being said if someone did it i wouldn't like it but from a rules standpoint if its legal then , what can you do? i would ask them not but if they refused id have no choice but to let them.

Why not then? You're willing to agree that it's legal, but I've yet to see someone explain why you shouldn't do it. I'm exposing side armor on a vehicle with a skimmer base. I pivot on that base as I'm allowed and then move forward.

Can anyone explain to me what I'm doing wrong? Is it wrong to do it because it's giving me an advantage? If I have a Bike Chapter Master with the Eternal shield leading bikers, and I use terrain to block LOS to the CM and kill off the bikes, that's giving me an advantage? Should I not use the rules to play for advantage? It's kinda cheap, isn't it? I'm completely ignoring the expensive bike model that is meant to tank wounds, isn't that unfair to my opponent?

It's probably wrong because it hurts the "narrative being forged" when you see tanks taking a left turn before hurling forth into battle.

"If they are gonna bend the rules for a few inches on movement, what else are they gonna do in the game?

They also have the wrong attitude if they are behaving this way. They dont seem fun to play against at all.

You can tell a lot about your opponent in the movement phase. "

If you are willing to bend the rules ("it doesnt say I cant... so i can do it") then clearly you are gonna do a lot more than just that. It also is like taking rediculious ally combinations "because you can" and so forth. There is no skill or tactics involved. All you are doing is reducing the game to a bunch of loopholes and shenanigans which contributes nothing to the game.

There are many ways you can loophole the rules im sure, but just because you can doesnt mean you should. Its a very childish way of looking at things.

The tactic you mentioned to me is legitimate, the pivot movment is not legitimate.

If you cant see the lead biker you cant hit him. Sounds about right.

If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

No i said abusing the rules "because you are allowed" takes no skill. Yes i think ill of you for your method of play. I think its wrong.

At the end of the day its up to you and your opponent. I wouldnt stand for it. Nor would I ever do it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Wouldnt get as far as the tank that pivots before it starts its forward movement, because the moment the tank that started the race/match facing forward begins moving forward, is the moment it has started to cover distance, while the front end of the tank that pivoted ends up being a tad bit further without it even having begun to move forward. And as long as the centre of gravity of both tanks remains on the same spot, you can't accuse the pivoting tank of having moved forward

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Wouldnt get as far as the tank that pivots before it starts its forward movement, because the moment the tank that started the race/match facing forward begins moving forward, is the moment it has started to cover distance, while the front end of the tank that pivoted is a tad bit further without it even having begun to move forward.

but you are ignoring time as a factor. the tank that doesnt pivot overall will move a greater distance than the one that pivots. Because it takes time to pivot.

To be honest i think the writers of the rules would have the same answer as Swastakowey, theres a whole section on this before they even go into the nitty bitty rules in the book.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

Presumably a race also involves time. The time taken to turn is time lost to move forward.

All of which is immaterial. Since this isn't a discussion about real life, and even the slowest tanks in 40k can turn on a dime in 0 seconds.

I'm in the "it's legal, but you're still a dick" camp. For some vehicles, there is literally 0 disadvantage to this.

One of my armies is Space Marines, and because I am bad at 40k, I tend to run land speeders with 2 multimeltas. By deploying sideways, I give up nothing. My front and side armors are both 10. But deploying sideways and turning gives me the extra half inch I need to be in melta range on turn 1 for both multimeltas.

Can I do it? Sure. Like many things, it's RAW. Should I do it? No. It clearly goes against the intention of the neutral space of deployment. Would I do it? Heck no.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

It's silly, and immersion-breaking, because tanks turn more slowly than they drive.

I miss the days when turning took up movement on tracked vehicles (and turning wheeled vehicles needed a template!)

So, Swastakowey, do you think that Flying Monstrous Creatures that have their bases in a crater should be allowed to have the 5+ cover save? It makes far less sense than pivoting a tank to get extra movement, and is also totally within the rules. Would you refuse to play someone who did that?

How about allocating flamer wounds from a tactical squad farther away than the template would reach? Some people consider that silly even though the rules expressly allow it.

There is always going to be a breakdown between perfect realism and the game. I think that refusing to play people who utilize said breakdown to their advantage is less desirable behavior than actually utilizing the gap. I'd prefer to play a game against someone who is just trying to play a game and have a good time rather than someone who is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about how you're supposed to play the game. It's a big game, and there's room enough for casual, competitive, fluff, and experimental players to all have a good time. I prefer a variety of opponents with a variety of playstyles, and think it's a little elitist to condemn people who don't play the game "my way."

I do this frequently with Raiders, the long models do make a difference. But I also use it as a defense. if you have the models sideways, they can block line of sight to things behind them. So if you have say six raiders, you can put two sideways in front of four normal ones, the enemy has to target the front two before he can take care of the rest.

Maybe raiders are a bad example as it can be easy to remove them but if you have a ton of rhinos behind a land raider, it would help them stay in the game longer. As the tougher vehicle is taking more hits.

The idea of a skinny skimmer hovering 10 feet off the ground blocking line of sight to a bunch of elves standing behind it is just silly though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So, Swastakowey, do you think that Flying Monstrous Creatures that have their bases in a crater should be allowed to have the 5+ cover save? It makes far less sense than pivoting a tank to get extra movement, and is also totally within the rules. Would you refuse to play someone who did that?

How about allocating flamer wounds from a tactical squad farther away than the template would reach? Some people consider that silly even though the rules expressly allow it.

There is always going to be a breakdown between perfect realism and the game. I think that refusing to play people who utilize said breakdown to their advantage is less desirable behavior than actually utilizing the gap. I'd prefer to play a game against someone who is just trying to play a game and have a good time rather than someone who is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about how you're supposed to play the game. It's a big game, and there's room enough for casual, competitive, fluff, and experimental players to all have a good time. I prefer a variety of opponents with a variety of playstyles, and think it's a little elitist to condemn people who don't play the game "my way."

Depends what mode FMC's are in , if its behaving a a JMC then it would get cover from a crater, don't know the details of the flamer one but just have to ask yourself whether your playing as the game was intended to be played.

It's in the rules saying that if a base is in area terrain then you get a cover save. You can't say that the writers actually intended something completely different for FMC if there is no actual rule against it.

With the flamer, if you have a flame template that causes something like three hits then three wounds, but have them take saves from other weapons first so the first 4 models are removed and leaving the remaining models out of reach for the flame template. However the rules and FAQ states that you can apply those three wounds up to the range of the longest ranged weapon.

That's silly.

Roll for the flamer wounds first. Problem solved. The only time it becomes a big headscratcher moment is when you have four flame templates and one bolter in the squad doing the shooting, and get sixteen hits against four models, then can use the flamer wounds against the rest of the squad because of the bolter when you deal seven unsaved wounds.

Savage, are you seriously trying to say that it makes logical sense because it's in the rules? That's a fallacious argument at the best of times. What's your answer to my explanation as to why it's silly?

Anyway, I thought you ignored the base on skimmers and fliers except for assault purposes.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

If there's a "starting line" and both tanks are nose or side-edge along side it, the tank that is side-edge to it will actually gain half its length when it pivots to then drive forward (assuming 0 true forward motion). In reality, it will actually gain probably twice the length of its hull as it loops forward in its pivot to go nose-forward towards the enemy.

The tank that does not pivot does not gain any extra distance "off the line".

... and determining how the game was "intended to be played" is... well, that's a mine-field.

I'm saying that if the rules say you can pivot, measure, then move then for some odd reason I'm assuming you can pivot, measure and then move. Some how and some way it's possible. I know it's possible because the rules tell me how to pivot and move.

I can't show up to a poker table and tell them that my three of a kind beats a full house simply because I'm sure the intent was in there that my specific combination of cards is in some way superior.

And you don't have to roll for flamer wounds first. It's in the rule that the firing player gets to pick the order and the FAQ says to apply wounds to the maximum distance.

I know you don't have to. I'm just questioning why you wouldn't.

You still didn't answer my actual point about tanks.

Well its not so much intent its more like if you put a slightly nerdy hat on and pictured if the battle was happening in (40k) reality what would happen. Like say with the flame weapon thing if it was an actual battle a weapons range couldn't be extended like that.

 Elgrun wrote:
Well its not so much intent its more like if you put a slightly nerdy hat on and pictured if the battle was happening in (40k) reality what would happen. Like say with the flame weapon thing if it was an actual battle a weapons range couldn't be extended like that.

If it was an actual battle the sides wouldn't take turns shooting at each other.

Rules don't need to make sense on what would really happen, they only need to make sense in their ruleset. Look at the changes a ruleset goes through during edition upgrades, people change their view on what makes sense to accomadate new rules. I remember people saying the 4(5) toughness on bikes not protecting from Str 8 instant death makes sense because the bike armour wouldn't protect them from that. Now those same people have changed their tune coming up with new reasons to justify the rule change.

I could list off dozens of rules and actions in 40k that wouldn't actually work in reality but they work within the ruleset and that's what matters.

On the matter of vehicle movement I agree that it doesn't make sense within the ruleset that a vehicle can gain extra movement by doing this but that is how the rules are written and how I play it. To all the people who disagree with this, what about beyond turn one when there is no deployment line? Pivoting your vehicles on turn 6 still gives you that extra movement.

 Madcat87 wrote:
Pivoting your vehicles on turn 6 still gives you that extra movement.

What kind of a sick bastard would turn his vehicles!?! That's like a straight Hitler-maneuver right there!

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Savage, are you seriously trying to say that it makes logical sense because it's in the rules?

It doesn't make sense that poison weapons wound a Riptide on a 4+ but do nothing to a Drednaught.
It doesn't make sense that I can bring a MC down to one wound but never knock a weapon off like I would with a Walker.
It doesn't make sense that a character on a bike can now take multiple lascannons to the face just because he has a bike, when a tank would be destroyed in one shot.

Rules don't always make sense. But they are rules. I can't get mad at my opponent for expecting poison weapons to wound my Riptide on a 4+, no matter how sure I am what the actual intent is. If it's not in the designer notes, FAQ, or rules then I am just making something up with no justification. If I try to argue that my Helbrute is basically a mechanical monstrous creature and I'm sure the intent is that I can not get shaken/stunned and will never lose a weapon, then I am making something up.

However I am not making something up with the pivot movement. It says clearly in the rules on how to pivot a vehicle. Some vehicles are longer than they are wide.

Now can someone please cite something somewhere that tells me the intent on pivoting a vehicle somehow does not involve pivoting the vehicle? Can someone explain to me how this is a TFG thing to do? I even gave an example of how I use it to get a clear advantage on turn 1 for outflankers on turn 2. Please tell me how I'm violating the intent or being an overall cheating jerk by doing this.

I think it's in the apocrypha or the covenants or something.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you you need to stop doing it, I'm just trying to help you understand why other people are doing so.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
I have seen it done with landspeeders. Its situation dependent, as in they have first turn and there are meltas on the landspeeders. Also deployment type aids or hampers this tactic huge. that extra inch can mean the difference between 1 or 2 dice for a possible pen with melta.

To pull that off it would first have to be possible to deploy your speeder 24.01" away from the tank you want to fry, i.e. after your opponent has deployed, and then you would also have to seize the initiative, which only accounts to a 16% chance. Then you would have to deploy the Speeder sideways, swivel, gain 0.5 extra inches, move 12" and then be able to fire both your MMs at melta range.

Something far easier to do is dropping in a MM Dread or Ironclad Dread w. Meltas + 2 HK missiles and frying the enemy tank on turn 1 as well

I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

sonicaucie wrote:
I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

That's kind of how the pivoting thing works. You have half the length of the vehicle from the center point forward that is closer to the enemy than it was pre-pivot... and you're freely allowed to pivot when moving. If you have some guns on that forward section, it just gained a few extra inches towards the target, and may now be able to fire, or have enhancements/bonuses to its firing, depending on specifics.

sonicaucie was saying that he sees people pivoting around, say, a corner, rather than pivoting around the center. (At least I thought that was what he was saying.)

Oh, yeah, that would be some BS, IMO. Pivot around the center point of the model, not the left-forward corner (or whatever).

 Psienesis wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

That's kind of how the pivoting thing works. You have half the length of the vehicle from the center point forward that is closer to the enemy than it was pre-pivot... and you're freely allowed to pivot when moving. If you have some guns on that forward section, it just gained a few extra inches towards the target, and may now be able to fire, or have enhancements/bonuses to its firing, depending on specifics.

I guess I should have explained a little bit more. It's kind of dependent on how the vehicle has been pivoted and moved. The ghost ark example, the guy was moving it into a street. He turned it to face the street, measured into it from the front and then dropped it into the street in its new position. I.E: Pivoted it while it was moving.

I've seen a few tanks do this as well. Sometimes I doubt people are really thinking about it when they do it, because it's easy to forget about the additional distance you're gaining from the vehicle facing and you may just want to make it face the target at its new position.

However, if you're always just measuring from the centre, then you're never going to make a mistake.

I'm still not sure you're explaining it correctly. Is what your saying he pivoted and measured to gain the extra distance, then while moving the model he is pivoting in the air so that the side facing is now at the mark that the front facing measured to? If so than that is wrong.

A vehicle can pivot or move but not both in the same "action" if that makes sense.

Also I'd say that measuring from the centre is worse as you're always guessing where the centre is. Vehicles are box so take advantage of the fact that you always know where the edge of the vehicle.

Some kid tried it on me with a land rader and my hammerhead one shotted it. It was unable to move for the rest of the game, i don't mind people doing it but served him right for trying to pull a fast one!

This one pops up from time to time as it has been part of the rules for several editions.

The most epic thread on it is from almost 4 years ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

The upshot of this is that we can see schools are still doing a poor job at teaching geometry.

Seems like it would be more effective on skimmers starting hidden behind LOS blocking terrain.
Of course, I've heard of but never actually seen the 2 foot long battlewagons and land raiders doing this fir the first turn assault (well, not it would be bottom of the first turn).

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

If people will go to tricks to gain an advantage.

Why put the guns at the back? Exposing more of the tank to fire, surely they would want the best cover save.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, people do everything they can just to gain an advantage. Some people will model their Wraithknights/Riptides to be squatting/kneeling for LOS bonuses and whatnot. This is usually called MFA and is frowned on though not against the rules.

There is some debate whether putting the Land Raider guns on the front is okay or not. I don't really understand it myself since if GW didn't want us to they wouldn't make it so easy to model it that way. I suppose people just don't like it when you give yourself an advantage before the game even starts.

Just to make sure you are away, a kneeling riptide is far, FAR from modeling for advantage, heck-its one of the official poses on the GW site and in the box.
modeling it kneeling is no more MFA then modeling the scouts who came with kneeling legs as kneeling.

But you WILL find players who will claim it as such. Facts never stop such players from trying to gain an advantage over you by trying to outlaw your models that they have not learned to play against effectively. (not any player in particuler, just the generic player who cries MFA over any "difference" whether it be a different number of rivets or a 30 inch las cannon barrel.)

 EVIL INC wrote:
But you WILL find players who will claim it as such. Facts never stop such players from trying to gain an advantage over you by trying to outlaw your models that they have not learned to play against effectively. (not any player in particuler, just the generic player who cries MFA over any "difference" whether it be a different number of rivets or a 30 inch las cannon barrel.)

Because that actually happens?

You might find that people will take your arguments a bit more seriously without the Hyperbole For Effect.

Yes, players WILL indeed make barrels longer and we have actually had a member here say flat out that the number of rivets can affect a gameso would not allow a difference in the # of them. No hyperbole (beyond the exaggeration on the actual barrel length extensionbecause when it is done, it is usually not that obvious).
In making examples, you HAVE to take into account TFG who will go to those extremes such as caling MFA for rivets or the 30" barrels. Because if you do not, players will quibble. You know this as well as anyone else.
This is why I am glad that I play with a decent and fun group who dont do that. They are just as happy as I am to see cool looking models done up for the sole purpose of looking cool or matching their army without ay advantages being looked for and no assumptions that others are doing the same.

Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Clearly I'm missing something here...

I bolded the 'rivets' part because it is a ridiculous statement.

Now you're telling me he's actually trying to say that someone claimed "MFA" on the number of rivets on a conversion?

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

Says the person who uses the same technique with his mawloc and tervigons.....

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Simple factwe had a poster here who flat out said it (not naming names to avoid him being offended and to keep it polite. Dont complain to me. Im not the player calling MFA over it.

But as I said, players will quibble. If you dont use the extreme examples, people will quibble over a centimeter and say it is ok, then on the next tank, it will be 2 inches and so forth until you complain and then they will say " you were ok with the other conversions, why this one?" That is why my gaming group doesnt worry about it and each sticks to the rule of cool systom and obvious MFA are simply not done and we dont assume MFA over any little variation. However, as we have seen here, different strokes for different folks. The almighty win is more important to some than fun.

HFE for the loss here though!

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Simple factwe had a poster here who flat out said it (not naming names to avoid him being offended and to keep it polite. Dont complain to me. Im not the player calling MFA over it.

Still trying to propagate this lie?
Quote it. Please. With context, of course.
You'll refuse to and claim I'm being off-topic and trolling and trying to get the thread locked, and still refuse to give proof.

No. Not a single person would ever call a missing or added rivet, by itself, modeling for advantage.

All HFE genetic proteins aside, It IS too bad that the rule of cool has been lost in the shuffle over the years. That was one of the best things about the RT days, no tournaments and games had a "game master" to set everything up and make the calls without all the rules lawyering.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

If people will go to tricks to gain an advantage.

Why put the guns at the back? Exposing more of the tank to fire, surely they would want the best cover save.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, people do everything they can just to gain an advantage. Some people will model their Wraithknights/Riptides to be squatting/kneeling for LOS bonuses and whatnot. This is usually called MFA and is frowned on though not against the rules.

There is some debate whether putting the Land Raider guns on the front is okay or not. I don't really understand it myself since if GW didn't want us to they wouldn't make it so easy to model it that way. I suppose people just don't like it when you give yourself an advantage before the game even starts.

Just to make sure you are away, a kneeling riptide is far, FAR from modeling for advantage, heck-its one of the official poses on the GW site and in the box.
modeling it kneeling is no more MFA then modeling the scouts who came with kneeling legs as kneeling.

And Land Raiders with the guns on the front is in plenty of official GW pictures. Doesnt stop people from claiming MFA. I am not defending these people as I think MFA is a bunch of baloney but I am simply stating that some will take offense to it.

Then again, some people will take offense to you even bringing a Riptide so YMMV.

More on the main topic, how many inches are you actually getting by doing this? I would think one or two at the most depending on the tank.

DE boats can get ~3.5 iirc.

Hm. Well, that isnt nothing I suppose. I can see why people take offense to it then since that three inches really helps assault units.

I hope GW makes it so that your pivoting costs movement inches.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I hope GW makes it so that your pivoting costs movement inches.

The vehicle movement rules have worked this way since the start of 3rd edition, so it seems unlikely that they have any intention of changing it.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I hope GW makes it so that your pivoting costs movement inches.

The vehicle movement rules have worked this way since the start of 3rd edition, so it seems unlikely that they have any intention of changing it.

I agree, I think it would make it a little fiddly in terms of math. Eactly how many inches would what prcentage of a rotation cost and players trying to find ways to wring as much out of it as they can. I consider the free rotation as the prep "aiming" before the actual movement and the "sliding in sideways" at the end of the movement.

Easy. You have to measure the distance of the arc turned by the front of the tank.

Or you just say 2" for every 90 degrees it turns.

Would make the Walkers' Free Pivot actually worth a damn, too.

Thats where you would get the players saying "I didnt move a full 90degrees, I only went 89 degrees" Or vehicles of different lengths getting "cheated out of distance of given distance bonuses (however infinitesimal)and you end up with arguments than you have now.
What we have now actually works, and is only really affected by obvious MFA.
of course, thats just my opinion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thats where you would get the players saying "I didnt move a full 90degrees, I only went 89 degrees" Or vehicles of different lengths getting "cheated out of distance of given distance bonuses (however infinitesimal)and you end up with arguments than you have now.
What we have now actually works, and is only really affected by obvious MFA.
of course, thats just my opinion.

A subject where I fully agree with Evil? What has the world come to?

If you NEED shinanigans to win, how good are you...really?

I would take the high road here. No small advantage is worth the reputation it creates for you. Hell I do LEGITIMATe and TOTALLY beyond reporach things with deployment and get the evil eye. No one loves it when you redeploy using Eldrad...but its legit. No one likes the wierd Marbo rule where he can ACTUALLY (effectively) deep strike on a top of a ruin because its NOT a deep strike. And so on. Even though its legit... find me one person whose excited to see you do it.

And then you're going to do this? The sponsons are in fact pat of the tank. No part of ther model can cross the 12" mark. So sicne thats not unclear in any way, take the high road. Even IF no one would blink. they're blinking on the inside.

I've never done it, I don't like it, but would accept it if someone did it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
All HFE genetic proteins aside, It IS too bad that the rule of cool has been lost in the shuffle over the years. That was one of the best things about the RT days, no tournaments and games had a "game master" to set everything up and make the calls without all the rules lawyering.

The Rule of Cool has not been lost... but if you're extending the barrels to your tanks by 2", you're giving the vehicle an extra 2 inches of firing range. That *is* MFA.

 Psienesis wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
All HFE genetic proteins aside, It IS too bad that the rule of cool has been lost in the shuffle over the years. That was one of the best things about the RT days, no tournaments and games had a "game master" to set everything up and make the calls without all the rules lawyering.

The Rule of Cool has not been lost... but if you're extending the barrels to your tanks by 2", you're giving the vehicle an extra 2 inches of firing range. That *is* MFA.

How about if you explain it to your opponent beforehand? Or agree to lesson the range by 2 inches or set it 2 inches farther back so the end result is that there is no difference? Disallowing it's use even in those examples is a bit drastic yet we see in posts here where it would still not be allowed to be used.
To be honest, I am not that WAAC that I would even blink at it. Again, that is MY opinion. I play for fun and different people have different goals and agendas.

So you would give your opponent with a 48" range gun (by the book) the ability to shoot 50"? Since you measure from the barrel, that 2" can make a very, very big difference.

Obviously, if you've talked about it before the game and agreed to cut 2" off the range of the weapon, then you're golden, but that is certainly not the scenario I'm talking about, no more so than pivoting on the bumper should be allowed (as this grants the entire length of the vehicle in extra inches). I'm talking about showing up at the game with some scratch-built tanks that just so happen to be about 3/4" of an inch lower in profile with guns 2" longer than standard, and not saying a damn thing.

Later on, your opponent wonders why he can't see your tank behind that wall, cause he's dang sure when he played Bob the day before and Bob had his own Earthsmasher tank, he could see the turret sticking out, plain as day... and how the hell are you landing shots in his front line from behind that tree? Bob had to roll his tank half-way forward of it, bringing it into range of his PewPew Troops when he was trying to drop ordnance.

This is the kind of stuff people mean when they talk about MFA.

I'm shocked to see so many people opposed to pivoting.

I can't fathom what the problem with this is. I do this all the time with DE and to a lesser extent mech SM. Opponents do this routinely as well - as they should.

I'm so shocked because not only is this a perfectly legal maneuver, but it also makes a lot of sense from the forging a narrative point of view as well - your mechanized force got flanked by an enemy, or they are unwittingly driving past one.

I think most surprising, is the vitriol offered by some posters with respect to this. To the point of wanting to ostracize a players simply for pivoting. Seriously guys, how can a legal and even perfectly logical maneuver possibly deserve such ire?

yes, I would have no problem allowing an opponent to have a las cannon that fired 48" from a barrel that stuck 2 inches further than normal because of a really cool conversion and the intent and purpose was not to gain an advantage. I'm just not a WAAC player. Like I said, different players have different agendas going into games. Mine is that we both have fun playing a game.

However, the types of MFA that we would be seeing that are more relevent here are things like the land raiders and battlewagons that are 2 feet from front to back while maintaining the same width (yes, thats an exageration) as those would give the extra distance in terms of assaulting out of it.

I know you're exagerating but if I saw a 2 foot long battlewagon I'd be on the ground in a laughing fit. I'd also like to point out that if a BW did get modeled to be longer but kept it's width the same it would also be a huge disadvantage to them creating such a narrow front armour arc.

 EVIL INC wrote:
However, the types of MFA that we would be seeing that are more relevent here are things like the land raiders and battlewagons that are 2 feet from front to back while maintaining the same width (yes, thats an exageration) as those would give the extra distance in terms of assaulting out of it.

And yet after 15 years, the actual examples of this occuring are minimal, if not completely non-existant.

There are plenty of situations were MFA can be a legitimate concern. This isn't one of them.

I understand the actual 2 foot long tanks are minimal. However they CAN exist and it is possible to make them so they HAVE to be taken into account as possibilities. Much lesser exam,ples are FAR more likely to be seen and again, as shown when the "advantage" is smaller or even offset (or more than offset ) by disadvantages, you start to have to wonder was it intentionally done to MFA or was it just done for cool value? It can be a very fine line and advantages and disadvantages can be modeled unintentionally yet people will not always believe that to be the case. This is my point.
When you start lawyering every little tiny miniscule detail trying to say it was intentionally MFA, your taking the fun out of the game.
I know GW doesnt do it so much any more but as an old timer, I remember conversion workshops and how to's in white dwarf when GW advocated modeling and converting for cool. Who remembers the space marine daleck kitbashes? or the RTB01 laying on it's belly firing a missile launcher made from a piece of round sprue? Or the deoderent grav tank? I come from those days and simply do not assume the worst of people unless it is blatantly obvious. Others always assume the worst. Different people, different agendas when playing. Again, my agenda is that both players enjoy the gae.

 Jancoran wrote:
If you NEED shinanigans to win, how good are you...really?
...take the high road. Even IF no one would blink. they're blinking on the inside.

Sorry, but this kind of talk really bothers me. Check out the linked thread and look through the pages of arguments. There are plenty of arguments and rule citations supporting the pivot and move. It is a legitimate move in the game and really pivoting would be rendered entirely useless if it did not work in this way.

The rules don't support the side you're on. I don't mind that. House rule it if you want. But don't get on a moral high horse and start trying to guilt people because they aren't following your house rule.

 Psienesis wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
All HFE genetic proteins aside, It IS too bad that the rule of cool has been lost in the shuffle over the years. That was one of the best things about the RT days, no tournaments and games had a "game master" to set everything up and make the calls without all the rules lawyering.

The Rule of Cool has not been lost... but if you're extending the barrels to your tanks by 2", you're giving the vehicle an extra 2 inches of firing range. That *is* MFA.

Or mounting your Land Raider's Multi-Melta onto the front top-hatch instead of the back top-hatch as instructed in the manual?

I haven't owned a LR in... well... let's say that some posters here were not yet a gleam in their parent's eyes... but as I recall, the option was presented for affixing it on either end, as you could position the hatch/ring turret thing beside it.

Mind you, I'm going off memory here, which is only partially reliable at the best of times. I definitely don't recall anything from the instruction manual, but if you handed me a LR kit right now, and the manual said "it goes on the back", then I'd stick it on the back and measure from there.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I understand the actual 2 foot long tanks are minimal. However they CAN exist and it is possible to make them so they HAVE to be taken into account as possibilities. Much lesser exam,ples are FAR more likely to be seen and again, as shown when the "advantage" is smaller or even offset (or more than offset ) by disadvantages, you start to have to wonder was it intentionally done to MFA or was it just done for cool value? It can be a very fine line and advantages and disadvantages can be modeled unintentionally yet people will not always believe that to be the case. This is my point. .

What I'm apparently missing is why you think that point needed to be made.

For someone who claims to have a 'live and let live' attitude towards modelling, you seem to make an awful lot of posts complaining about hypothetical people engaging in hypothetical MFA.

the extreme examples HAVE to be taken into account. there is simply no other way to consider it. Because it is possible to be done, it is possible for someone to do it. In my gaming group of live and let live, we have that attitude BECAUSE none of us go to those obvious extremes. If someone were to want to join our group and pull that extreme sort of stunt, they would not be in our group.

To ignore the possibility and trivialize it is to deny the it exists. That is why it has to be taken into account. Its like going to a swimming pool in the summer. SUUUURELY no one would pee in the pool because that "just isnt done". That is an extreme that NEVER happens. However, you put the chemical in the pool that turns the water blue when someone pees in it, your gonna have at least one "blue situation" over the course of the summer. This is the same thing.

I've given up on 40k now, but I had players pull this thing all the time when I played in GW. Admittedly they also pulled other crap that wasn't breaking the rules, but wasn't in the spirit of the game. I'm out of GW games now, and try and play against just people that aren't WAAC types (though that's not to say that people that do this are). When calling people on this the usual response was "but its legal", which in return had me arguing for a time, but I wound up just not playing those guys any more (the same ones who'd give me all kinds of crap for using converted models, so I suppose my opinion of them was strained to start with). =P

Exactly, if it CAN be done, there will be someone who will do it or try to get away with it. Like I said, those are also usually the first to cry foul themselves. Thank you for vindicating me.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thank you for vindicating me.

He wasn't. He was responding to the actual topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I've given up on 40k now, but I had players pull this thing all the time when I played in GW. Admittedly they also pulled other crap that wasn't breaking the rules, but wasn't in the spirit of the game.

The problem with this argument is that it the 'spirit of the game' is so very subjective.


Here's the thing to consider with the pivot 'shenanigans':
- Pivoting on the spot without moving is legal.
- Pivoting your tank at the start of your movement is legal.

So, if on turn one, I pivot my tank 90 degrees and then move 6", according to those who think that the 'shenanigans' here are not in the spirit of the game, I have just gained extra movement I shoudln't have, and shouldn't be moving the tank that far.

But how about if on turn one I pivot the tank 90 degrees with no further movement. On turn two, I want to move the tank straight forwards... how far should the tank move?


Yes, it can seem like the pivot 'trick' is gaining extra movement unfairly, but ultimately it's just a side effect of the way the movement rules work with models that aren't round. There are certainly ways that GW could tighten up the rules here to prevent this sort of thing if it was that big a problem (and again, they've had 4 editions now in which to do so, and haven't). But it ultimately isn't that big a deal... You just need to consider with long vehicles that if they turn at the start of their movement, that the length of the vehicle will add to their movement in that direction. It's not really any different to a tank being able to turn side-on to give a turret weapon that little bit more range in a specific direction.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I've given up on 40k now, but I had players pull this thing all the time when I played in GW. Admittedly they also pulled other crap that wasn't breaking the rules, but wasn't in the spirit of the game. I'm out of GW games now, and try and play against just people that aren't WAAC types (though that's not to say that people that do this are). When calling people on this the usual response was "but its legal", which in return had me arguing for a time, but I wound up just not playing those guys any more (the same ones who'd give me all kinds of crap for using converted models, so I suppose my opinion of them was strained to start with). =P

thank you for vindicating my views on this as what you posted supports everything I have said throughout this entire thread.
of course, the ONLY way I could have been wrong is if there is never even a single player past , present or future living or dead who would not take advantage of an elongated model to wring extra distance through pivoting. it would also require it to be physically impossible to model or convert a model to be elongated in any way shape or form longer than the stock model. BOTH of those would have to be true statements.

Pivoting isnt REALLY shenanigans. It is making effective legal use of game mechanics.

 EVIL INC wrote:
thank you for vindicating my views on this as what you posted supports everything I have said throughout this entire thread.
of course, the ONLY way I could have been wrong is if there is never even a single player past , present or future living or dead who would not take advantage of an elongated model to wring extra distance through pivoting. it would also require it to be physically impossible to model or convert a model to be elongated in any way shape or form longer than the stock model. BOTH of those would have to be true statements.

Pivoting isnt REALLY shenanigans. It is making effective legal use of game mechanics.

Did this really need two posts? You already responded to him.

And, again, he wasn't responding to your claim that people build extra-long vehicles. At least that's not how I read his post. But if you want to feel 'vindicated' because some random person on the internet may have agreed with you, by all means feel free. The rest of us will carry on playing games against people who haven't modelled their land raiders to be 2' long, secure in the knowledge that this isn't actually something that is likely to come up at the table.

 Dracos wrote:
I'm shocked to see so many people opposed to pivoting.

I can't fathom what the problem with this is. I do this all the time with DE and to a lesser extent mech SM. Opponents do this routinely as well - as they should.

I'm so shocked because not only is this a perfectly legal maneuver, but it also makes a lot of sense from the forging a narrative point of view as well - your mechanized force got flanked by an enemy, or they are unwittingly driving past one.

I think most surprising, is the vitriol offered by some posters with respect to this. To the point of wanting to ostracize a players simply for pivoting. Seriously guys, how can a legal and even perfectly logical

maneuver possibly deserve such ire?

theyre not against pivoting. they are against you ignoring the sponsons, which are in fact part of the model... a large part really.

I always felt that the movement rules and pivot rules are independent of each other.

Yes, the rules say you can pivot any number of times during your movement. But I don't see how that lets you exceed the predetermined movement allowed.

Movement always seemed pretty simple to me. Pick the direction your going to move. The spot on the vehicle furthest in that direction is the starting point (This is before any pivoting, nothing say you are allowed to pivot before movement starts. So your measurements should be done based on the current position of the vehicle.) Measure out how far you want to move (6", 7", whatever you choose) now move your tank there. What ever direction you want you tank to face if fine (You can pivot as much as you want during the move) When you get you final position. The part of the hull facing in the direction you moved should not be more then the number of inches you choose to move. This method meets all aspects of the rule without violating any.

(The above method is similar to how infantry move.)

The method most people use would be fine is all the vehicles where the same size. Since models differ between armies, I don't think it should be used. I normally overlook it when playing against people. but if someone tried to use it as a start of the game maneuver to gain clear advantage I would put a stop to it.

I do this all the time with my Orks. The primary reason that I do so is because it can make it much easier to fit numerous trukks into my deployment zone corners (especially on diagonal deployment, which comes up far more than 33% I am sure).

I have to say, that if someone refused to play against me because of this, that I'd interpret them as being a massive douche who wanted to control the game. This person would have to be theoretical, of course, because in years of playing normal and tournament 40k I've never had a problem, but this theoretical person would be trying to make me conform to his own mental impression of how the game works. And that isn't very fair, really; my mental image includes the idea that I can follow the rules and, you know, turn my vehicles. Why is it acceptable for him/her to place restrictions on my (rulebook legal and consistently applied) actions?

 kronk wrote:
I've never done it, I don't like it, but would accept it if someone did it.

I agree with kronk

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

If someone did that to my Raider I would report them to the police and demand restitution.

@Rismonite

Pre measuring of any sort is Kosher in 40k.

Personally, I would demand a new raider, and then demand retribution... With fire! 'cause if I ever get a vehicle ( a friend might be getting me a predator in a few months) it will probably take a week to paint.

Coyote - you're mistaking movement for displacement. Per the rules it does NOT move further. At all. It does result in parts displacing further, but that isn't important.

1998 . Best part of 16 years. The studio is FULLY AWARE of this, and they ackowledge it is a problem but an acceptable compromise.

So no, no "spirit of the rules" gak.
It is legal. Don't do it if you don't want. But do not guilt others into thinking your house rule is Anyang but what it is, a house rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
thank you for vindicating my views on this as what you posted supports everything I have said throughout this entire thread.
of course, the ONLY way I could have been wrong is if there is never even a single player past , present or future living or dead who would not take advantage of an elongated model to wring extra distance through pivoting. it would also require it to be physically impossible to model or convert a model to be elongated in any way shape or form longer than the stock model. BOTH of those would have to be true statements.

Pivoting isnt REALLY shenanigans. It is making effective legal use of game mechanics.

Did this really need two posts? You already responded to him.

And, again, he wasn't responding to your claim that people build extra-long vehicles. At least that's not how I read his post. But if you want to feel 'vindicated' because some random person on the internet may have agreed with you, by all means feel free. The rest of us will carry on playing games against people who haven't modelled their land raiders to be 2' long, secure in the knowledge that this isn't actually something that is likely to come up at the table.

yes it did because the two posts contained different information.
Likewise, he was not responding to me. this made the vindication more real because his independent post showed that others have seen this sort of behavior instead of disagreeing with me and saying it isnt possibleas others have done . Had I asked him to make his post, it would not have been independant and he likely would have been accused of saying it without it being true. Independiant people agreeing with you and vindicating your statements without intending to are a good thing.
That event isnt likely to come up at a table, but despite your protestations it IS possible that a player will make a vehicle longer to take advantage of pivoting. Whether this is through a 2 foot long land raider or putting the side doors on the land raider on the rear instead of the front is irrelevent.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Whether this is through a 2 foot long land raider or putting the side doors on the land raider on the rear instead of the front is irrelevent.

A) No, it's not irrelevant.
B) How in the hell does changing where the doors are make a Land Raider longer?

Man, two foot long Land Raiders... that has to be the dumbest idea ever even to gain an advantage in movement. If you place the terrain right you can make it so that he has to take a whoooole lot of DT tests if not be unable to move very far. In addition, that would make it easy to get it within your melta guns range. It also makes them easy as cake to figure out where they are going which allows you to counter charge the cargo.

And that is why I think MFA is a bunch of hooey. Most of the time there are advantages and disadvantages to it.

the claim was that it is not possible in any way shape or form to ANY degree and that it is not possible for a person to want to do it. think of it as being pregnant. You either are or you arent.

Buy a tape measure. set a land raider on a table (one with the doors on the front. measure from the doors to a point on the table. Then replace the land raider with one with the doors on the back. Now measure from those rear doors to the point. Is the distance the same? Likely not.
Now convert a rhino so that the hatch is on the front and the round gun hatches are on the rear. Do the same sort of measurement. Again, you will find there is a difference.
it is actually simple math. For example, 12-8=4 compared to 12-10=2.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
I'm shocked to see so many people opposed to pivoting.

I can't fathom what the problem with this is. I do this all the time with DE and to a lesser extent mech SM. Opponents do this routinely as well - as they should.

I'm so shocked because not only is this a perfectly legal maneuver, but it also makes a lot of sense from the forging a narrative point of view as well - your mechanized force got flanked by an enemy, or they are unwittingly driving past one.

I think most surprising, is the vitriol offered by some posters with respect to this. To the point of wanting to ostracize a players simply for pivoting. Seriously guys, how can a legal and even perfectly logical maneuver possibly deserve such ire?

theyre not against pivoting. they are against you ignoring the sponsons, which are in fact part of the model... a large part really.

I never said anything about ignoring sponsons... Sorry if I somehow implied that.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man, two foot long Land Raiders... that has to be the dumbest idea ever even to gain an advantage in movement. If you place the terrain right you can make it so that he has to take a whoooole lot of DT tests if not be unable to move very far. In addition, that would make it easy to get it within your melta guns range. It also makes them easy as cake to figure out where they are going which allows you to counter charge the cargo.

And that is why I think MFA is a bunch of hooey. Most of the time there are advantages and disadvantages to it.

i agree with you. in showing possibilities, you have to take those sorts of extremes into account as possibilities. SURE they arent liklihoods, but somewhere, sometime, some idiot is likely to do it. after all, hello kitty marines are so silly and extreme that you would think no one would do them, but they did. lol

This is why I and my gaming group model and convert for cool value instead of advantage. When you start MFA or accusing people of it, you go down a slippery slope and have to decide to draw a line SOMEWHEREThe problem with that is where YOU draw that line is likely to be different from where someone else draws it. THATS why you gotta take the extremes into account. I'd rather avoid that whole issue altogether and just play for fun.

 EVIL INC wrote:
the claim was that it is not possible in any way shape or form to ANY degree and that it is not possible for a person to want to do it. think of it as being pregnant. You either are or you arent.

No, that wasn't the claim.

Buy a tape measure. set a land raider on a table (one with the doors on the front. measure from the doors to a point on the table. Then replace the land raider with one with the doors on the back. Now measure from those rear doors to the point. Is the distance the same? Likely not.
Now convert a rhino so that the hatch is on the front and the round gun hatches are on the rear. Do the same sort of measurement. Again, you will find there is a difference.
it is actually simple math. For example, 12-8=4 compared to 12-10=2.

Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider?
How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model.

Answer the question I asked please - don't just make statements pretending they answer the questions and then pretend I'm being foolish by asking.

"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim.

You never answered my question. Are the measurements different? Siple yes or no will suffice.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it.

"How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model." Again, you are skirting the issue. Take a 2 foot long land raider. Find the center pint from front to bal. Now, take your handy dandy tape measure and measure from that point to the front. Am I correct in assuming the distance you got was 1 foot? Good. Now, take a normal land raider. Find the center point from front to back. Now, again using your handy dandy tape measure, find the distance from that point to the front. I dont know the distance it will be so I will let you find that number on your own.
NOW, that you have those two numbers, compare the two. Are they the same number? I'm guessing not. Now, subtract the small number from the larger one. The difference is the extra distance gained in the pivot move.
Again, we come back to my point of modeling/converting for cool value over MFA. Take a rogue trader land raider and do the same thing. You'll find that as its shorter, using it would effevtively be modeling for a disadvantage in this regard. However, TFG would possibly call MFA for using it anyway because it is not as wide as a "normal" land raider and could thus fit between beuildings while a normal land raider wouldnt be able to. Just another example of a player using a model for cool value alone and some TFG calling MFA just to call it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim.

Again, no. That's what you assumed it to be. You invented a point simply so you could argue against it.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it.

... What?

"How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model." Again, you are skirting the issue.[/quoet]
No, I'm not.
How does the doors being placed on the front or back of the model change how the model pivots? You stated that it does. I'd like to see evidence.
Not these mythological 2 foot Land Raiders that are wholly irrelevant, simply evidence that the placement of the doors changes how a vehicle pivots.

I'm 99% confident (.99999 even) that your reading, Coyote81, is incorrect. If no one else has cited rules when I get home tonight, I will do so for you. I suppose we could move this to YMDC if that seems appropriate.

 Dracos wrote:
I'm 99% confident (.99999 even) that your reading, Coyote81, is incorrect. If no one else has cited rules when I get home tonight, I will do so for you. I suppose we could move this to YMDC if that seems appropriate.

It probably is.

I think the way people pivot they're tanks is directly against the base rules on how to measure distances from page 4.

 Coyote81 wrote:
[ Since the rules don't say you can pivot before you move. measure you distance you want to move using the point on the trukk closest to where you want to move. Measure your 6", 7" or 12" (what ever distance you choose) and mark the spot you want you trukk to end up at.

They also don't tell you that you have to measure your movement all in one go...

Move the truck an infinitisimal distance forwards, pivot (which can be done freely, as per the vehicle movement rules) and then measure the rest of your movement distance.

Exactly the same result as pivoting before you move... which is why people generally accept it as being ok, despite not technically being what the rules say to do.

 Coyote81 wrote:

"Distance between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distance between units are always measured from the closest model in each of the units (see diagram)" -Rules book page 4, right column, 3rd paragraph.

The diagram here shows a prime example of what I'm talking about, they measure the distance from the trukk to the marines using the point on the trukk that is closest to the marines. This method should be applied to movement as well. Since the rules don't say you can pivot before you move. measure you distance you want to move using the point on the trukk closest to where you want to move. Measure your 6", 7" or 12" (what ever distance you choose) and mark the spot you want you trukk to end up at. (I usually place my finger down here, but you can use a marker, or whatever) Now move your trukk that distance, pivoting your trukk to face whatever direction you want. Now when you put your trukk in it's final spot, no part of that trukk should be past the spot you measure, because you measure the 6" movement you are allowed per the rules and following the guide on how tt measure distances, if any part of the trukk is past that point you marked, it moved farther then 6".

Page 71, "As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances from a base cannot be used." So that kind of excludes the entirety of the page 4 section in the discussion. It goes on to say that "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, baners, and other decorative elements."
If you're measuring from the initial point to the final end point only you're making it so I can face forward, move 7", then pivot to face sideways, appearing I only moved 6" so now I can fire at combat speed instead of cruising speed.
It would also render the entire point of how to pivot moot, since if no section of the vehicle can move past point "x" then you'd need no instruction on how to pivot and just say the vehicle can take any facing after moving.

Tank Shock and Ramming both show diagrams that specifically measure AFTER pivoting, from the same point at the beginning to the point at the end.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:

"Distance between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. Distance between units are always measured from the closest model in each of the units (see diagram)" -Rules book page 4, right column, 3rd paragraph.

The diagram here shows a prime example of what I'm talking about, they measure the distance from the trukk to the marines using the point on the trukk that is closest to the marines. This method should be applied to movement as well. Since the rules don't say you can pivot before you move. measure you distance you want to move using the point on the trukk closest to where you want to move. Measure your 6", 7" or 12" (what ever distance you choose) and mark the spot you want you trukk to end up at. (I usually place my finger down here, but you can use a marker, or whatever) Now move your trukk that distance, pivoting your trukk to face whatever direction you want. Now when you put your trukk in it's final spot, no part of that trukk should be past the spot you measure, because you measure the 6" movement you are allowed per the rules and following the guide on how tt measure distances, if any part of the trukk is past that point you marked, it moved farther then 6".

Page 71, "As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances from a base cannot be used." So that kind of excludes the entirety of the page 4 section in the discussion. It goes on to say that "Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, baners, and other decorative elements."
If you're measuring from the initial point to the final end point only you're making it so I can face forward, move 7", then pivot to face sideways, appearing I only moved 6" so now I can fire at combat speed instead of cruising speed.
It would also render the entire point of how to pivot moot, since if no section of the vehicle can move past point "x" then you'd need no instruction on how to pivot and just say the vehicle can take any facing after moving.

Tank Shock and Ramming both show diagrams that specifically measure AFTER pivoting, from the same point at the beginning to the point at the end.

The point of pivoting is to avoid other models and terrain and to allow for you to choose your final facing for opposing units to shoot at. The instructions on how to pivot are specified to prevent people from pivoting vehicle on odd corners to gain movement advantage. (It describes this reasoning in the rule book under pivoting)

Tankshocks and rams are in a different section for a reason, they are a special set of rules for an action that differs from the standard movement rules. You can't use them as evidence to prove how the standard movement rules work.

Coyote81, I actually think your interpretation is more right. But if most players have been playing it the other way, I do not think they will change easily.

How would you handle moving in a curve around an impassable object? The vehicle must pivot at some point right? Then once it does, it would be difficult to ensure that no part travels more than 6(or 12).

 Coyote81 wrote:
The instructions on how to pivot are specified to prevent people from pivoting vehicle on odd corners to gain movement advantage. .

But ff the measurement is supposed to be done the way you are suggesting, this would be uneccessary. It wouldn't matter how you pivot the vehicle as it's still going to wind up in the same end position.

No no need to put the sponsons on the top of the tank!

Coyote - no, I am sorry but your idea that you measure from different spots on the vehicle is flat out incorrect. You pick one, consistent point, and measure from there. BEcause that is what the rules tell you to do.

You are still confusing displacement with movement. In 40k they are NOT always the same thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Coyote - no, I am sorry but your idea that you measure from different spots on the vehicle is flat out incorrect. You pick one, consistent point, and measure from there. BEcause that is what the rules tell you to do.

You are still confusing displacement with movement. In 40k they are NOT always the same thing.

do you have a page number in the BRB to back this up?

If I want to move my Rhino forward, I measure from its front hull. If I want to move it backwards, I measure from its rear hull, effectively ignoring its entire length if you want me to stick to measuring from its front hull for the rest of the game.

Stop that, it's silly!

Not while at work, however it is a simple consequence of the abstraction of pivoting not reducing movement

There are many, many threads on this - ones from 2010 onwards (note, no change in vehicle movement rules since 1998, start of 3rd edition):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/294492.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/369233.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/547899.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355420.page

Seriously, this isnt even debatable any longer. It isnt an exploit. THe studio are 10000000% aware that this is a consequence of the simplified vehicle rules that have been in the game now for 16 years, and it is not worth repopening this topic every 6 months or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Coyote - no, I am sorry but your idea that you measure from different spots on the vehicle is flat out incorrect. You pick one, consistent point, and measure from there. BEcause that is what the rules tell you to do.

You are still confusing displacement with movement. In 40k they are NOT always the same thing.

do you have a page number in the BRB to back this up?

If I want to move my Rhino forward, I measure from its front hull. If I want to move it backwards, I measure from its rear hull, effectively ignoring its entire length if you want me to stick to measuring from its front hull for the rest of the game.

Ah, you didnt add what you were querying.

Nothing states you pickj the same spot the whole game. Just that when meauring a vehicles move, you pick a spot. Nothing states that has to be the same spot every time you measure a new move.

The rules don't state where to measure from, but they do state that you retain consistency within each measurement. If you measure from the front of the tank, you measure to the front of the tank.

I also do not see the problem here at all, both are independent rules:

You may pivot around the centre point of a vehicle (always the same point) as many times as you want.

You can also move a certain distance (up to 12" for example), measuring from any random point of the vehicle.

As long as the front left chimney, in a straight line, is 12" from where it was, you're within the rules.

If you need to manoeuvre around things:

The front left chimney is measured 3" in a straight line -*pivoting happens*- the back left tail light is then measured 5" in a straight line -*pivoting happens*- the central antenna is then measured 4" in a straight line, and you have used up your 12" movement maximum.

If your tank was facing backwards at the beginning of the game. -*pivoting happens*-
Followed by standard measuring rules.

Chrysis wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I have less of a problem with this than I do with people putting non-skimmer tanks on top of the Skyshield.

Doesnt the Skyshield have a lift?

No. The extent of it's access methods is ladders. Or jumping.

not how it works at all.

the rules for the landing pad do not have access points, to transition between top and bottom is a simple difficult terrain test for a vehicle, for infantry they make a move through cover move, no stipulation on distance either so it doesn't require 3" like a ruin does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not while at work, however it is a simple consequence of the abstraction of pivoting not reducing movement

There are many, many threads on this - ones from 2010 onwards (note, no change in vehicle movement rules since 1998, start of 3rd edition):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/294492.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/369233.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/547899.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355420.page

Seriously, this isnt even debatable any longer. It isnt an exploit. THe studio are 10000000% aware that this is a consequence of the simplified vehicle rules that have been in the game now for 16 years, and it is not worth repopening this topic every 6 months or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Coyote - no, I am sorry but your idea that you measure from different spots on the vehicle is flat out incorrect. You pick one, consistent point, and measure from there. BEcause that is what the rules tell you to do.

You are still confusing displacement with movement. In 40k they are NOT always the same thing.

do you have a page number in the BRB to back this up?

If I want to move my Rhino forward, I measure from its front hull. If I want to move it backwards, I measure from its rear hull, effectively ignoring its entire length if you want me to stick to measuring from its front hull for the rest of the game.

Ah, you didnt add what you were querying.

Nothing states you pickj the same spot the whole game. Just that when meauring a vehicles move, you pick a spot. Nothing states that has to be the same spot every time you measure a new move.

-I just don't understand how everyone that uses the pivot rule that way conveniently skips the rules for measuring on page 4, that states that you measure distances from the closest point on the model to the point you measuring against, be it another model, a terrain feature or so on. (I think that pretty much covers anything you measure distance to, including open ground that you intend to move to). You do not measure from the same point on a vehicle at all times, you measure from the point on the vehicle closest to the point you are measuring to.

-Where in the rules does it say you can pivot before you more. I just don't understand how people think they can measure their distance after they pivot.(Does this game allow you to move your models before measuring distances? The rules do not allow that. And if you try to say you barely move and pivot as the first part of your move, then I'll have to tell you, the distance your tank covers from where it started to where the front end, ends up at counts as movement based on the way the rules of measuring distance work.

Is the real way the rules work more difficult? Yes Will people choose to not play with, and not enforce these rules because they are more difficult? Yes I just want it to be known that people are not necessarily doing things right just because that is how Everyone is doing it.

@nosferatu1001: I appreciate the links, but I see the same two things being ignored in each situation. I do feel that having this discussion reopened every now and then helps the general populace understand the rules better.

 Coyote81 wrote:
-I just don't understand how everyone that uses the pivot rule that way conveniently skips the rules for measuring on page 4, that states that you measure distances from the closest point on the model to the point you measuring against, be it another model, a terrain feature or so on. (I think that pretty much covers anything you measure distance to, including open ground that you intend to move to). You do not measure from the same point on a vehicle at all times, you measure from the point on the vehicle closest to the point you are measuring to.

-Where in the rules does it say you can pivot before you more. I just don't understand how people think they can measure their distance after they pivot.(Does this game allow you to move your models before measuring distances? The rules do not allow that. And if you try to say you barely move and pivot as the first part of your move, then I'll have to tell you, the distance your tank covers from where it started to where the front end, ends up at counts as movement based on the way the rules of measuring distance work.

Page 71, Vehicle Movement:

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about the centre-point, rather than wheeling around.Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement. (Emphasis added by GW).

Coyote81 wrote:

-I just don't understand how everyone that uses the pivot rule that way conveniently skips the rules for measuring on page 4, that states that you measure distances from the closest point on the model to the point you measuring against,

Stop there. Reread that exact rule. Notice how it is to measure distances between units - for shooting, declaring charges, deployment etc.

We arent ignoring rules, you are mis applying this rule and thinking it applies to everything. It doesnt.

Coyote81 wrote:be it another model, a terrain feature or so on. (I think that pretty much covers anything you measure distance to, including open ground that you intend to move to). You do not measure from the same point on a vehicle at all times, you measure from the point on the vehicle closest to the point you are measuring to.

As above, you clearly have not read the vehicle rules, as you DO use the same point when measuring, as you are explicitly told.

Coyote81 wrote:-Where in the rules does it say you can pivot before you more.

Irrelevant. I move 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001", then pivot. Bam. During movement.

Or, realise this is a silly requirement, pivot "before" moving while acknowledging you have really moved an infinitesimal amount.

Coyote81 wrote: I just don't understand how people think they can measure their distance after they pivot.(Does this game allow you to move your models before measuring distances? The rules do not allow that. And if you try to say you barely move and pivot as the first part of your move, then I'll have to tell you, the distance your tank covers from where it started to where the front end, ends up at counts as movement based on the way the rules of measuring distance work.

And I would have to tell you that, no, it does NOT count as movement, because otherwise you are breqaking the rule oft quoted - that pivoting DOES NOT REDUCE a vehicles movement. IF you claim my pivoting has cost me movement, then you have REDUCED MY MOVEMENT - guess what isnt allowed?

Coyote81 wrote:Is the real way the rules work more difficult?

No, your made up version of the rule,s which relies upon changing two rules entirely, IS more difficult.

Good luck with it as a houserule

Coyote81 wrote:Yes Will people choose to not play with, and not enforce these rules because they are more difficult? Yes I just want it to be known that people are not necessarily doing things right just because that is how Everyone is doing it.

People are doing things right because they are doing things right. AND because everyone* is doing it.

So no, it isnt worth reopening it as a target for discussion, because the actual, written rules - unchanged for sixteen years - are clear.

*apart from those that seek to play houserules that disallow it, or to passively aggressively try to stop people from doing it, that is

@nosferatu1001

-I did reread it and I quoted it earlier.

"Distance between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base.

This mentions terrain features and so on. Seem that includes measuring from your model to anything/anywhere else. If it didn't then you wouldn't be allowed to measure anything since this is the only rule in the book they tells you how to measure distances.

-Please quote me where it says use the same point on the vehicle. you say it explicitly says so but I can't find it and noone else has quoted so.

Counting for far you tank moved due to pivoting is not reducing it's movement. You suffer no distinct penalty for turning, thus you are never having your movement reduced. however, when you pivot, your tank does move, and thus you need to measure how far it moved. (there is a designed exception to this rule for if you decide to pivot in place and not move, thus counting as stationary. otherwise you have to move and pivot, and if you move you need to know how far your tank moved.)

For example using the rules try this. Place your tank sideways and pick a point some 6-7" away perpendicular to the tank. Measure the distance from the side of the tank to the point (Per the rules on page 4 use the point of the hull closest to the point) Move your tiny tiny small amount of movement and pivot your tank toward the point. How far much closer is the closest point of that tank to the point you picked on the table? Do some simple math and subtract that from you first measurement. This is how far you tank moved. You didn't have your movement reduced by pivoting, you physically moved your tank closer to the point. Thus it counts as having moved that distance. Per the rules on page 4 you always measure the spot closest to the point. So when you pivot you are changing the distance between you and your point, thus you are moving.

The idea of having your movement reduced is like suffering a penalty. Page 3 of the basic rules talks about models having their characteristics reduced to 0 and the penalties they suffer. Models have their own movement they are allowed based on they unit type. When the rules are talking about the movement not being reduced due to turning. They are saying that there is not penalty for moving. This is dispute the fact that there is an obvious difference in the facing on a vehicle, unlike a infantry model which can face any direction and it's all the same.

Basically what I'm saying is that having your movement reduced is a penalty. Pivoting and moving closer to a point is not a penalty, it's movement toward the point/unit/object you headed toward.

The rule book explains that pivoting rules are designed to prevent a vehicle from accidentally moving further then intended or allowed. So why do people think that they can use pivoting to do exactly the opposite of what the book say the rules are intended to prevent?

Cause they wanna win. Of course. Take the high road. I'm telling ya.

nutty_nutter wrote:

not how it works at all.

the rules for the landing pad do not have access points, to transition between top and bottom is a simple difficult terrain test for a vehicle, for infantry they make a move through cover move, no stipulation on distance either so it doesn't require 3" like a ruin does.

You misunderstood his point. He wasn't saying that the rules require you to use the ladders. He was pointing out the silliness of the rules allowing tanks to move on and off the pad when the model has no actual way for them to do so.

 insaniak wrote:

nutty_nutter wrote:

not how it works at all.

the rules for the landing pad do not have access points, to transition between top and bottom is a simple difficult terrain test for a vehicle, for infantry they make a move through cover move, no stipulation on distance either so it doesn't require 3" like a ruin does.

You misunderstood his point. He wasn't saying that the rules require you to use the ladders. He was pointing out the silliness of the rules allowing tanks to move on and off the pad when the model has no actual way for them to do so.

ah right, then I apologise.

but yes, it is a silly unthoughtout fortification. if they had actually written proper rules for it then there wouldn't be a problem.

A landing pad for you to Deep Strike flyers onto...
...Then remove Deep Strike from all Flyers.

And has anyone ever seen any aircraft land on the landing pad? It's normally full of tanks or battlesuits!
(i'm waiting for the "aye, once! 50 years ago under a red sky..." story)

Coyote - a point on the table is not an object. Your argument is voided, please use the vehicle movement rules which does tell you how to measure

If you pivot a tank 180 degrees, according to you it has moved that displacement. Thus reducing the amount it can actually move. Breaking the rule.

You're wrong. Sorry to be blunts but you haven't read the preceding thread son this, nor the vehicle movement rules. Page four DOES NOT APPLY as you have been shown more than once now.

This does not merit further discussion from my side,as it is a settled matter, and has been for sixteen years, seriously, apply a little sense to this - what is the likelihood that you are right, and sixteen years of players just haven't noticed?

I don't have a problem with someone starting a game with their tank pivoted sideways or ending their turn and pivoting their tank sideways. Just take the extra movement potential into consideration while your premeasuring everything.

As an orc players, I use this tactic not to gain an inch of movement but to screen my better stuff (like battlewagons and boyz) with garbage (like wartracks with skorcha- those things used to have trailers too and were 6-7" long!).

Cheating had nothing to do with it. Just an alternative perspective.

Additionally, most vehicles have a weaker side armour, so setting your self up for this to try and get in a first turn charge can hurt if you lose the Initiative.

Happened a few weeks back against an Ork player. Had his BWs lined up sideways to try and get in an early charge, and they were subsequently destroyed after I seized and opened fire with Serpent Shields and Scatter Lasers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Coyote - a point on the table is not an object. Your argument is voided, please use the vehicle movement rules which does tell you how to measure

If you pivot a tank 180 degrees, according to you it has moved that displacement. Thus reducing the amount it can actually move. Breaking the rule.

You're wrong. Sorry to be blunts but you haven't read the preceding thread son this, nor the vehicle movement rules. Page four DOES NOT APPLY as you have been shown more than once now.

This does not merit further discussion from my side,as it is a settled matter, and has been for sixteen years, seriously, apply a little sense to this - what is the likelihood that you are right, and sixteen years of players just haven't noticed?

-Page 4 is the only set of rules on how to measure distance. If you can't measure to a random point on he table, how do you move you tank/infantry when they are out in the open? You premeasure to nothing? Or do you measure to the point you are going to move you infantry to? You make no sense., Page 4 clearly covers every bit of measuring that is done in 40k. There is no other method to measure stuff in 40k.

-Very clear page 4 does apply, page 71: it distinctly says for vehicles to measure from the hull instead of the base since they have no base and page 4 even mentions this and has a diagram showing this. Quit saying it doesn't apply, nothing in the book says this. It just says you don't use the base, you use the hull instead.

-By the rules I mention, if you pivot you tank 180 degree, the distance from the tank to whatever object/point hasn't change, so you haven't moved. No displacement shenanigans here.

-Your stubbornness to further discuss this matter is rather comparable to medieval times when the Vatican flatly said the Earth was round, everyone knows this for 1000 of years, no need to question this. Everyone is already doing things right. Just because everyone "knows" something to be true and the right way to do something does not mean they are doing it correctly.

Coyote, what do you make of p71:
"The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used."

And then page 4:
" draw an imaginary line from the centre of the unit to its destination, and move the unit forwards along this line a number of inches equal to the distance stated."

Centre of the tank moves 12", whether it starts pivoted forward: 4" away from your deployment line, or it's sideways: 2" from the Deployment line.

the tank will ALWAYS move 12", and no rules are broken. That's valid if the centre of it is 8" forward, or 10" forward (depending on deployment)

 BlackTalos wrote:


And then page 4:
" draw an imaginary line from the centre of the unit to its destination, and move the unit forwards along this line a number of inches equal to the distance stated."

This is out of context and does not have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

The context is in the line just before the one you quoted...

"sometimes the rules will call upon a unit to move directly towards another unit, or some other feature on the battlefield. Where this is the case, draw an imaginary line from the center...." (4)

Starting a quote mid sentence after a comma is a misrepresentation.

I understand the context, however it is the only reference in the rulebook as how to move vehicles, specifically. P10 and P71 do not specify exactly how to measure distances travelled during movement. The heading "Measuring Distances" might therefore be partly relevant.
Page 4 was also mentioned in the argument, and i was just pointing out that this part may indeed be used as an indication of RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Coyote, what do you make of p71:
"The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used."

And then page 4:
" draw an imaginary line from the centre of the unit to its destination, and move the unit forwards along this line a number of inches equal to the distance stated."

Centre of the tank moves 12", whether it starts pivoted forward: 4" away from your deployment line, or it's sideways: 2" from the Deployment line.

the tank will ALWAYS move 12", and no rules are broken. That's valid if the centre of it is 8" forward, or 10" forward (depending on deployment)

As DeathReaper said, you can't quote those lines/paragraphs without quoting all of it. Pg71 Says to use the hull instead of the bases. As Deathrepeaer said, the paragraph you quote on page 4 specifically says that it applies only when some effect makes you move directly toward another enemy/object.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I understand the context, however it is the only reference in the rulebook as how to move vehicles, specifically. P10 and P71 do not specify exactly how to measure distances travelled during movement. The heading "Measuring Distances" might therefore be partly relevant.
Page 4 was also mentioned in the argument, and i was just pointing out that this part may indeed be used as an indication of RaW.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is 100% false.

They did not need to specify how to move vehicles as the base movement rules cover it, especially with the bit on P. 71 about measuring from the hull as many vehicles do not have a base.