The title and thread assumes basic vehicle rules without other interference from Fast rule, etc. Rules quotes are in Violet.

At the risk of being hugely unpopular, I have collated the rules and my thoughts on them here on this issue. It's something accepted and that people do which bugs me, and has done for a long time.

At a glance I didn't think these rules had changed in 7th. On further inspection in fact they have, and now I am able to build up a more conclusive picture. I realize there have been some mentions in passing to this on other threads, but maybe throwbacks from earlier editions are interfering.

For people who are not familiar with the tactic, it's in the vein of : Deploys sideways then pivots at the beginning of movement, then measures 6inches from the front of the hull to move at Combat speed. Or vice versa. Something I am very confident is now illegal (Or is Cruising speed rather than combat >6'')


*****

I will start then with the big one.

In 6th Edition, the rules stated 'turning' did not reduce the vehicle movement.

That sentence has gone. It has been changed to
''Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary[''

In contrast, these were the 6th ed rules
Vehicles turn by pivoting on the
spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement. Pivoting
on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that
only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

Specifically it doesn't count as moving if your only pivoting. On the RAI side, this is not a copy and paste error, this line has been picked out and removed from the paragraph.

For anyone who is very familiar with these parts of the rules or saw any of my posts on this in 6th you can understand the implication of this and maybe just stop reading now, but I promised a complete picture...


*****


A note on Non Vehicle movement and why I'm talking about it.

We have to back track to the normal movement rules here. Some might point out at this juncture that Vehicles have different rules for movement - yes they do. However, Vehicle movement rules are not complete, they still draw from normal movement rules, and the importantly things like the rules for measuring movement distances, without using these you actually have no idea how to move the vehicle at all. It's best to think of it like so many other advanced rule sets in 40k - The baselines apply but any specific rules in the advanced section over ride those baselines. Vehicle rules do not override everything about normal movement, they do not contain their own rules for everything. This is mentioned early on..


''Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.''


Back to basics: How to measure movement

So what doesn't the vehicle rules override? How to measure movement.

Under the heading 'Movement distance' we have a diagram which I will badly replicate and the following text.

O'''''''''''''O
<----->
INCORRECT

O''''''''O
<----->
CORRECT

''It’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on
the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of
the model’s base to the distance moved. The diagram above shows correct and
incorrect ways of measuring move distance. For an Infantry model on its
relatively small base, this additive error isn’t so bad, but imagine what would
happen if this error was made with a vehicle 6" long!''

Imagine indeed!

So now we know, how you measure distances applies to Vehicles the same as any other model and this is:
From the front of the base, to the front of the base, up to the movement distance allowed.

Of interest, the restrictive part of movement is detailed in this passage,

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''


*****



How Vehicle rules interact with movement & measurement rules

Knowing the basic rules, we have to apply the vehicle rules to the situation. The ones that apply here are;

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

So everything we know about movement of models with bases and how they are measured, we change all instances of base to bade to be hull to hull.
To repeat part of a quote here:

if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.

Ah caught me out it says 6inches! - Please remember these are basic rule as pertain to infantry and advance rules will over ride how many inches, Jump can move 12inches etc, but in all cases no part of its base (Or hull..) can finish more than <movement distance> away from where it started in the movement phase.

This is now essentially no part of it's hull can finish the move more than 6'' away from where it started in the movement phase. I believe to squash this rule based evidence need to be brought forward that this somehow does not apply to vehicles.


*****


Turning Models, and Pivoting Vehicles.

I noted the major change early on, but to complete I'll speak in a little more detail.

''Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.''
Non Vehicles
As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction,

Nothing different really, just clarifying the central point for a vehicle as their hulls are not normally a perfect circle.

More pivoting
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary
and non vehicle modes;
A model that only pivots on the spot in the Movement phase counts as
being stationary for all purposes, including subsequent shooting attacks.

Just repeating the same things now.

Last bit doesn't really add anything
Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it
from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed
Because if you pivoted from the front some vehicles could probably move quite far, some may even pass the intended point of 6inches if that's what you are aiming for.



Conclusion to this really long post.

All of that said, the points brought forward to disprove are.

1. Pivoting is done during movement. It's not a separate entity which sits outside of the movement barriers.
2. To measure a vehicle for movement up to 6'', no part of the hull can end it's movement more than 6'' from where it started. (Apply to different movement distances as appropriate).

Which means that (assuming the vehicle isn't a perfect square of course):

A Vehicle which start or ends it's movement with a pivot before or after measuring, where part of the hull is further than 6inches from where it started has traveled more than 6" and up to 12" - Cruising Speed.

As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

 grendel083 wrote:
As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

Incorrect, he and the rulebook says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"

Which means if all you do is pivot then it is not movement.

But if you do more than just pivot... like say moving your vehicle... then pivoting does count as part of the movement

''Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary''

"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

I think he's actually found evidence that means you can't pivot to gain extra distance.

I'd buy it.

Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.

Let me see if I've got this clear. Hypothetical tank X is 4 inches wide and 6 inches long. This means 2 inches from center point to hull edge on each side, 3 inches from center point to hull edge on the front and back. If tank X is sitting sideways, you measure from the hull side, move the tank 6 inches legally sideways, THEN pivot the tank on the center point so the 3 inch radius side is now facing the direction you moved, and therefore you gain a inch on the movement?

It's been a thing for a very long time now. It's awesome with GA.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
Let me see if I've got this clear. Hypothetical tank X is 4 inches wide and 6 inches long. This means 2 inches from center point to hull edge on each side, 3 inches from center point to hull edge on the front and back. If tank X is sitting sideways, you measure from the hull side, move the tank 6 inches legally sideways, THEN pivot the tank on the center point so the 3 inch radius side is now facing the direction you moved, and therefore you gain a inch on the movement?

That is how it has worked since 3rd edition. But with the removal of the line "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." from the vehicle movement rules, this seems to be no longer the case because pivoting is part of the vehicle's movement. Since the rules state that the model's base (or hull) can not end their move further than the allowed distance, you can't use this tactic anymore.

I heartily applaud your reasoning and am happy that that single sentence was removed, changing everything.

Zimko wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
As you Quoted "Pivoting does not count as movement"

But you wish to count it as movement for the purpose of distance moved?

Correct?

Incorrect, he and the rulebook says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"

Which means if all you do is pivot then it is not movement.

But if you do more than just pivot... like say moving your vehicle... then pivoting does count as part of the movement

''Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles
turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round.
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary''

"As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

I think he's actually found evidence that means you can't pivot to gain extra distance.

This wouldn't affect ghost arks, wave serpents and such since it states you measure using the base and therefore any amount of pivoting yields no extra distance?

If this is a statement please back up your assertion with rules quotes. If this is a question then yes it would apply as the hull rule would still apply.

We are never told where to measure movement from.

While the front5 of the vehicle may have moved more than 6" from the original placement, you would not be able to turn your vehicle around and move any additional distance.

If you measure your movement from the pivot point you have gained no additional distance. Also most guns gain no additional distance when a vehicle is pivoted to bring multiple weapons to bear.

The core concept of this thread is flawed.

If you move the tank, then pivot you are able to measure the way you speak of and can end up with the hull over 6" from your starting location.


However if you simply pivot first (which doesnt count as moving until you move) and then measure 6" from your hull (as you are supposed to do), then you have not moved over 6" from your starting location and your argument falls apart.

Eihnlazer wrote:
If you move the tank, then pivot you are able to measure the way you speak of and can end up with the hull over 6" from your starting location.


However if you simply pivot first (which doesnt count as moving until you move) and then measure 6" from your hull (as you are supposed to do), then you have not moved over 6" from your starting location and your argument falls apart.

Except that no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

So pivoting first does not matter as you need to measure from where the vehicle starts the movement phase.

Vehicles dont have a base.

You measure from the hull.


If you pivot first, and measure from the hull where is the issue?

Hull counts as base

Does it Specify where on the Hull you need to measure from?

If not, as stated above, you can just measure from a portion of the hull that is directly over the pivot point and this whole argument falls dead in the water.

As soon as any point moves more than the allocated amount it violates the rule so measuring from the point of least movement does not in fact change the fact that a part therefor the entire model has moved further than allowed. Saying it does is like claiming that you built your house on your property because your front door is on your property despite the fact that it now blocks the road and the entrance to your neighbors garage.

Interesting.

Would that mean that a razorback that move forward 6", and does a 180 to unload cargo can no longer unload?
The rear access has ended it's move ~10" from the starting location (while the front has ended only 2"). If this counts as more than 6" of movement, it pretty much kills most transports.

-Matt

I agree with the OP's interpretation

As stated by hawaiimatt, using this interpretation ruins most transports capabilities and is pretty much NRAI (not read as intended)

Movement during Tank Shock could help get perspective on RAI:

To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and, after pre-measuring, declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move, up to its maximum speed. The vehicle must move at least Combat Speed. Note that, because pivoting on the spot does not count as moving, this is not enough for a Tank Shock.

This describes a vehicle pivoting and then declaring movement up to its maximum speed. The example picture of Tank Shock in the BRB shows the "aimed" Tank Shocking vehicle measuring from the front of its hull. Further, in this mention of pivoting it simply says pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. The term "alone" is omitted. I'd say this wording and example pictures from the Tank Shock section does supports the RAI to be vehicle movement measured omitting pivoting.

What it looks like they are doing is attempting to make people think and plan as opposed to the general easy button that many meq armies have become. Since 5th left that appears to be the trend I have noticed.

When disembarking you are not unloading a load of your ex's belongings. You don't open the gate, floor it in reverse and slam the breaks on.

Land raiders were never meant to get you an additional 2" for the unload via a pivot.

Tank shock is a special move and trying to use it's rules are tantamount to claiming my infantry should move 2d6 during the movement phase because they can during the charge.

Gravmyr wrote:

Land raiders were never meant to get you an additional 2" for the unload via a pivot.

Tank shock is a special move and trying to use it's rules are tantamount to claiming my infantry should move 2d6 during the movement phase because they can during the charge.

This.

Don't be mad that you can't game extra movement. I think the OP has a pretty good arguement here that would hold up in a rules thread. The only nitpicks come from people who are like "It doesn't say hull! It says base! It doesnt say WHEN you measure!"

Those are the sorts that I snort at and roll my eyes then make a mental note not to play again.

The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

You think magically that they finally figured out how to word it to work like they intended after this long?


Nice wishlisting.


Of course assault vehicles were designed to get their troops into the fight faster. To think otherwise is completely assanine.

OP's argument seems to be built on the removal of the "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement" sentence from the rules, and the implication that a base == hull. That doesn't seem like a strong connection to me - vehicles have an entirely different way of moving (pivot and move), which seems to override the descriptions of how to measure movement from the beginning of the BRB. In particular, I don't think the section about moving models with irregular bases (bikes and MCs) really applies to vehicles.

And in any case, this interpretation would complicated vehicle movement in general, since it would imply that you have to always measure the move distance BEFORE you pivot. I would rather keep the quirky "deploy sideways to gain an inch" if it means that the rest of vehicle movement is simplified.

The model may pivot at any point of movement. Pivoting does not count as movement. Ergo, pivoting does not technically increase the distance traveled since the model has not moved any distance gained. Despite being further away, it has not actually counted as moving that distance.

Also:

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rules of measuring distance to or from a base CONNOT BE USED. Instead, for the distance involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull.

The section then describes movement for vehicles. Vehicles that TRAVEL more than 6" are counted as moving at Cruising Speed, but:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

These are two statements in and of themselves, just simplified into one sentence to save page space and sound more comfortable on the ears.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

Per conversations with the guys that wrote the rules. Never. So yeah, he's probably got RAI behind him as well.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The OP would have a good argument, if it werent apparent that its not RAI.

How long have we been able to pivot for movement?

You think magically that they finally figured out how to word it to work like they intended after this long?


Nice wishlisting.


Of course assault vehicles were designed to get their troops into the fight faster. To think otherwise is completely assanine.

I think wishlisting is the wrong term.

And yea, Assault Vehicles are meant to get you into assault. If it was meant for you to get 2" extra movement, they would just have extra movement. I very much doubt RAI considers that all space marine drivers parallel park their rhino's and then do ice-rink 360's for extra movement when dropping people off.

I think OP is correct.

just to be clear.

you guys are not trying to find out how a specific rule works.

you have a particularly interpretation of a rule in mind and are trying to justify it by searching for 'supporting facts', no matter how far stretched.


those are two completely different things.

Op is incorrect for the reasons I clarify above.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Op is incorrect for the reasons I clarify above.

You are incorrect for the OP's reasons as stated above.

Wow, it's easy when you do it that way!

It's pretty specific that pivoting doesn't count as long as that's all the vehicle does. Once it moves, it's also pretty specific that no part of the vehicle can be more than 6inches from where it started. NO PART - FROM WHERE IT STARTED.

Those are pretty non-negotiable terms.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The model may pivot at any point of movement. Pivoting does not count as movement. Ergo, pivoting does not technically increase the distance traveled since the model has not moved any distance gained. Despite being further away, it has not actually counted as moving that distance.

Also:

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rules of measuring distance to or from a base CONNOT BE USED. Instead, for the distance involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull.

The section then describes movement for vehicles. Vehicles that TRAVEL more than 6" are counted as moving at Cruising Speed, but:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

These are two statements in and of themselves, just simplified into one sentence to save page space and sound more comfortable on the ears.

Pivoting DOES count as movement. The ONLY time it does not count is when that is all you did in the movement phase. That is the change made between 6th and 7th ed, and the whole point of the OP that you seem to have missed.

Thunder you do realize that it started its movement when it acctually moved.


Pivoting isnt a move. The center of the vehicle did not move anywhere. If you can pivot, and it not count as a move (by not moving the tank any further), how is the pivot itself a move? Hint: it isnt.


It only started its movement when it acctually moved its center point from where it was at the beginning of the movement phase.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Thunder you do realize that it started its movement when it acctually [sic] moved.


Pivoting isnt a move. The center of the vehicle did not move anywhere. If you can pivot, and it not count as a move (by not moving the tank any further), how is the pivot itself a move? Hint: it isnt.


It only started its movement when it acctually [sic] moved its center point from where it was at the beginning of the movement phase.

(Emphasis mine) The underlined is false for these reasons:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" (Vehicles section, Vehicles in the movement phase sub-section).

Therefore if the vehicle only pivots and does not move that phase the vehicle will be stationary when it comes to determine how many weapons it can fire.

However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting.

So you count the movement from where the vehicle started the movement phase, as the pivoting needs to be actually taken into account since the vehicle is moving.

And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section).

So what matters is where the vehicle was when it started the Movement phase. This means you take the pivot into account if you are doing more than pivoting.

The rules are finally clear on this.

While I understand the reason for a healthy debate on this topic, I think one's reading of the rules needs to converge with common sense at some point.

The rules in 7th edition clearly state that if a vehicle does more than pivot, the distanced pivoted is not free. Period.

Enter common sense: A Vehicle is capable of moving at a given speed. Lets assume for sake of argument this vehicle can magically conserve energy and all movement is equal - the distance it can travel is calculated from it's starting position.

No justification or exception is provided in 7th edition that allows the vehicle to magically change it's starting location via a free pivot.

Does this stop you from rotating a vehicle 180 degrees to dump troops out? YES!

Why? Because troop transports can't actually do axle spins on command if they want to rotate.

God forbid the rules of the game actually resemble the real world.

znelson wrote:
God forbid the rules of the game actually resemble the real world.

They never will, but that is because we are talking about a sci-fi setting where Lasguns, Imperial titans, Space ships, Drop Pods, Dreadnoughts, Tyranids, Eldar, Psychic powers exist, and genetically engineered space marines riding oversized wolves, not only exist, but they have the same movement rate as the same guy on a motorcycle...

P.S. Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Znelson,
While it isn't good to bring in real world examples, I would recommend taking a look at what Vehicles with treads can actually do.
The reason it can't do this in the Rules is because the Rule "simulating" it is gone, no more reason to it all then that.

IF Nem's assertion is correct, wouldn't that make many transport vehicles, such as Raiders, the Tantalus, and the big long Necron job (Ghost Ark?), severely weakened if not nigh on useless? That rules alteration would take these transports (when serving in their transport capacity) from nimble, graceful, acrobats of the motorpool to slow, lumbering sky-canoes.

Or am I over estimating how detrimental this interpretation would be to long, thin vehicles?

It seems like there is more going on here than that...

I think a Rules Writer at GW was murdered!

Here is why. The Victim was writing the vehicle rules entry, and he had a very specific idea in mind. He wanted to keep people from using the free pivot to gain an extra few inches of firing range. Rightly so because while it's legal to do so, you shouldn't be able to fire as if you had only moved 6", and so with that in mind he set out to rewrite the vehicle movement rules in a clear concise manner. He was probably at the office late, striving to find that perfect wording that would erase all doubt as to the intention of the rules. That was when he was brutally murdered. Probably by someone seeking to keep the rules vague and hard to understand, for mysterious reason we shall never know. Perhaps it was the Devil, or maybe it was Matt Ward. Or maybe it was someone who was a pivot move fire 1 at full BS kind of guy and didn't want to lose his secret weapon?

We shall never know the truth about the tragedy that unfolded that night. At least we may find solace in this thread, what may well be the final resting place of an unknown soldier. May the gods have mercy on his soul, should it have ever existed in the first place. The rule entry as it stands today was probably a hodge podge backwards, how-can-we-fix-it-so-no-one-will-know-it's-fixed sort of patch job slapped in place by a generic monkey/typewriter servitor.


Although, kudos to the OP for doing the deciphering for us! Maybe you could take a look at Grav weapons and vehicle cover saves for me? That's another one that seems like a hieroglyph of muddled intentions!

I think the biggest problem people have is the belief that transports should be turned around and deposit you a handful of inches away from your target. They should be there to get you across most of the way not doorstep to doorstep. Why would you ever logically present the rear of your vehicle with open access to the interior to the enemy?

Looking at the current rules and what Nem has put fourth, most of the time, unless there is bunch of strange things going on, you should be able to simply measure out 6" from the furthest point and put your rear there, if going for the prob me here look. It's simple, straight forward, and prevents any of the pivot shenanigans from happening.

The GA for the Crons is open topped so no it doesn't affect them and they would be the one that would be able to take advantage of the pivot crud the most.

 Jimsolo wrote:
IF Nem's assertion is correct, wouldn't that make many transport vehicles, such as Raiders, the Tantalus, and the big long Necron job (Ghost Ark?), severely weakened if not nigh on useless? That rules alteration would take these transports (when serving in their transport capacity) from nimble, graceful, acrobats of the motorpool to slow, lumbering sky-canoes.

Or am I over estimating how detrimental this interpretation would be to long, thin vehicles?

Losing 3 inches of movement at best is hardly going to take those transports from good to useless.

darkcloak wrote:
Although, kudos to the OP for doing the deciphering for us! Maybe you could take a look at Grav weapons and vehicle cover saves for me? That's another one that seems like a hieroglyph of muddled intentions!

There is nothing unclear about vehicle over saves and Grav weapons...

I would disagree about the Grav thing, unless wording for vehicle cover saves has also changed. If so please fill me in.

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting. Nobody has actually made a justification for why this would be so? Nothing says or implies that pivoting having moved counts as movement.
And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section). I already clarified that it is specifically stated that the normal rules for movement cannot be used, and that vehicles have their own rules for movement. The cruising speed could be argued, but this section of the book is not applicable and would imply that a vehicle can never move more than 6" and flyers automatically crash.

Also, 3" of movement in a game where models move 6" is a 50% change. So it is a big deal.

Gravmyr wrote:
..., you should be able to simply measure out 6" from the furthest point and put your rear there,...

That would result in you moving 6" plus the length of the vehicle.

The GA for the Crons is open topped so no it doesn't affect them and they would be the one that would be able to take advantage of the pivot crud the most.

Er... if they're the vehicle that would be able to take advantage of the free pivot the most, then surely this interpretation does affect them... ?

Ventiscogreen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting. Nobody has actually made a justification for why this would be so? Nothing says or implies that pivoting having moved counts as movement.
And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section). I already clarified that it is specifically stated that the normal rules for movement cannot be used, and that vehicles have their own rules for movement. The cruising speed could be argued, but this section of the book is not applicable and would imply that a vehicle can never move more than 6" and flyers automatically crash.

Also, 3" of movement in a game where models move 6" is a 50% change. So it is a big deal.

Pivoting only does not count as movement when the vehicle Pivots on the spot. Otherwise "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." so while pivoting is not explicitly movement, you can not end with the vehicle's Hull further than 6 inches from where it started. (Since we measure to and from the Hull instead of using the base as vehicles usually do not have bases).

Vehicles do have their own movement rules, but the basic rules still apply when talking about combat speed (Which is 6 inches the same as infantry movement). This is because the Vehicle section, Combat speed sub-section says "• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower".

If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

and in all reality two or three inches does not matter much, the vehicle could just move flat out the turn before to gain twice that in movement.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

If the normal movement rules don't apply, measuring more than 6" is still measuring more than 6".

The movement rules don't define some special way of measuring that only applies to Warhammer 40K.

Vehicle movement rules apply, and any vehicle that TRAVELS more than 6" is counted as moving cruising speed.
That would be an entire turn of snapshots.
During a vehicle movement you can pivot ON THE SPOT and then continue to expend movement. It is sometimes required to get around sharp corners in city battlefields.
A vehicle that has both pivoted and moved may only fire one weapon at full ballistics skill unless other rules trump said factor.
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

If the normal movement rules don't apply, measuring more than 6" is still measuring more than 6".

The movement rules don't define some special way of measuring that only applies to Warhammer 40K.

Except that if the normal movement rules do not apply then this does not apply either: "It’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of the model’s base to the distance moved."

However the rules for Moving vehicles does not override "How to measure movement"

Under the heading 'Movement distance' we have a diagram and the text I quoted earlier in this post.

darkcloak wrote:
I would disagree about the Grav thing, unless wording for vehicle cover saves has also changed. If so please fill me in.

My best suggestion here is for you to read the entirety of the 7e rulebook, specifically BRB 77, bullet-point #4.
There, I've even done all the work for you!

Gravmyr wrote:
I think the biggest problem people have is the belief that transports should be turned around and deposit you a handful of inches away from your target. They should be there to get you across most of the way not doorstep to doorstep. Why would you ever logically present the rear of your vehicle with open access to the interior to the enemy?

Well, if said open access to the interior was blocked by 10 super humans with chainsaws, I could see why you'd want to.

-Matt

But the book is all the way over there!

But seriously though, that rule got cleaned up? At least there will be no more fighting about it either way.

Not that I used grav guns very much, it just seemed like a nice added bonus to an otherwise mediocre weapon.

So they removed the sentence that says rotating does not reduce your movement... so the question is, if it now does how much does it reduce... and how do you measure that. if you are allowed to rotate before you move, how do you rotate and then measure 6" movement accurately? Or are we somehow expected to know the exact length and width dimensions of every vehicle we put on the field so we can now how much shorter the movement is if we rotate?

I see where the op is coming from, but given the way the rest of vehicle movement is worded... there is little way to enforce this rule. And if a vehicle moves the full 12", it is then allowed to pivot which would but it closer, if the OP is correct it would also somehow turn a series of completely legal maneuvers into something illegal...

So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

3.5" fwd as I measure it, although from the center front of the tank, to the furthest travelled corner it's just over 4"

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.

You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.

Sorry wasn't very clear in that was I? What I meant is moving as below.
RF------l
So you end.
------FRl

In the end you would have moved as far as you need to / want to but not past using the pivot. Just as your last post insaniak.

 Happyjew wrote:
So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

Also, how do we measure pivoting by non-square vehicles in a meaningful way? I'm not up to complex maths every time I move and pivot my Wave Serpent.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Interesting.

Would that mean that a razorback that move forward 6", and does a 180 to unload cargo can no longer unload?
The rear access has ended it's move ~10" from the starting location (while the front has ended only 2"). If this counts as more than 6" of movement, it pretty much kills most transports.

-Matt

This is pretty much the best example "against". All comments in favor of "no part of the vehicle can be more than 6inches from where it started" would move their transport 1" before rotating to unload. Feel free to play it that way...

I think that whatever your starting position is, as long as the center point has not moved more than 6", you are fully within RaW, even if you prow was facing left, and is now facing forward...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

4", as you have measured.

 insaniak wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.

You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.

Ya, but there are some moves that aren't physically possible you can accomplish if you don't move the vehicle along a path when we are talking about dense terrain and when there are a bunch of models up close. I have always treated vehicles as moving along their path of movement rather than measure and place. Simplified example using infantry of why that is a problem, measure out 6" from a infantry model at a corner, you wouldn't say it can be place anywhere within 6", since that disregards the need to move around the corner. I just physically tested that with a fire warrior and bought myself 2 free inches of movement around a corner. I started the models in the same spot, moving one 4" and then 2". The next model was placed within 6" of the original position and was 2" farther along the other wall of the corner. The corner was 90 degrees, since a sharper angle would result in even worse move distance difference.

 Leonus wrote:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

Pivoting DOES count as movement.

nope. 'Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving' thats a direct quote from the rulebook.

that is pretty clear. its a simple statement of the book, but still its somehow open for debate.

if the rule would say:
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, IF a vehicle only pivots in
the Movement phase.
then i would agree. but how its acually written.... there is no wiggle room. it explicitly says: Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving.

What I said, only simpler in a good way. Also a lot more blunt.

The way I would play it is you measure the distance from the furthest point of the hull before pivoting or moving. Then pick up the vehicle, turn it whichever direction you want, and place it so that the furthest point is lined up with the end of the tape-measure.

Interpreting it to mean that you measure a single point on the hull instead of just the hull in general would be unplayable once you factor in pivoting with oddly shaped vehicles.

Hi guys,

This question is for Nem (and anyone who shares the belief can answer as well).

I've thought of how your way of playing it can still be abused. Tell me if this is possible.

Starting position: Ghost Ark facing forward, towards the enemy

It moves 6 inches forward, then pivots 90 degrees.

Then, because of the pivot, the biggest distance moved from the original position is <6 inches, so I get to shift it sideways, closer to the enemy unit.

This gives additional range to the gauss flayers at the side of the Ghost Ark, no? As compared to the other way of moving it (pivot and move model 6 inches.

The OP seems to be correct IMO. It was legal, if cheesy, before. Now the rules have been re-worded to stop this with the explanation of where you can end up and how moving works.

RAW also means that vehicles cannot do 180's to dump troops out or the like. The way I read it no point on the hull can move more than 6" from its point of origin.

 milkboy wrote:
Hi guys,

This question is for Nem (and anyone who shares the belief can answer as well).

I've thought of how your way of playing it can still be abused. Tell me if this is possible.

Starting position: Ghost Ark facing forward, towards the enemy

It moves 6 inches forward, then pivots 90 degrees.

Then, because of the pivot, the biggest distance moved from the original position is <6 inches, so I get to shift it sideways, closer to the enemy unit.

This gives additional range to the gauss flayers at the side of the Ghost Ark, no? As compared to the other way of moving it (pivot and move model 6 inches.

That would mean them moving sideways, which they cannot, as far as I remember. Also the front and back would probably end up more than 6" from it's start point.

RedNoak wrote:

 Leonus wrote:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

Pivoting DOES count as movement.

nope. 'Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving' thats a direct quote from the rulebook.

that is pretty clear. its a simple statement of the book, but still its somehow open for debate.

if the rule would say:
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, IF a vehicle only pivots in
the Movement phase.
then i would agree. but how its acually written.... there is no wiggle room. it explicitly says: Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving.

Had to go check what my rulebook says:
"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"

So yes, I agree that at no point does pivoting count as moving. But that hasn't been the issue.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

Intent is quite clear there. Combined with what was already written, no matter how much pivoting you do, if a part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from the starting position your vehicle is moving at cruising speed.

Steve steveson, it's not necessary to move sideways. You can do a curve as well, like parking a car in a parallel lot?

Also, the front and back can be within the 6 inches as well. When putting a longitudinal object against a curved wall, it does not necessarily mean the front and backs will be within the wall.

It is a skimmer. Who says it can't move sideways? Also, who says it can't rotate while floating into said position. One of the reasons this argument has issues is due to the fact it wants you to place a model within a distance rather than actually travel said distance. Furthermore, using the OP's system I can shenanigan more range on my hammerhead, albeit giving my enemy side armor unless they are extremely far away.

PS: Because trolling marine players on hammer and anvil. Silly lascannons! Not that I honestly need the shenanigans to troll lascannons though...

 Steve steveson wrote:
The OP seems to be correct IMO. It was legal, if cheesy, before. Now the rules have been re-worded to stop this with the explanation of where you can end up and how moving works.

RAW also means that vehicles cannot do 180's to dump troops out or the like. The way I read it no point on the hull can move more than 6" from its point of origin.

[...]

That would mean them moving sideways, which they cannot, as far as I remember. Also the front and back would probably end up more than 6" from it's start point.

no rules as written say "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary"
and since when its forbidden to move sideways?

 Steve steveson wrote:
That would mean them moving sideways, which they cannot, as far as I remember. Also the front and back would probably end up more than 6" from it's start point.

There are absolutely no rules on this, skimmers can "glide" sideways 6" or 12" if they so desire.

Raw it is legal. Fluff-wise it stands. Trying it with Rhinos is also correct RaW, but a little more unorthodox and i'm sure you'll get weird stares =P

Naw wrote:

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

Intent is quite clear there. Combined with what was already written, no matter how much pivoting you do, if a part of your vehicle ends up more than 6" from the starting position your vehicle is moving at cruising speed.

thats better

can you give me the page?
so as intended and as written:
measure from the centre and move your distance, while you can pivot from the centre as many and as often as you want.

I forbid sideways moving most of the time, but I also allow pivots at any point to change direction. Fluffy sideways floating I am fine with, though I've never found this advantageous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the rules state to measure from the vehicles hull, which means I could choose to measure from the CENTER of the vehicle and therefore render the entire argument pointless since my vehicle will not have traveled from that point of reference any more than I desire no matter how many times I spin in a circle making tornado noises into the mic, irritating my Shas'O.

Naw wrote:
"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

I do believe that this rule was to stop this:


Whereas this is fully within RaW:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Also, the rules state to measure from the vehicles hull, which means I could choose to measure from the CENTER of the vehicle and therefore render the entire argument pointless since my vehicle will not have traveled from that point of reference any more than I desire no matter how many times I spin in a circle making tornado noises into the mic, irritating my Shas'O.

That is exactly what the RaW tell you to do, and if you play that way it is completely right and breaks no rules. Some disagree

 BlackTalos wrote:

Naw wrote:
"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

I do believe that this rule was to stop this:


Whereas this is fully within RaW:

That wasn't legal in 6th. I made that very clear to one of my opponents when he tried it. Center point.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
That wasn't legal in 6th. I made that very clear to one of my opponents when he tried it. Center point.

The first or the second one?
Because the 1st picture is an example of "Wrong" =P

 BlackTalos wrote:

Naw wrote:
"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."

I do believe that this rule was to stop this:


Whereas this is fully within RaW:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Also, the rules state to measure from the vehicles hull, which means I could choose to measure from the CENTER of the vehicle and therefore render the entire argument pointless since my vehicle will not have traveled from that point of reference any more than I desire no matter how many times I spin in a circle making tornado noises into the mic, irritating my Shas'O.

That is exactly what the RaW tell you to do, and if you play that way it is completely right and breaks no rules. Some disagree

Pictures are worth a lot of words.

If you look at that picture and think.."Oh, I don't do that anyways," then this probably wont affect you.

If you look at that picture and think.."I do that all the time! I'm getting robbed of movement!" then you must regretfully throw away your bag of Cheetohs because cheesy got shut down by this rule change.

 insaniak wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.

You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.

I understand where your coming from there. Movement is not literally defined as a lateral movement in case or models or vehicles, Vehicles never actually have to move ''forwards'' in the rules, neither do models.

I believe vehicle movement around a corner would be measured exactly as if it were a model. You take a point on the Model / Vehicle (Usually the front because... cinematic - though this is never specified for any type of model), you measure 6'' maybe bending your tape measure to find the end point and then move the model.

This particular situation would be the same for vehicles and models, when turning a 90 degree corner and moving 6inches, a models base may be much <6 from the starting point as the crow flies.

Do note not all non vehicle model bases are round, this applies as much to mawlocs as a tank.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

If the normal movement rules don't apply, measuring more than 6" is still measuring more than 6".

The movement rules don't define some special way of measuring that only applies to Warhammer 40K.

Except that if the normal movement rules do not apply then this does not apply either: "It’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of the model’s base to the distance moved."

However the rules for Moving vehicles does not override "How to measure movement"

Under the heading 'Movement distance' we have a diagram and the text I quoted earlier in this post.

Also worth noting ''normal'' movement rules include other things like your not allowed to move off the board etc. Movement rules cover many things, if you don't apply them you might as well fly the vehicle across the board and plonk it down where ever you want.

 milkboy wrote:
Hi guys,

This question is for Nem (and anyone who shares the belief can answer as well).

I've thought of how your way of playing it can still be abused. Tell me if this is possible.

Starting position: Ghost Ark facing forward, towards the enemy

It moves 6 inches forward, then pivots 90 degrees.

Then, because of the pivot, the biggest distance moved from the original position is <6 inches, so I get to shift it sideways, closer to the enemy unit.

This gives additional range to the gauss flayers at the side of the Ghost Ark, no? As compared to the other way of moving it (pivot and move model 6 inches.

I'm not sure if all parts of the hull would be in 6inches of the original starting position for that part of the hull, without the model to hand, our 'Cron players don't often take GA's.

but see my note to insaniak above, same concept at any sort of angle and any model.

Nem, here is Milkboy's example:


For our position: It has moved forward 12", then Pivoted on the Green dot "central axis".

If we were to follow your argument, the Red line shows that no part of the Hull is 12" away from the original position of the Hull.

Would you not say that the Positioning of the second Ark (following the Rules as you've interpreted them) is closer in Range to the enemy?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nem, here is Milkboy's example:


For our position: It has moved forward 12", then Pivoted on the Green dot "central axis".

If we were to follow your argument, the Red line shows that no part of the Hull is 12" away from the original position of the Hull.

Would you not say that the Positioning of the second Ark (following the Rules as you've interpreted them) is closer in Range to the enemy?

Sorry I just edited my post removing the last line before I saw this, my reply would be same as to insaniak - same concept, same rules

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nem, here is Milkboy's example:


For our position: It has moved forward 12", then Pivoted on the Green dot "central axis".

If we were to follow your argument, the Red line shows that no part of the Hull is 12" away from the original position of the Hull.

Would you not say that the Positioning of the second Ark (following the Rules as you've interpreted them) is closer in Range to the enemy?

Except the rear hull of the Ghost Arc is more than 12 inches from where it started in that pic, and as such it is an illegal move.

so here's the thing - if no part of the hull can move more than 6", does that mean that if a monolith (6" square and can only move 6") that turns 180 degrees cannot move any further?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except the rear hull of the Ghost Arc is more than 12 inches from where it started in that pic, and as such it is an illegal move.

What, exactly, is the rule preventing this?

The way I play and understand the rules, you may rotate your vehicle in any manner desired, so long as no part of the vehicle ends up more than 6"/12" away from where you first measured. My Rhino is facing forward. I measure 6" forward from the tip of its hull and place my finger on that spot. Now I can rotate my Rhino in any direction I desire and place it on the field, being careful to allow no part of the Rhino past my finger. I don't need to measure individual points on the hull and carefully keep track of them before I set down the Rhino.
1) Who cares how far away the rear is currently from where it used to be?
2) What rule am I missing that disallows this?

This is the rule preventing this:

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

With vehicle we use the Hull instead of the base, so no part of its hull can finish the move more than 6" (Or 12 in the case of a vehicle moving cruising speed) away from where it started the Movement phase.

'That rear of the hull looks to be about 18 inches from where it started the movement phase according to the scale in the pictures.

"from where it started" : is the word "it" here referring to "part of its base" or the point you measured from?

There are some practical problem if we have to measure all parts of the hull to make sure that no part moved more than permitted...

 Dracos wrote:
"from where it started" : is the word "it" here referring to "part of its base" or the point you measured from?

There are some practical problem if we have to measure all parts of the hull to make sure that no part moved more than permitted...

Not really, just measure from the point that will have to move the furthest in order to complete the manoeuvre.

So if you're going to drive forwards and do a 180 degree turn, measure from the back because no bit of the vehicle can possibly end further than that.

In regard to the ghost ark, it is again common sense that if the vehicle ends perpendicular to its initial position and the front of the vehicle has moved its maximum of 12" then the rear must have moved more than 12". Pretty basic Trigonometry to be honest

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is the rule preventing this:

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where [that part of its base] started the Movement phase. Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

Yep, that does it. I diagrammed this sentence out, and while it's a very shoddy sentence, the pronoun "it" is referring to the part of the base (ie. hull), which makes DR's reading correct.

Dracos: you've hit on the actual issue.

With the rule, it's pretty much impossible to pivot (along the center axis) at the end of your movement if you've moved the maximum legal distance forward. Which means that if you intend to do a 180 degree pivot at the end then you have to reduce your movement by the length of the vehicle. Have a 4" long vehicle? Then your total forward movement is 2".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
"from where it started" : is the word "it" here referring to "part of its base" or the point you measured from?

There are some practical problem if we have to measure all parts of the hull to make sure that no part moved more than permitted...

Not really, just measure from the point that will move the furthest.

So if you're going to drive forwards and do a 180 degree turn, measure from the back because no bit of the vehicle can possibly end further than that.

In regard to the ghost ark, it is again common sense that if the vehicle ends perpendicular to its initial position and the front of the vehicle has moved its maximum of 12" then the rear must have moved more than 12". Pretty basic Trigonometry to be honest

Assuming you know the end position you want when you start moving...

 Dracos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
"from where it started" : is the word "it" here referring to "part of its base" or the point you measured from?

There are some practical problem if we have to measure all parts of the hull to make sure that no part moved more than permitted...

Not really, just measure from the point that will move the furthest.

So if you're going to drive forwards and do a 180 degree turn, measure from the back because no bit of the vehicle can possibly end further than that.

In regard to the ghost ark, it is again common sense that if the vehicle ends perpendicular to its initial position and the front of the vehicle has moved its maximum of 12" then the rear must have moved more than 12". Pretty basic Trigonometry to be honest

Assuming you know the end position you want when you start moving...

Why wouldn't you? If you aren't going to think your move through before you start moving then the rules shouldn't help you for making a bad decision. And you can always return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why wouldn't you? If you aren't going to think your move through before you start moving then the rules shouldn't help you for making a bad decision. And you can always return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move.

It's not that I don't think my moves through, but that there will be some times where the exact orientation of the model in its end position is not solidified when you start moving. There is, AFAIK, no rule supporting the position that you can "return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move". Got a citation for that?

 Dracos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why wouldn't you? If you aren't going to think your move through before you start moving then the rules shouldn't help you for making a bad decision. And you can always return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move.

It's not that I don't think my moves through, but that there will be some times where the exact orientation of the model in its end position is not solidified when you start moving. There is, AFAIK, no rule supporting the position that you can "return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move". Got a citation for that?

second paragraph under Movement Distance section of the rulebook wrote:It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

So you could measure the distance, start to move it, change your mind and move it somewhere else.

I believe it came up in another thread in the instance of starting to move a squad one way, then moving the moved models back in order to move a different way.

Ummm no that citation says you can measure different directions, not start moving models and then put them back. That says nothing about moving models and then putting them back.

One pre-measures to ensure the move is legal prior to attempting the move.

 Dracos wrote:
Ummm no that citation says you can measure different directions, not start moving models and then put them back. That says nothing about moving models and then putting them back.

However the only limitation on them moving is that they cannot end further than 6" from their starting point.

So there is no rules reason why moving back and then measuring to a different spot to move there is not allowed as the model has still not ended its move further than 6" from the starting point.

It's not measuring the actual distance covered by the model, only its final displacement from the initial position. So you could run your unit all around the table and the opposing player making Doppler Effect noises as long as they ended within a 6" bubble of where they started.

Except good luck keeping track of the exact starting position of all the models (including all parts of each base).

What you are describing is, practically speaking, impossible to do accurately. If you do that inaccurately, it's pretty obviously not going to be legal.

edit: In short, I reject your premise that you get "takesies backsies" when moving models.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why wouldn't you? If you aren't going to think your move through before you start moving then the rules shouldn't help you for making a bad decision. And you can always return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move.

It's not that I don't think my moves through, but that there will be some times where the exact orientation of the model in its end position is not solidified when you start moving. There is, AFAIK, no rule supporting the position that you can "return the vehicle back to it's starting position and move to a different place as long as you haven't finished the move". Got a citation for that?

second paragraph under Movement Distance section of the rulebook wrote:It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

So you could measure the distance, start to move it, change your mind and move it somewhere else.

I believe it came up in another thread in the instance of starting to move a squad one way, then moving the moved models back in order to move a different way.

Dracos wrote:Ummm no that citation says you can measure different directions, not start moving models and then put them back. That says nothing about moving models and then putting them back.

Except, well... you do.
You can measure a unit's move in one direction. and then decide to move the unit the opposite way entirely.
So if you move 1-2 models of a 10 model unit one direction, you have permission to move the models the opposite direction, or not at all.

You just made that up. It says nothing about moving them and then moving them again.

edit: That text is about measuring, not moving.

 Dracos wrote:
You just made that up. It says nothing about moving them and then moving them again.

edit: That text is about measuring, not moving.

Really?

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

Exactly what part did I make up again? I emphasized where it talks about moving the unit.

 Dracos wrote:
Except good luck keeping track of the exact starting position of all the models (including all parts of each base).

What you are describing is, practically speaking, impossible to do accurately. If you do that inaccurately, it's pretty obviously not going to be legal.

edit: In short, I reject your premise that you get "takesies backsies" when moving models.

Where does it say in the book that once a model is moved that all movements are final? Using your logic, if I pick up my model and put it back down again because the model doesn't fit, I'm out of luck, even if the move isn't legal which would require that I put it back and start over. Or if I pick up my model and move it 24" and it's not a legal move, where does my model go? I can't put it back according to what you are saying.

A Town Called Malus does have a point:
The Movement Rules begin focused on the Unit as a whole, before moving onto limitations concerning individual Models themselves. It starts by giving permission for the Unit to move, which we take as permission to move the Models within the Unit for obvious reasons. It then creates a Restriction that we can not return to a Unit which has already moved and re-evaluate that movement, which is why pre-measuring and deciding at this moment in time is very important.

However, interestingly enough, that Restriction only triggers after the entire Unit has finished it's movement. While said Unit is in a state of 'moving,' there is nothing preventing us from re-evaluating that movement. Given that we still have permission to move the Unit as a whole, this creates the requirement of a specific Restriction making 'Take-backs' illegal on the Model level. Given that the next Restriction that would come into play is the requirement that Models remain within X of their starting position, and the rest get even easier to obey, it is entirely Legal to re-evaluate a Model's movement at this time.

Personally:
Measure and figure it all out before touching a single Model, as doing otherwise makes it too easy to cheat out half an inch here and there
While I honestly don't have much of a care about such little distances of movement, it is a game after all, it is easier to avoid bruised honor that way

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
You just made that up. It says nothing about moving them and then moving them again.

edit: That text is about measuring, not moving.

Really?

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

Exactly what part did I make up again? I emphasized where it talks about moving the unit.

It is quite clear and explicit that you are permitted to measure in any direction without committing to move that way. It says NOTHING about moving one way, and then moving back to the start position and move another. The emphasized text is the only mention of moving, which serves to disassociate the acts of measuring and moving.

You can " measure a unit’s move [...] and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else" That does not hold the meaning of moving models in one direction and then changing your mind.

In order to read it as you are, you would have to read measuring and moving as being interchangeable, which they certainly are not.

Warmonger2757 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
Except good luck keeping track of the exact starting position of all the models (including all parts of each base).

What you are describing is, practically speaking, impossible to do accurately. If you do that inaccurately, it's pretty obviously not going to be legal.

edit: In short, I reject your premise that you get "takesies backsies" when moving models.

Where does it say in the book that once a model is moved that all movements are final? Using your logic, if I pick up my model and put it back down again because the model doesn't fit, I'm out of luck, even if the move isn't legal which would require that I put it back and start over. Or if I pick up my model and move it 24" and it's not a legal move, where does my model go? I can't put it back according to what you are saying.

This. It is nowhere in the rules defined as to when a move is completed. Therefore the only logical and working explanation is that the moving player decides. If it is up to the player to decide then they can move the unit back to where it started if they wished, so long as they had not ended that move (either by moving another unit or entering the shooting phase etc.).

 Dracos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
You just made that up. It says nothing about moving them and then moving them again.

edit: That text is about measuring, not moving.

Really?

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

Exactly what part did I make up again? I emphasized where it talks about moving the unit.

It is quite clear and explicit that you are permitted to measure in any direction without committing to move that way. It says NOTHING about moving one way, and then moving back to the start position and move another. The emphasized text is the only mention of moving, which serves to disassociate the acts of measuring and moving.

You can " measure a unit’s move [...] and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else" That does not hold the meaning of moving models in one direction and then changing your mind.

In order to read it as you are, you would have to read measuring and moving as being interchangeable, which they certainly are not.

The quoted rule certainly equates them. Or do you not have to measure when you move the completely opposite direction?

That is laughable. Measuring and moving are not the same thing. Moving has a subset of actions, one of which is measuring (since there is a limit to the move), the other is physically moving the model.

I'm at a loss a to how this is so hard to understand.

 Dracos wrote:
That is laughable. Measuring and moving are not the same thing. Moving has a subset of actions, one of which is measuring (since there is a limit to the move), the other is physically moving the model.

I'm at a loss a to how this is so hard to understand.

Arriving from Reserves and rolling for reserves are not the same thing. Arriving has a subset of actions, one of which is rolling (since you can't arrive if you fail the roll), the other is physically putting the models on the table.

I'm at a loss as to how this is so hard to understand.

 Dracos wrote:
That is laughable. Measuring and moving are not the same thing. Moving has a subset of actions, one of which is measuring (since there is a limit to the move), the other is physically moving the model.

I'm at a loss a to how this is so hard to understand.

If it is so laughable then I'm sure you can provide written rules to refute our stance? Telling us how a move is defined as finished would be a good place to start.

I would like to point out once more that the Rules create a point in the Timeline when the movement is considered final:
After the entire unit has moved.
Find me the Restriction that Triggers before that point preventing the Model from further movement.

I don't need to. You offered a citation claiming it gave you permission to do something, which it certainly does not.

 Dracos wrote:
I don't need to. You offered a citation claiming it gave you permission to do something, which it certainly does not.

Citation needed.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
..., measure out 6" from a infantry model at a corner, you wouldn't say it can be place anywhere within 6",

That's not what I was saying.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
If you look at that picture and think.."I do that all the time! I'm getting robbed of movement!" then you must regretfully throw away your bag of Cheetohs because cheesy got shut down by this rule change.

Except it was never legal in previous editions either.

I hate when I have to quote whole chunks of Rulebook like some sort of preacher....

Permission to Move:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

At this point I have permission to move any of my Units, it also creates the requirement that the entire Unit is declared as having 'moved' before I start to adjust Models within different Units. Now there is a lot of Game Workshop sloppy writing within this paragraph, such as Unit's having a 'maximum movement' or that it is actually individual Models which are being moved but we can understand enough of their intent here. No matter which direction the unit moves, all the Models within can not be further away from their allowed movements and further Rules to enforce this idea. However, at this point it is clear we have one thing, Permission to move Models until the entire unit has finished it's movement.

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

This paragraph you know fairly well already, it has been quoted and mis-quoted many times. However I would like to bring you to the very last part of it, where it informs us how we go about measuring if the Model's individual Movement is legal or not. This re-enforces the above quoted paragraph as well, creating a Restriction that makes sense as it is individual Models which have movement rates and not Units. However this informs us of one very important thing, that we measure from the starting position to the front of the model, ensuring it is not outside of it's movement allowance.

If you believe the above conclusion, with Rule quoted backing, is incorrect then you will need to provide quotes of your own from this point forward to support your stance as well.

 Nem wrote:
I believe vehicle movement around a corner would be measured exactly as if it were a model. You take a point on the Model / Vehicle (Usually the front because... cinematic - though this is never specified for any type of model), you measure 6'' maybe bending your tape measure to find the end point and then move the model.

But that was my point: If you do it that way, there is absolutely no point in the vehicle rules stating that you pivot on the centre point instead of 'wheeling' on the edge as they move. It simply won't matter how the vehicle turns.

Do note not all non vehicle model bases are round, ...

No they're not.

Your aforementioned Mawloc being a prime example.

clively wrote:
Dracos: you've hit on the actual issue.

With the rule, it's pretty much impossible to pivot (along the center axis) at the end of your movement if you've moved the maximum legal distance forward. Which means that if you intend to do a 180 degree pivot at the end then you have to reduce your movement by the length of the vehicle. Have a 4" long vehicle? Then your total forward movement is 2".

exactly. that cant be how the rules are intended.

if you need an essay of 4 forum pages to explain a simple rule, the rule isn't been used as intended.

the rulebook clearly states PIVOTING DOES NOT COUNT AS MOVEMENT.
this statement doesn't have any restriction whatsoever. whenever it is possible to move an vehicle you can pivot (from the center) as often as you like without it being counted as extra movement.

everything else is just shenanigans to justify ones own interpretation.


however i agree, that you should always measure distances from the centre in order to avoid complications or cheesy things like shown in the above pictures

RedNoak wrote:

clively wrote:
Dracos: you've hit on the actual issue.

With the rule, it's pretty much impossible to pivot (along the center axis) at the end of your movement if you've moved the maximum legal distance forward. Which means that if you intend to do a 180 degree pivot at the end then you have to reduce your movement by the length of the vehicle. Have a 4" long vehicle? Then your total forward movement is 2".

exactly. that cant be how the rules are intended.

if you need an essay of 4 forum pages to explain a simple rule, the rule isn't been used as intended.

the rulebook clearly states PIVOTING DOES NOT COUNT AS MOVEMENT.
this statement doesn't have any restriction whatsoever. whenever it is possible to move an vehicle you can pivot (from the center) as often as you like without it being counted as extra movement.

everything else is just shenanigans to justify ones own interpretation.


however i agree, that you should always measure distances from the centre in order to avoid complications or cheesy things like shown in the above pictures

The rule clearly states that

A model that only pivots on the spot in the Movement phase counts as being stationary for all purposes, including subsequent shooting attacks.

Notice the word "only" in there.

Then in the vehicle section it states:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot).

Notice that the word "only" is in there again.

That is not the same as saying that PIVOTING DOES NOT COUNT AS MOVEMENT.

As soon as a vehicle has done more than just pivot, the movement rules are in place and no point of the vehicle can end its move further than 6" from its initial position if you are moving at Combat Speed.

Quick question as I think I might of missed something:
What section informs us that we must measure to a specific point on the Hull, instead of just the Hull in general?

JinxDragon wrote:
Quick question:
What section informs us that we must measure to a specific point on the Hull, instead of just the Hull in general?

The movement rules specify that no point on the base of a model can end its move further than 6" from its starting point.

When moving vehicles the Hull is used instead of the base and so no point on the Hull can end its move further than 6" (or 12" if cruising with its homies) from its starting point.

Name of the section please, I'm clearly looking in the wrong place and the damn digital editions with their 'adjustable' pages....

JinxDragon wrote:
Name of the section please, I'm clearly looking in the wrong place and the damn digital editions with their 'adjustable' pages....

The Movement Phase section, Movement distance sub-section, 2nd Graph.

I was looking in the Vehicle section, thinking something related to measuring to a Specific point on the Hull, instead of say the furtherest point on the hull as a whole, of a vehicle would be related there.
Do you mean by 2nd Graph the picture showing the correct and incorrect measurement of a Model?

JinxDragon wrote:
I was looking in the Vehicle section, thinking something related to measuring to a Specific point on the Hull, instead of say the furtherest point on the hull as a whole, of a vehicle would be related there.
Do you mean by 2nd Graph the picture showing the correct and incorrect measurement of a Model?

Second Paragraph

JinxDragon wrote:
I was looking in the Vehicle section, thinking something related to measuring to a Specific point on the Hull, instead of say the furtherest point on the hull as a whole, of a vehicle would be related there.
Do you mean by 2nd Graph the picture showing the correct and incorrect measurement of a Model?

Graph = paragraph. and The movement section, not the Vehicle section.

The graph that starts with the line "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction..."

JinxDragon wrote:
I hate when I have to quote whole chunks of Rulebook like some sort of preacher....

Permission to Move:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

At this point I have permission to move any of my Units, it also creates the requirement that the entire Unit is declared as having 'moved' before I start to adjust Models within different Units. Now there is a lot of Game Workshop sloppy writing within this paragraph, such as Unit's having a 'maximum movement' or that it is actually individual Models which are being moved but we can understand enough of their intent here. No matter which direction the unit moves, all the Models within can not be further away from their allowed movements and further Rules to enforce this idea. However, at this point it is clear we have one thing, Permission to move Models until the entire unit has finished it's movement.

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

This paragraph you know fairly well already, it has been quoted and mis-quoted many times. However I would like to bring you to the very last part of it, where it informs us how we go about measuring if the Model's individual Movement is legal or not. This re-enforces the above quoted paragraph as well, creating a Restriction that makes sense as it is individual Models which have movement rates and not Units. However this informs us of one very important thing, that we measure from the starting position to the front of the model, ensuring it is not outside of it's movement allowance.

If you believe the above conclusion, with Rule quoted backing, is incorrect then you will need to provide quotes of your own from this point forward to support your stance as well.

We're on the same page as far as I can tell. I just don't see how that means you can pick up a model, put it down, and then pick it back up and put it in the general area of where it originally was (please don't try to tell me you will be putting it "exactly" back in place - especially if you have moved more than one before trying to replace them) in order to change where you are moving that specific model. It's that 'takesies backsies' that I am not seeing room for in those rules.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the OP's assertions regarding the small change to the wording is correct. The resulting system is a pain to deal with though.

I really hate the lack of reliable page numbers on these things...
This line: no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. Defiantly creates a problem as it also runs counter instruction informing us how we go about measuring Distances within this game. This has created a situation where the Vehicle can be both said to have it's hull wholly within X of it's starting point, by the Rules telling us how we measure these things, while certain parts have indeed travelled more then X.
*Slow Clap*

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos,
Because Permission to move the Model exists until the entire Unit has finished Moving.

So you are drawing [outlining] their original position on the board to make sure they are replaced in the <exact> same position and not exceeding the 6" with any part of their base?

 Dracos wrote:
So you are drawing their original position on the board to make sure they are replaced in the <exact> same position and not exceeding the 6" with any part of their base?

That's what the rules say.

We're not arguing that it is advisable or even sensible. Just that the rules say you can.

So then, we can agree that the rules permit you to do so, so long as your follow a requirement that is practically impossible?

Ok

edit: Putting aside the fact that there is no permission to mark the board in this fashion...

Dracos,
Please read one of my earlier posts where I pointed out that it is best to avoid this situation, to measure and decide in advance of moving any Model, because of how easy it is to be accused of cheating.
That is still irrelevant to the fact the Rules allow you to do it.

However, I am backing away as I have encountered one of the 'head explodey' interactions that sometimes happen within Game Workshop Rules if you try and treat them as boolean....

No worries Jinx, while I see what you guys are getting at, the practicality makes it moot imo.

To each their own.

Agreed,
For while I have no problem with the occasional re-evaluation in the middle of moving a Unit, if a player is constantly doing it even I will start to wonder what they are trying to pull.

JinxDragon wrote:
I really hate the lack of reliable page numbers on these things...
This line: no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. Defiantly creates a problem as it also runs counter instruction informing us how we go about measuring Distances within this game. This has created a situation where the Vehicle can be both said to have it's hull wholly within X of it's starting point, by the Rules telling us how we measure these things, while certain parts have indeed travelled more then

That line implies no current 40k vehicle model can be turned in any way, ever, during Movement, and still have the model come close to moving 6". There are no vehicles that are perfect spheres, which is the only shape that can follow that restriction.

So let me go back. It was brought up in the changed system that it could be interpreted that no part of the vehicle may move further than 6" or the model has moved at cruising speed. This means that I would not be able to, for the most part, turn anything of large size. Further more, you are applying non vehicle movement rules on to a vehicle. I have repeatedly quoted the line stating that standard movement rules for non vehicle models "...CANNOT..." be applied to vehicles. They have their own listed rules that are clearly stated and explained less than a page after said line.

The "I adjust" argument is not relevant to this discussion.

PIVOTING ON THE SPOT HAS NO IMPACT ON MOVEMENT, AND IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS DISTANCE TRAVELED. The original premise for this entire discussion is that infantry model rules apply to vehicles replacing the word "base" with "hull". This is not stated in the book, and to assume it is to a assume that NO VEHICLE MAY EVER MOVE FURTHER THAN COMBAT SPEED.

Sorry for the caps, but I have made some valid arguments that barely got addressed which debunk half of this tomfoolery that has developed at the bare minimum and in all honesty refute the argument of the OP.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
So let me go back. It was brought up in the changed system that it could be interpreted that no part of the vehicle may move further than 6" or the model has moved at cruising speed. This means that I would not be able to, for the most part, turn anything of large size. Further more, you are applying non vehicle movement rules on to a vehicle. I have repeatedly quoted the line stating that standard movement rules for non vehicle models "...CANNOT..." be applied to vehicles. They have their own listed rules that are clearly stated and explained less than a page after said line.

The "I adjust" argument is not relevant to this discussion.

PIVOTING ON THE SPOT HAS NO IMPACT ON MOVEMENT, AND IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS DISTANCE TRAVELED. The original premise for this entire discussion is that infantry model rules apply to vehicles replacing the word "base" with "hull". This is not stated in the book, and to assume it is to a assume that NO VEHICLE MAY EVER MOVE FURTHER THAN COMBAT SPEED.

Sorry for the caps, but I have made some valid arguments that barely got addressed which debunk half of this tomfoolery that has developed at the bare minimum and in all honesty refute the argument of the OP.

Except the rules regarding vehicles pivoting are, word for word, the same as the rule in the general movement section with an added caveat about an immobilised vehicle. It says that pivots do not count as movement when the vehicle only pivots in the movement phase.

That is not the same as saying pivots never count as movement.

Your argument is flawed.

The rules regarding pivoting and the rules regarding turning a model are not the same at all. Please see the vehicles section of the 7th edition codex if you do not believe me. Furthermore, feel free to read the entire section front to back while you are at it.

It clearly says pivoting doesn't affect the distance the model can move.

Pivoting doesn't affect status.

Directly from the rulebook (italic and underlining emphasis mine):

Vehicles In The Movement Phase wrote:Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.

Now let us look at the pivoting rules from the movement section (again, italic and underlining emphasis mine):

Pivoting on the Spot wrote:If you choose not to move a model in a unit, you can instead choose to turn it on the spot to face in any direction, provided that the pivot does not bring the model within 1" of an enemy model. A model that only pivots on the spot in the Movement phase counts as being stationary for all purposes, including subsequent shooting attacks.

You claim these rules are not the same?

They both require that for pivoting to not count as movement the model must only pivot.
They both say that a model that only pivots in the movement phase is counted as stationary.

The only difference is the inclusion in the vehicle section that, despite a model which only pivots counting as being stationary, immobilised vehicles cannot pivot.

You are wrong.

Well i give.

The original argument is correct.

However, it changes the game in such a way as to make vehicle movement overly complex and thus is pointless.


I fail to see how getting rid of pivot inch's was so important that making it impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase was necessary

Needless to say, I wont be following or advocating the use of such an interpretation even if RAW correct..

It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

The key part of that one sentence is this "," friend here. Sentence can be split as such with same meaning.

"Pivoting on the spot does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The key part of that one sentence is this "," friend here. Sentence can be split as such with same meaning.

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

Fixed that for you by adding the word in a different colour to reflect what the rules actually say. Which of course is "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving,..."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

Last I checked, the Baneblade suffered from the same lack of mobility as a Leman Russ. I don't own Astra Militarum, so can somebody please clarify?

I do not see the Baneblade in the Astra Militarum codex.

Ventiscogreen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

Last I checked, the Baneblade suffered from the same lack of mobility as a Leman Russ. I don't own Astra Militarum, so can somebody please clarify?

Gah. Does anyone own the rules for one here?

I can pivot my Hammerhead on the spot as many times as I want during my movement. Move an inch, do a spin. Move an inch, do a spin. So long as I maintain rotation around the center point of the model, this will not impact my traveled distance. Sadly, I think some of my friends would slap me in the face if I spun my Devilfish transport for no apparent reason for each inch of their movement that turn.

Keeping in mind the rule that "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." and you can spin it all you want.

As long as no part of the hull finishes more than 6" (or 12 inches if cruising speed) away from where it started the Movement phase, then you have made a legal move.

Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

So?

Rules as written are rules as written.

If I remember correctly, rules as written would also have the inability to prevent perils via rerolling psychic tests, but we all agreed that said aspect would be asinine.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

Also, you can turn those vehicles as much as you want. If you only pivot then the distance from starting point doesn't come into play as the vehicle counts as stationary.

However you can't pivot then drive (or at least not very far).

Ventiscogreen wrote:
If I remember correctly, rules as written would also have the inability to prevent perils via rerolling psychic tests, but we all agreed that said aspect would be asinine.

You do not remember correctly.

How we play vehicles and we assume this is the intent:

From starting point measure where you want to go, put the vehicle in place (rotate, if you want) and ensure the distance traveled is not more than 6"/12".

After all, it is just a game

Naw wrote:
How we play vehicles and we assume this is the intent:

From starting point measure where you want to go, put the vehicle in place (rotate, if you want) and ensure the distance traveled is not more than 6"/12".

After all, it is just a game

It is just a game, with rules and everything!

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
How we play vehicles and we assume this is the intent:

From starting point measure where you want to go, put the vehicle in place (rotate, if you want) and ensure the distance traveled is not more than 6"/12".

After all, it is just a game

It is just a game, with rules and everything!

We agree that the rules are not clear and the ability to pivot any possible way just adds to that. What I tried to explain but did not feel like trying to "draw" with a mobile device is following:

This is my vehicle, 4 characters/inches in length. I decide to move the vehicle to the right. One dot equals one inch. So I move 6 inches.

---|..---|

However I want to face the enemy
........--
---|....|
........|
........|

Yes, it's a bad drawing

My point is that if I pivot, I make sure I do not pass the 6" mark from the point where I left, any point of my hull that is closest to the place where I end up to. If I am now gaining a couple of inches for my next move I read it as being supported by the rules as was explained already many times.

Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

So gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

So gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

The rules were perfectly clear before... which made that rotation perfectly legal. And given the amount of explanation and logic the OP needed to put into the matter to come up with this new interpretation, the wording is anything put clear now. However, despite the ambiguity of how to enforce the new interpretation, it does appear to be accurate.

This is silly. You lose distance when you pivot after moving, not gain. Of course it's not moving at cruising speed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

Why are we having this discussion then?

gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

But I am not gaining distance. My vehicle has moved a maximum of 6 inches from the starting position. Would it make you feel better if I first pivot the vehicle and then move it 6" sideways?

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

Why are we having this discussion then?

Because people didnt read the OP?

Naw wrote:

deathreaper wrote: gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

But I am not gaining distance. My vehicle has moved a maximum of 6 inches from the starting position. Would it make you feel better if I first pivot the vehicle and then move it 6" sideways?

But if a part of the vehicles base (Well Hull because it is a vehicle) finishes the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase, then it is no longer moving at combat speed, and if a part of the vehicles base (Well Hull because it is a vehicle) finishes the move more than 12" away from where it started the Movement phase, then that vehicle has moved too far.

I have read the original and I do not agree with it. The rule even says that for vehicles with no base this rule can't be used, and tells to calculate from hull to hull. Exactly what I have done in my example.

Let's use a bike as an example, as it has a long base. I move it forward 12" and rotate it 180 degrees. To satisfy the rules I would make sure the back end of the bike is not further than 12" from the starting position where the front end of the bike used to be.

I would use similar way of measuring the distance with a vehicle.

As pivoting does not count as moving, the front of the vehicle will NOT have moved more than 6 inches no matter what way it turns assuming the player does the correct thing and turns around the very centre of the vehicle.

 Nem wrote:

"If a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase."

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving"

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

By your reasoning a vehicle that pivots WILL have moved and therefore counts as moving, this is not the case. Pivoting does NOT count as movment, vehicles that pivot and move 6 inches or move 6 inches and pivot are at COMBAT speed, NOT crusing speed.

Please read the explanation as well as the relevant rules before posting as well as posting relevant rules quotes for your arguments. As the OP pointed out, the rule about pivoting does not say that pivoting never counts as movement. Anyone that is claiming that pivoting never counts as movement needs to back that up with a rule quote.

Anyone claiming that you measure from the center point due to being where a base would be needs to present a rule allowing you to do so. If you cling to the measure from the base rule and your model does not have a base then you have no way to actually measure. Therefor I ask how you can legally move?

So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

So pivot at the center to keep from moving too far is the same as pivoting doesn't count to you? Interesting.

The basic rules all work off the box vehicle shape which makes it a closer measurement. For further proof they were never written to take into account non-box shapes please tell me how you measure corner to corner on the elder falcon or necron nightshroud.

The point of the pivot point line is so you don't pivot at a corner stop then pivot at another to walk it across the board while being able to say that it only pivoted and get to fire full bs with all weapons.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

If you move your vehicle in the movement phase then pivoting IS part of the movement. It ONLY not moving if you are only pivoting in the movement phase.

While GW managed to fix that they broke something else at the same time by saying that no part of the model (or hull) can end it's movement further than 6" away (or 12" at cruising speed). This is what leads to issues with measuring because now you have to pay attention to where each part of the vehicle starts and ends it's move.

HIWPI: I'm just going to ignore the part about paying attention to each part of the hull. Measure the distance (before pivoting) and move the vehicle so that no part of the hull is further than where I measured, allowing me to pivot whichever way I want while not gaining extra movement from pivoting.

Pretty sure that's exactly how most people will play it Zimko, minus the people that believe they deserve that extra move.

Gravmyr wrote:So pivot at the center to keep from moving too far is the same as pivoting doesn't count to you? Interesting.

It's a quote from the rulebook, so yes, it is.

Zimko wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

If you move your vehicle in the movement phase then pivoting IS part of the movement. It ONLY not moving if you are only pivoting in the movement phase.

While GW managed to fix that they broke something else at the same time by saying that no part of the model (or hull) can end it's movement further than 6" away (or 12" at cruising speed). This is what leads to issues with measuring because now you have to pay attention to where each part of the vehicle starts and ends it's move.

HIWPI: I'm just going to ignore the part about paying attention to each part of the hull. Measure the distance (before pivoting) and move the vehicle so that no part of the hull is further than where I measured, allowing me to pivot whichever way I want while not gaining extra movement from pivoting.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

That's pretty black and white to me. You can move 6" and turn. You have to turn on the centre point to prevent yourself from moving further than intended or allowed.

Ok, what are you trying to say? Yes that is a rule in the rulebook... and yes you pivot by rotating around the center point so that you can't pivot over and over again to move a vehicle...

I think someone posted a diagram on this tread about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
found it.



This is what the rulebook is telling you not to do with that rule.

Yeah, that's not a legal pivot.



Scrappy work, but shows what a legal pivot would be. The front isn't actually 6" away any more which is what is intended from a pivot after moving.

What part of that statement actually tells you specifically not to measure to the final position Timmy? It does not say not to count it, it says to prevent you from moving too far. There is a difference. You would need a specific statement that says it does not count for movement. Anecdotal or implication does not counter rules.

Ah, so you're advocating that you should actually get even less movement from pivoting by moving first, then pivoting.

Sure I can buy that... except what if the vehicle starts sideways and then chooses to pivot after or before moving?

The rules tell us that you pivot at the same time as moving the vehicles, so there isn't a before or after. Thus my interpretation is you measure before pivoting or moving, then pivot/move all you want so long as you don't cross that line. While that does kind of gain extra movement with the 1 scenario you pointed out, it prevents extra movement that could result in a turn 1 assault from Assault transports.

This is also why you shouldn't measure from the center of the vehicle. You should measure from the furthest edge of the hull towards which you are moving.

Gravmyr wrote:What part of that statement actually tells you specifically not to measure to the final position Timmy? It does not say not to count it, it says to prevent you from moving too far. There is a difference. You would need a specific statement that says it does not count for movement. Anecdotal or implication does not counter rules.

If you look above you can see that the final position on a legal pivot is actually less than 6 inches from it's starting position. This is why you turn on the centre of the model, and why pivots are legal. The hull is not more than 6" away, it is less.

Zimko wrote:Ah, so you're advocating that you should actually get even less movement from pivoting by moving first, then pivoting.

Sure I can buy that... except what if the vehicle starts sideways and then chooses to pivot after or before moving?

The rules tell us that you pivot at the same time as moving the vehicles, so there isn't a before or after. Thus my interpretation is you measure before pivoting or moving, then pivot/move all you want so long as you don't cross that line. While that does kind of gain extra movement with the 1 scenario you pointed out, it prevents extra movement that could result in a turn 1 assault from Assault transports.

This is also why you shouldn't measure from the center of the vehicle. You should measure from the furthest edge of the hull towards which you are moving.

Yeah a turn one start sideways, move 6" disembark 6" and assault 10" to their line is out of the question now.

But I can't accept that you cannot move and then pivot to in fact go less distance.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

But I can't accept that you cannot move and then pivot to in fact go less distance.

Well, RAW we're both wrong. The aboive is just how i would play it.

The RAW interpretation is that no part of the hull can go further than 6", so in the above diagram the back-right rear armor is further than 6" than where the back-right rear armor started and thus the vehicle moved too far... according to RAW.

But again, I think using that particular rule is unwieldy and too much of a hassle in game.

In fact, in the diagram I'd play it that you can pivot sideways and place your rhino right against the 6" line.

I posted the same earlier in the thread. I was misunderstanding your statement and assumed you were pivoting for more distance. Less if fine but in the end I advocated doing just as Zimko has put fourth measure and place as you want. It is demonstratively true that it can be done if you take your time to get your model to that position in most cases.

I'll check the rulebook when I get home so I don't have to use quotes from the OP see if I can spot anything, because this essentially make vehicles wheel like in WHFB which is what the rule specifically states it is not.

We'll have to wait for an FAQ I guess.

This thread makes me laugh. There isn't even an argument here. The base on skimmers is not the hull and on vehicles you measure from the hull after turning. It's blatantly obvious in the rules.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
I'll check the rulebook when I get home so I don't have to use quotes from the OP see if I can spot anything, because this essentially make vehicles wheel like in WHFB which is what the rule specifically states it is not.

We'll have to wait for an FAQ I guess.

Why would it need an FAQ?

If a person takes the time to actually look at all the relevant rules it is clear what the RAW is. (The OP indeed outlines the rules and the RAW, pretty clear if you ask me).

Shingen wrote:
This thread makes me laugh. There isn't even an argument here. The base on skimmers is not the hull and on vehicles you measure from the hull after turning. It's blatantly obvious in the rules.

Except... you're wrong? You might have read the thread but you didn't comprehend it.

I think that's a bit of cross speaking actually. I believe Shingen means after the final pivot you measure. If they mean before you move you pivot then no it is wrong.

The problem is that a lot of what is being supposed would have us measure a distance for any model and then place within that distance. This gets dicey around corners very fast, especially with infantry. Models are not simply placed within a distance, they have to travel that distance. Pivoting on the spot can be done at the start, beginning, or end of moving a vehicle. Adding the aspect of not being outside of a certain distance from original position for each part of the hull makes things insanely complicated, and is not RAW or RAI.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The problem is that a lot of what is being supposed would have us measure a distance for any model and then place within that distance. This gets dicey around corners very fast, especially with infantry. Models are not simply placed within a distance, they have to travel that distance. Pivoting on the spot can be done at the start, beginning, or end of moving a vehicle. Adding the aspect of not being outside of a certain distance from original position for each part of the hull makes things insanely complicated, and is not RAW or RAI.

Except for the part where it is RAW.

And you cannot say it isn't RAI.

Just so I'm clear. Since the Monolith is approximately 6" side to side, and since it is a Heavy vehicle, it can never pivot and move in the same turn?

Strict raw, yes.

RAW that is correct happy.

RAI its obviously not.

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAW that is correct happy.

RAI its obviously not.

Prove it isn't intended.

Nah, thats ok, i'll pass.


If you cant see the clear intent then you never will.

Orientation of the vehicle irrespective, if any part of the hull is further away then six inches at the end of its move. Then the vehicle has gone too far. Move it back.

Yes Happyjew. Your monolith may not pivot and move in the same turn as per their assumptions.

Is this not the whole issue? being that any part has moved more than 6"?

Strict RAW yes that is the issue. Several of us have put fourth that we believe you should simply measure out from and place the model down there at the orientation you would like, so long as the furthest measurement done not exceed that distance. Which if done that way is between the next to nothing movement of all spot to spot measurements and the 3.5cm extra movement of a pivot at the end with a Landraider.

 Happyjew wrote:
Just so I'm clear. Since the Monolith is approximately 6" side to side, and since it is a Heavy vehicle, it can never pivot and move in the same turn?

It can move and pivot, it just can not move 6 inches and pivot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just so I'm clear. Since the Monolith is approximately 6" side to side, and since it is a Heavy vehicle, it can never pivot and move in the same turn?

It can move and pivot, it just can not move 6 inches and pivot.

According to one side, you cannot move and pivot (or pivot and move) as that would force you to have part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point, meaning it can either pivot in place or move, but not both.

You can not move 6 inches (Combat speed) then pivot as that would force you to have part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point, and at that point you would be going cruising speed.

But a 3 or 4 inch move with a little pivot that does not bring any part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point is perfectly legal.

Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Why, Large vehicles are fine, they work within the RAW.

If pivoting count as movement you can't pivot for free at the end of your move, so you just don't pivot at the end of your move.

You can obviously still pivot during your movement you just cannot gain free movement by pivoting at the start or very end of your movement as pivoting = movement now unless you only pivot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Why, Large vehicles are fine, they work within the RAW.

I think that poster was meaning that this new method of movement for vehicles severely hampers their speed, to the point of making them poor value. They function, but not with the same efficacy.

Look at it like this

A vehicle is 6" long from front to back. It pivots 180 degrees. It now has effectively moved 6" because the front and back are now 6" away from their starting position. It doesn't count as moving though because it just a pivot

If it moves any distance at all it will automatically count as having move cruising speed. even it moved only 0.1" inches its now gone cruising speed and only moved 0.1" foward

Even if it isn't 6" long, pivoting 180 degrees functionally subtracts the vehicle's length from how far it can go each speed. So a 4" long vehicle can only move 2" and retain combat speed.

It basically ruins transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc)

 CrownAxe wrote:
Look at it like this

A vehicle is 6" long from front to back. It pivots 180 degrees. It now has effectively moved 6" because the front and back are now 6" away from their starting position. It doesn't count as moving though because it just a pivot

If it moves any distance at all it will automatically count as having move cruising speed. even it moved only 0.1" inches its now gone cruising speed and only moved 0.1" foward

Even if it isn't 6" long, pivoting 180 degrees functionally subtracts the vehicle's length from how far it can go each speed. So a 4" long vehicle can only move 2" and retain combat speed.

It basically ruins transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc)

Not really, just means you have to think a bit more tactically with them rather than drive forwards, vehicle does a 180 then everyone piles out.

CrownAxe, transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc) were already ruined with 6th ed.

Hull Points made them not so great, so they can be fun, but they are not usually very effective regardless of pivoting.

There is a difference between "not very effective" and "completely non-functioning". Also those aren't the only two vehicles suffering from it. Wave serpants and Heavy vehicles are also screwed by this.

I don't see how this is a better alternative to before where some vehicles get a few inches at the start of the game.

Wait i though all vehicles just disembark from any point on the hull and only when embarking does the points matter. (at least i thought that was what i read)

 Desubot wrote:
Wait i though all vehicles just disembark from any point on the hull and only when embarking does the points matter. (at least i thought that was what i read)

Pretty sure that's just open topped.

If the exit point is blocked you can do an emergency disembark which allows you to leave from any point on the hull where there's space. But that has more restrictions on further actions than a normal disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is a difference between "not very effective" and "completely non-functioning". Also those aren't the only two vehicles suffering from it. Wave serpants and Heavy vehicles are also screwed by this.

I don't see how this is a better alternative to before where some vehicles get a few inches at the start of the game.

They are still functioning. They can move, they can pivot, they can disembark. They're just no longer getting an extra couple of inches.

They are losing A LOT OF INCHES, making walking a faster option. In fact, this would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for CSM.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
They are losing A LOT OF INCHES, making walking a faster option. In fact, this would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for CSM.

Except it won't be. Walking you can move 6" right?

In a vehicle the rear access hatch will end up 6" from where it started. They then get to disembark 6". So in one movement phase they have doubled their movement.

It's just no longer the case that they get double movement and then a little bit extra.

Ya, but you will have to move the vehicle forward first, potentially around terrain. Keep in mind that a vehicle under said suppositions would have maybe an inch of move distance if not being forced to remain stationary on the turn it wants to spit out models, unless you start facing backwards. At the end of the day, since you won't be assaulting anyway first turn as an infantry model, you lose maybe an inch by not taking it, while having more mobility around terrain and not paying for the transport means more points elsewhere. When you lose 1-2" average a turn mobility and need to get across a hammer and anvil battlefield, you are losing a lot.

Remember that most vehicles can utilize flat out movement as well, so 1st turn you can move 18 inches (24 if it is a fast vehicle).

This should be enough to dump the guys out 2nd turn where you need them to be, not that you can assault, but it will get you where you need to go and can shoot a high priority target.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The section then describes movement for vehicles. Vehicles that TRAVEL more than 6" are counted as moving at Cruising Speed, but:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

These are two statements in and of themselves, just simplified into one sentence to save page space and sound more comfortable on the ears.

Do you see that section that you conspicuously didn't bold? this part:

...so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

If you move then pivot, or pivot then move, you are not ->only<- pivoting.

Combine it with the first part of the sentence:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

Pivoting does not count as movement when it is the ->only<- thing a vehicle does.


I see this deliberate change by GW trying to eliminate the deploy-sideways-then-pivot-for-extra-movement technique. Furthermore, I feel that it is perfectly in line with GW's general thinking that also preventing the 180 degree E-brake disembark with the same rule change would be intended.

Does this create a number of problems elsewhere in the game? Sure, of course it does, but this is GW we\re talking about.

Edit: due to a display error, this post is actually 6 pages behind the discussion, and may no longer be particularly relevant.

Yes, you read, but not understand it correctly.

Did I only pivot? If yes, then I remained stationary.
Did I move and pivot? If yes, then I am not stationary, but my pivot does still not count as movement.

And the more relevant rule of models not having any part of them further from the starting position, that is just bad. Infantry does not have facing, I like to have my models looking at certain direction. So after moving 6" and pointing them elsewhere I am breaking this rule??

Of those agaist pivoting how many would play it the way you preach it?

Naw wrote:
Yes, you read, but not understand it correctly.

Did I only pivot? If yes, then I remained stationary.

Correct.

Did I move and pivot? If yes, then I am not stationary, but my pivot does still not count as movement.

Correct, but remember that no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

And the more relevant rule of models not having any part of them further from the starting position, that is just bad. Infantry does not have facing, I like to have my models looking at certain direction. So after moving 6" and pointing them elsewhere I am breaking this rule??

Since most bases are circular, not at all. With non circular bases, yes you are clearly breaking a rule if any part of its base finishes the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. As per the rule.

Of those agaist pivoting how many would play it the way you preach it?

I am not against pivoting, but I realize the rules now say that the Pivoting Trick is dead and gone.

I'd like to see this stupid interpretation applied with big flyers doing their pivots. Not to mention the first time somebody has to turn more than once or twice.

Remember that any and all of the vehicle movement rules are ADVANCED rules. They trump any basic movement rules. Even if pivoting wasn't free, you can legally move vehicles more than 6" because of their ADVANCED rules.
The advanced vehicle rules already allow you to ignore the 6" infantry base distance rule because they can move 12" and have these "speed" rules. That IS RAW. This is an advanced rule that trumps the basic rule. So what is left is a discussion about qualifying for Combat Speed and the effects of pivot on Cruising speed.

If hull facing direction of movement means nothing, you could drive all around an obstacle in 12" and if your final position is within 6" claim combat speed. Pivoting is a change in direction and movement in any direction is measured from a hull/base point closest to the direction you're moving. If pivoting plus 6" makes that combat speed into cruising speed, because a part of the hull is more than 6" from starting points, then moving 12" to a position 6" or less than starting hull positions could be ruled as combat speed? (If you want to make vehicle speed based on final destination distance you're opening up new exploits.)


Now let's also look at the line in question. (It's semantics yes but so is this whole thread.)

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

If this rule was just to allow stationary pivoting without other movement the non-bolded part of the sentence wouldn't be there.

edit- A word
And here is a RAW from the same page you've been quoting:

A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

There you go. RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. Pack it up and go home. Nobody wants to make 20 measurements every time a LR needs to swerve around some terrain anyway. It's silly.

Also, if you apply a bit of common sense you'd see that the "Only" was added to stop the RAW being that vehicles that pivot at the end of their move would now count as stationary.
so a vehicle that pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary would, RAW, be very abusable. If you're a slave to the RAW.

How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.

Booklooker, you are correct "RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving."

However pivoting on the spot means the vehicle has not moved. once you move the vehicle you are no longer pivoting on the spot, you are pivoting, but you are not doing it on the spot.

 Booklooker wrote:
I'd like to see this stupid interpretation applied with big flyers doing their pivots. Not to mention the first time somebody has to turn more than once or twice.

Remember that any and all of the vehicle movement rules are ADVANCED rules. They trump any basic movement rules. Even if pivoting wasn't free, you can legally move vehicles more than 6" because of their ADVANCED rules.
The advanced vehicle rules already allow you to ignore the 6" infantry base distance rule because they can move 12" and have these "speed" rules. That IS RAW. This is an advanced rule that trumps the basic rule. So what is left is a discussion about qualifying for Combat Speed and the effects of pivot on Cruising speed.

If hull facing direction of movement means nothing, you could drive all around an obstacle in 12" and if your final position is within 6" claim combat speed. Pivoting is a change in direction and movement in any direction is measured from a hull/base point closest to the direction you're moving. If pivoting plus 6" makes that combat speed into cruising speed, because a part of the hull is more than 6" from starting points, then moving 12" to a position 6" or less than starting hull positions could be ruled as combat speed? (If you want to make vehicle speed based on final destination distance you're opening up new exploits.)


Now let's also look at the line in question. (It's semantics yes but so is this whole thread.)

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

If this rule was just to allow stationary pivoting without other movement the non-bolded part of the sentence wouldn't be there.

edit- A word
And here is a RAW from the same page you've been quoting:

A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

There you go. RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. Pack it up and go home. Nobody wants to make 20 measurements every time a LR needs to swerve around some terrain anyway. It's silly.

Also, if you apply a bit of common sense you'd see that the "Only" was added to stop the RAW being that vehicles that pivot at the end of their move would now count as stationary.
so a vehicle that pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary would, RAW, be very abusable. If you're a slave to the RAW.

I spoke about advance and basic rules at a fair length. If you think one mention on an advance rule takes away everything none specific of the basic rules then sorry, that is wrong. It isn’t an interpretation and I can't gloss over the fact or make it prettier, it's just wrong.
There is a lot contained in the basic movement rules. Advanced rules trump basic where they conflict. An example of this is the rules for basic movement say you cannot move a model off the board. Flyers have a rule saying they can. The flyer rule is more specific.
Can vehicles move off the board? No, because they do not have any rules allowing you to override the restriction. Or according to your interpretation, yes because we just ignore whole sections of a book because vehicles have a whole 2 paragraphs covering some items specific to vehicle movement.

 Booklooker wrote:

Also, if you apply a bit of common sense you'd see that the "Only" was added to stop the RAW being that vehicles that pivot at the end of their move would now count as stationary.

‘Only’ was not added, only has always been there, the issue is there was a line before that previously that read turning did not count as moving (without the only), this line was removed. I never saw anyone trying to claim it was stationary after moving before. Never seen any sneaky tactics suggesting you could, I’ve never seen a YMDC post on dakka suggesting if you pivot at the end of your move you didn’t move… and we see a lot of kak. Fixing a paragraph based on a far out interpretation that didn’t exist is not very economic.

About common sense, I think this would not actually be an issue if the old rules were treated with common sense and not ‘abused’. After 7 pages I see people who feel strongly about this in both ways. A lot of people didn’t like being gamed by the system before, a lot of people are wondering how this will affect their vehicles. Arguably, the vehicles that have benefited the most from the previous rules now stand to lose the most once the table turns – that will always be the way. What this may do more is people have to think more about their vehicle facings rather than always able to face forward with ease.

But I would always advocate people play with common sense. Under the old rules, if anyone started sideways or anything like at my FLGS the whole club would be onto you making fun and beating you down, With this if someone turns a bit then moves no one’s going to be trying to measure if part went more than 6inches.


[edit] It effects mostly transports (Monolith's that want to do a 180 aside.). If your access point is on the back and you want to disembark immediately, deploy with back facing and move it backwards. This is a risk, but it also gives point to the benefits of open topped and vehicles which have high armor on all sides, that previously could be circumvented by the vehicle movement rules. As I said, it was very easy to just keep front facing forward.
As for flyers, effects them less with their limited pivoting capabilities.

 milkboy wrote:
How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Think there is a difference in reading on

no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.

Rather I read it no part of its base can finish the more more han 6in away from where that part of the base started in the movement phase.

It's not a exact science as we don't go around circling where models started or pin pointing parts of the base, it's stopping obvious move problems.

 Happyjew wrote:
Just so I'm clear. Since the Monolith is approximately 6" side to side, and since it is a Heavy vehicle, it can never pivot and move in the same turn?

Raw, it can pivot and move as long as no part of the monolith moved more than 6". So you won't be able to pivot 180 and move.

But I doubt many will play it that way, just measure 6" from the edge of the model and move/pivot to your heart's desire as long as you don't cross the line.

 Desubot wrote:


Is this not the whole issue? being that any part has moved more than 6"?

This is incorrect, you take the base as a whole so you take the hull as a whole. Not individual points as you have done here.

I think this is where the confusion has come from in this thread.

Any model or vehicle can move 6 inches as long as any part of it's base or hull is not more than 6 inches away from where any part of the hull started the movement phase.

The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

 Nem wrote:
Think there is a difference in reading on

no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.

Rather I read it no part of its base can finish the more more han 6in away from where that part of the base started in the movement phase.

It's not a exact science as we don't go around circling where models started or pin pointing parts of the base, it's stopping obvious move problems.

That is how I read it, too. And now the rule works. You move 6" and pivot if you want, just don't have any part of the hull more than 6" from where the vehicle started.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Since most bases are circular, not at all. With non circular bases, yes you are clearly breaking a rule if any part of its base finishes the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. As per the rule..

Gravmyr wrote:
The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

I'm not gaining additional benefits from loopholes. The rule is:

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

We can all agree that this means any model can move 6" and turn.

However by the logic shown above, any model that turns is adding to it's movement. I.e. a space marine that moves 6" and turn is actually moving nearly 7" as the back of his base is further than 6" away. This is not the case.

You take the base as a whole, just like you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole.

Gravmyr wrote:
The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

Except it wasn't actually a problem. Were some vehicles able to gain displacement? Sure. Sometimes it was even relevant.
By attempting to change it they've gone from an artifact of the simplicity of the movement rules to some sort of bastardized bad rules halfway between wheeling and what we had before.

OK so you got that the vehicle as a whole is measured. The question in the end is when do you measure? The reading we are putting forth is that before any pivot to begin with and at the final position including pivots. In the end if you are advocating that the pivot doesn't count then you are advocating that any additional distance gained is not part of movement. That is the loophole they are trying to close and people continue to try to use.

Edit: @rigeld2: In other words GW GW'ed their rules...... who would have thought. Again play as an adult with a sense of sportsmanship and it wouldn't have mattered.

Gravmyr wrote:
OK so you got that the vehicle as a whole is measured. The question in the end is when do you measure? The reading we are putting forth is that before any pivot to begin with and at the final position including pivots. In the end if you are advocating that the pivot doesn't count then you are advocating that any additional distance gained is not part of movement. That is the loophole they are trying to close and people continue to try to use.

I must've missed that part of the quoted rules - could you repeat it?

Edit: @rigeld2: In other words GW GW'ed their rules...... who would have thought. Again play as an adult with a sense of sportsmanship and it wouldn't have mattered.

Slow down with the insults bro. I literally haven't played a single game with a vehicle until 2 weeks ago. Ever. And playing with Ghost Arks I didn't pivot them - I used the broadside most of the time.
But that said, I fail to see why this is an issue. The extra displacement was rarely relevant (so didn't matter) and was around long enough that saying "Sure the rules allow it but it's unsportsmanlike." is just silly.
And yes, GW GW'd their rules - which means they may have tried to "fix" this, or they may have just screwed up again. Who knows?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Yes. I did not include any movement, only pivoted in turn three.
Where is the problem? Clearly the thing is too big to nimbly scuttle around.

I think this is what a vehicles maximum movement looks like.

No part of the vehicle can end outside the line which is 6" away from each part of the hull if you want to remain at combat speed.

 Stephanius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Yes. I did not include any movement, only pivoted in turn three.
Where is the problem? Clearly the thing is too big to nimbly scuttle around.

If it doesn't move, it crashes. Being a massive Flyer and all (and I don't think it has Hover, but it might).
It's not "nimbly scuttling around" it's doing anything other than moving in a straight line.

I wasn't saying it to you, it was a general observation. If pivoting is part of movement, when done with moving the vehicle, then that is how measuring is done. Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

Gravmyr wrote:
I wasn't saying it to you, it was a general observation.

And one that doesn't belong anywhere.

If pivoting is part of movement, when done with moving the vehicle, then that is how measuring is done. Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

So your assertion is that once movement starts you cannot measure?

No my assertion is that you start measuring before you do any part of movement, including pivoting, and stop once all movement is finished, including pivoting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition with the new rules for ranged weapons an additional 1" can make the difference between loosing your HQ or Tank.

Gravmyr wrote:
No my assertion is that you start measuring before you do any part of movement, including pivoting, and stop once all movement is finished, including pivoting.

I'm confused by what you meant when you said

Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

Because they seem to contradict each other.

Since pivoting is part of movement if you measure only after you pivot you are not taking into account the distance you gain via the pivot. Therefor you are only measuring part of the movement you have done. You need to measure from the model starting before you pivot or move and finish your measurements after it has stopped and you pivot if you do so.

Am I understanding this correctly, I am probably not so I will apologise beforehand



If I have got the just of it, then X is incorrect and mainly what is being discussed.

So what would be the correct way of doing movement if you wanted to pivot and move combat speed, a, b or c? c being that I have missed the point entirely

As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Am I understanding this correctly, I am probably not so I will apologise beforehand



If I have got the just of it, then X is incorrect and mainly what is being discussed.

So what would be the correct way of doing movement if you wanted to pivot and move combat speed, a, b or c? c being that I have missed the point entirely

In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

This is wrong as shown above.

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

We can all agree that this means any model can move 6" and turn.

However by the logic shown above, any model that turns is adding to it's movement. I.e. a space marine that moves 6" and turn is actually moving nearly 7" as the back of his base is further than 6" away. This is not the case.

You take the base as a whole, just like you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.

Sorry, it's my artistic skills, but the arrow on X represents the way you would be traveling so in B you would stop before you reached the 6 inches and then pivoted so you would be on the 6 inches line

Edit: This might be clearer

Edit: I meant below the 6 inch line. This is why I stay out of YMDC

 Pilau Rice wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.

Sorry, it's my artistic skills, but the arrow on X represents the way you would be traveling so in B you would stop before you reached the 6 inches and then pivoted so you would be on the 6 inches line

Yeah that's what I thought it was Still option B so the side is not more than 6" away from where the front of the vehicle started.

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

Oh yeah good shout...
But yeah, severely limiting.

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

Which effectively means nothing changed then.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.

Sorry, it's my artistic skills, but the arrow on X represents the way you would be traveling so in B you would stop before you reached the 6 inches and then pivoted so you would be on the 6 inches line

Yeah that's what I thought it was Still option B so the side is not more than 6" away from where the front of the vehicle started.

It's also my reading comprehension failing me as well I was reading A as B, the X confused me

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

If you hadn't noticed, the point of my post was to demonstrate the negative implications of the interpretation presented in the OP, not to take sides.

rigeld2 wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

Which effectively means nothing changed then.

The only difference is you cannot pivot then move forward 6" as you will have moved more than 6" from where that facing was.

''As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any
direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6"
away from where it started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

So the pronoun "it" (bolded above) could refer either to a model or no part of its [a model's] base . I think the structure of the sentence lends itself the the bolded "it" refering to no part of its base, meaning that no part of its base can move more than 6" from where that part of its base started the Movement phase.

When vehicles come into play, you replace the word "base" with "hull" for obvious reasons.

That is why this interpretation exists. The wording is not entirely clear though, as it "it" may be meaning "a model" given the sloppy writing.

I think the author intended as I interpret, but I can agree to disagree on that. Could use an FAQ imo.

No it means that you have to now count the extra distance gained via the pivot.

Well reasoned.

At that point, still no point of the hull can be beyond 6'' from the starting point of the whole hull, if you like. We know the first only part is required, second is more vague.

That would still stop for say, my DE raiders from deploying sideways, then turning and -then- moving 6 as part of the hull is outside 6 of any other part of the hull before it moved, or vise versa.

And things.

Though my original reading is as Dracos as pointed out.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

Which effectively means nothing changed then.

The only difference is you cannot pivot then move forward 6" as you will have moved more than 6" from where that facing was.

Why are facings relevent but not all individual parts of a model? Citation needed.