Had a Game against a harlequin player.
He was Setting Up so all his Transports Had their side turned to me.
When his turn began he turned them so they faced me, then moving them 6 inches.
He gained approximately 2-3 Inches by the pivot.
Then he disembarked the harlis 6 inches and then declared charge on my units.
8-9 inch movement + 6 inch disembark + Fleet Units Rerolling led to the Situation that he charged 3 units in turn one.
I couldnt find a Rule disallowing this but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

I won't be able to cite any specific page or anything, but I know that this is not allowed at all.
People used to do it with DE Raiders.

Here is a ymdc thread on the subject

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648682.page#7836116


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aha here it is

Page 73

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 then wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase count as stationary (however immobilised vehicles can't even pivot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.


page 72

As vehicles do not have bases, the normal rule of measuring to and from a base cannot be used. Instead for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

The centre of the vehicle is only the reference point to use when turning the vehicle in a pivot. For distance traveled you use the hull.

So, its allowed?

I think this is one of those sad things that'll never be FAQ'd.

Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Its gamey but its not a very good tactic because it is really easy to counter. All you have to do is deploy a few inches off the edge of the deployment zone and it doesn't work.

As a BA player:
Man I wish people jumped all the way across the board to me on turn 1!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally. (Barring a special rule from a formation a-la the Skyhammer Annihilation shenanigans).

The turning/pivot move to get an extra 2 to 3" of movement turn 1 is a long standing 'tactic' that sadly is permissible. It makes me raise an eyebrow when I see it but it's the little bunny foo foo of crap I've seen and had pulled on me in tournaments. I don't do it personally, but I don't besmirch those who do it either as it is technically allowed as far as my interpretation of the rules goes.

Just my opinion. He cheated when he assaulted turn 1, be it intentionally or not knowing any better, I can't say.

Hope that helps. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

movement phase section

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.

from the vehicles section

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, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

this pivot trick worked in 6th, but is not allowed in 7th.

Oooh, good catch.

Yes that pivot tactic was valid in 6th, but the rule changes for 7th means it's illegal now. Pivoting only doesn't count as movement if that's all your model does. So in your example under the current rules, if the transports were 8-9" forwards of their starting position after a pivot & move, then they have moved 8-9".

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yes that pivot tactic was valid in 6th, but the rule changes for 7th means it's illegal now. Pivoting only doesn't count as movement if that's all your model does. So in your example under the current rules, if the transports were 8-9" forwards of their starting position after a pivot & move, then they have moved 8-9".

That's what I thought.
I remember something about a certain part of the hull can't exceed the maximum distance in the movement phase.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally.

As requested, I'm correcting you: There is no rule that says you can't assault turn 1. It's often extremely difficult on the first player turn, but manageable under certain circumstances (i.e. Warlord trait that adds 1" to charge moves).
There are explicit exceptions in certain rules, such as arriving from reserves, scout redeployments, infiltrate, etc.

It can be quite easy if the opponent has moved closer to you, either as the person going second, or as the person going first if the enemy have infiltrated or scouted right next to you.

Harlie vehicles all have bases, so the vehicle comment might not be relevant. As long as the base of the vehicle only moves the allowed 6" (or 12" for fast), it should be fine.

Only Scouting models cannot assault on the turn they scout, which may refer to others, too. Most others can.

 winterwind85 wrote:
Had a Game against a harlequin player.
He was Setting Up so all his Transports Had their side turned to me.
When his turn began he turned them so they faced me, then moving them 6 inches.
He gained approximately 2-3 Inches by the pivot.
Then he disembarked the harlis 6 inches and then declared charge on my units.
8-9 inch movement + 6 inch disembark + Fleet Units Rerolling led to the Situation that he charged 3 units in turn one.
I couldnt find a Rule disallowing this but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

It's been around a while and there's no rule to prevent it. It's cheesy and I wouldn't do it. I'd roll my eyes at you if you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
movement phase section
1.

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.

from the vehicles section
2.

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, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

this pivot trick worked in 6th, but is not allowed in 7th.

This doesn't prevent it.

1. Vehicles don't have bases.

2. Even if I don't rotate the vehicle at the beginning of the movement, if I move the vehicle forward and rotate then rotate it 90 degrees, the corner is still going to be more than 6" from the starting point, and this is done with much regularity by IG players looking to get a good shot with their tanks.

Lol, yes it's allowed, and I see a LOT of people doing it at my shop. Just don't deploy on your 12inch line against a chargy army.

The rule is pretty clear even if it uses the word base. A vehicle can not move more than 6" from its starting point. Although in this case the harley vehicle does have a supplied base. All measurement is done from there and since its a round base pivoting it makes no difference. If its a vehicle without a base then distance is measured from the hull at the start of the movement phase, before pivoting.

Your opponent and anyone else who uses this tactic in 7th is clearly cheating and if the player doesn't stop doing it once you catch him then he should be reported to the TO.

You can 'pivot' and gain a few inches to shoot all your weapons but really that's the only thing you can do.

Wouldn't really matter for DE/Harlequins because their vehicles are fast. I think the only thing this pvot would apply for is the Ravager.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Quoting myself from the "Your experiences with "that guy" post;

 Yarium wrote:
Yup, the #1 way to have an enjoyable game is to communicate! If your intention is to "surprise people" with your list, or to take advantage of a largely unknown rule, then that might be where you're encountering problems.

It definitely is a TFG move to find ways to surprise opponents. In a tournament setting this is fine - you're out to win, and you need to use every advantage to do so. But in casual games, surprising your opponent with unknown rules and sneaky tactics is not a winning combination for enjoyable play. You might get a small thrill because you tricked your opponent, but that's a real jerk thing to do. Let's pretend this was money, and you knew a way to trick your friends by making them think that they just got $1.50 for the cost of a buck, when really they lost $0.50 and you made the $1.50 instead. That would be called a scam. Now, it's not your fault that your friends didn't know that you were pulling a trick on them, but I think they wouldn't be your friends for long if you did this. You are setting up a situation where someone loses not because they made a mistake, but rather because their expectations did not match reality, and you did not clarify it for them. Same thing for wargaming. If I put down a Solitaire and my opponent asks what a Solitaire is, then I respond with "he's an infantry model with S3, T3, no ranged weapon, and two close combat weapons", then I may have answered truthfully, but purposefully obscured the information. I left out that he has a 12" move, that his invulnerable save is 3++, that he has Eternal Warrior, and that his attacks, weapon skill, and initiative are off the charts. When I tell people "he's a lightning fast Ninja who can potentially defeat an Imperial Knight in close combat if I've whittled it down a bit first.", then that's a much more helpful description, even if I never said exactly what he does I have clearly communicated his threat level.

I just faced off against Admech for the first time this weekend past, and my opponent clarified for me that his Cognis Flamers always score a 3 for overwatch. Since I was playing my Nids (and a swarm list at that), this was really great of him to do. We had a blast of a game because, despite him playing an army I had ZERO experience playing with or against, we had an absolute blast because we both clearly communicated!

EDIT: By contrast, I had another game with a friend playing Necrons who brought the Deceiver Shard. After he deployed first and I deployed second, where I was saying "I want to make sure my guy is out of line of sight of this thing", he declared "but it was all an illusion!". I didn't realize this was a rule the Deceiver had, but he proceeded to roll the minimum number for re-deploying his units. This was a bit of a downer, and thankfully the rest of the game was on the up and up, but it greatly affected my starting demeanour.

I let a friend borrow my rule book to read up on rules while he learns the game but I am pretty sure there is a rule in there somewhere that says no part of a vehicle may be farther than the vehicles maximum movement from where it began at the start of the turn. I will see if I can get my book back to find it. I was pretty sure they fixed that pivoting gak in 7th.

So a guy using an absolute rock bottom tier army took advantage of a stupid enemy deployment to gain an advantage and his opponent complains about the completely legal maneuver passive aggressively on the internet later?

Yep, sounds like classic TFG behavior right there.

Except in current rules it is not legal as has been said several times this thread. Measured from the start of the movement phase is the key here. Pivoting doesn't cost movement, but you still cannot move any part of the hull farther than your max move from the start point.

It doesn't sound like his list was made to surprise people. It sounds like it was a Harlequin list (you're basically required to have 3 of those transports full of dedicated assault troops-there's very little wiggle room. He sees his opponent deploy like a doofus, and takes advantage of it by going for the turn 1 assault. The legality of the "pivot trick" aside, at most he gained 1" from pivoting a Skyweaver. Those things aren't raiders where you can get like 4" from the base, they're venom-sized.


The standard Harlequin opening move if going first is deploying on the line, then trying to turbo-boost out to behind a piece of terrain to dictate where your opponent must go to attack you. But if your opponent makes a mistake, capitalizing on it isn't a crime. Just last game I explained to my opponent that each of my bikes had a 24" range small blast haywire weapon. He deployed his Superheavy vehicle dead center of the board out of cover anyway. Am I TFG for destroying it turn 1?

the_scotsman wrote:
So a guy using an absolute rock bottom tier army took advantage of a stupid enemy deployment to gain an advantage and his opponent complains about the completely legal maneuver passive aggressively on the internet later?

Yep, sounds like classic TFG behavior right there.

If I pivot and gain 3 inch, then move 6 inch forward, how did the front of my vehicle remain within 6" of where it was at the start of its movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
It doesn't sound like his list was made to surprise people. It sounds like it was a Harlequin list (you're basically required to have 3 of those transports full of dedicated assault troops-there's very little wiggle room. He sees his opponent deploy like a doofus, and takes advantage of it by going for the turn 1 assault. The legality of the "pivot trick" aside, at most he gained 1" from pivoting a Skyweaver. Those things aren't raiders where you can get like 4" from the base, they're venom-sized.


The standard Harlequin opening move if going first is deploying on the line, then trying to turbo-boost out to behind a piece of terrain to dictate where your opponent must go to attack you. But if your opponent makes a mistake, capitalizing on it isn't a crime. Just last game I explained to my opponent that each of my bikes had a 24" range small blast haywire weapon. He deployed his Superheavy vehicle dead center of the board out of cover anyway. Am I TFG for destroying it turn 1?

So you're saying: "It's ok to cheat as long as it's not game-breaking" (which it clearly was here since he got a turn 1 charge)

Also, no one said they were skyweavers. He clearly said he gained 3 inch by doing this so it might have very well been DE raiders that had been allied in.

 Quanar wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally.

As requested, I'm correcting you: There is no rule that says you can't assault turn 1. It's often extremely difficult on the first player turn, but manageable under certain circumstances (i.e. Warlord trait that adds 1" to charge moves).
There are explicit exceptions in certain rules, such as arriving from reserves, scout redeployments, infiltrate, etc.

It can be quite easy if the opponent has moved closer to you, either as the person going second, or as the person going first if the enemy have infiltrated or scouted right next to you.

I found where my rules hiccup happened. There's no charging on turn 1 for a unit that also used scout movement in that turn. Forgive my cranial flatulence. I was at work when I posted that and didn't have my rulebook with me or a way to check the rulebook online. Thanks for the correction Quanar.

This looks like a case of learning how to not deploy versus a fast army. Though as has been stated above in the thread, this kind of 'trick' to gain a few extra inches of movement by pivoting before movement looks to have been addressed with the 7th edition rules clarifications on any part of the model/base being further than the stated movement profile for that model.

I'll be sure to use this in the future, should someone try to pull this 'trick' in the future.

Take it easy everyone.

-Red__Thirst-

There is that, plus he cheated very explicitly to do it in the first place. The pivot thing was legal in 6th, they changed the wording in the rules to make it illegal in 7th

"The centre of the vehicle is only the reference point to use when turning the vehicle in a pivot. For distance traveled you use the hull."

 Yarium wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Quoting myself from the "Your experiences with "that guy" post;

 Yarium wrote:
Yup, the #1 way to have an enjoyable game is to communicate! If your intention is to "surprise people" with your list, or to take advantage of a largely unknown rule, then that might be where you're encountering problems.

It definitely is a TFG move to find ways to surprise opponents. In a tournament setting this is fine - you're out to win, and you need to use every advantage to do so. But in casual games, surprising your opponent with unknown rules and sneaky tactics is not a winning combination for enjoyable play. You might get a small thrill because you tricked your opponent, but that's a real jerk thing to do. Let's pretend this was money, and you knew a way to trick your friends by making them think that they just got $1.50 for the cost of a buck, when really they lost $0.50 and you made the $1.50 instead. That would be called a scam. Now, it's not your fault that your friends didn't know that you were pulling a trick on them, but I think they wouldn't be your friends for long if you did this. You are setting up a situation where someone loses not because they made a mistake, but rather because their expectations did not match reality, and you did not clarify it for them. Same thing for wargaming. If I put down a Solitaire and my opponent asks what a Solitaire is, then I respond with "he's an infantry model with S3, T3, no ranged weapon, and two close combat weapons", then I may have answered truthfully, but purposefully obscured the information. I left out that he has a 12" move, that his invulnerable save is 3++, that he has Eternal Warrior, and that his attacks, weapon skill, and initiative are off the charts. When I tell people "he's a lightning fast Ninja who can potentially defeat an Imperial Knight in close combat if I've whittled it down a bit first.", then that's a much more helpful description, even if I never said exactly what he does I have clearly communicated his threat level.

I just faced off against Admech for the first time this weekend past, and my opponent clarified for me that his Cognis Flamers always score a 3 for overwatch. Since I was playing my Nids (and a swarm list at that), this was really great of him to do. We had a blast of a game because, despite him playing an army I had ZERO experience playing with or against, we had an absolute blast because we both clearly communicated!

EDIT: By contrast, I had another game with a friend playing Necrons who brought the Deceiver Shard. After he deployed first and I deployed second, where I was saying "I want to make sure my guy is out of line of sight of this thing", he declared "but it was all an illusion!". I didn't realize this was a rule the Deceiver had, but he proceeded to roll the minimum number for re-deploying his units. This was a bit of a downer, and thankfully the rest of the game was on the up and up, but it greatly affected my starting demeanour.

I don't totally agree. By that logic anybody who runs a Harle army, IKs aside from Paladins or Errants, FW lists or units that are not in IA:2, IA:13 or IA:Vraks, against me automatically becomes TFG because I am completely unfamiliar with the rules.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this game is encountering new rules and combos that you weren't expecting and reacting accordingly imo. It is what would happen on an actual battlefield. If an opponent can't deal emotionally with rules/combo surprises then they are certainly in the wrong game unless they are a millionaire with enough time on their hands to read and consider every dex, imperial armour book, supplement, data sheet, formation etc.
Don't hide anything from the opponent if they ask, that is certainly a douche move, if somebody asks what a Solitaire is, you show them the rules for it and allow them to make their own judgements (maybe pointining certain things out if you wish) also clarify certain subtle rules (like the cognis flamer example you made) before they come up, but if an opponent wants to deploy on their deployment line against an army known for its fast scouting tanks and they happen to have massive flamer turrets on top (my example), then that's a mistake they need to recover from.
People are definitely TFG if you ask for rules/model/unit clarifications and they are deliberatly vague and miss things out. Personally I would ask before a game to have a good read of their dex if im not familiar.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I don't totally agree. By that logic anybody who runs a Harle army, IKs aside from Paladins or Errants, FW lists or units that are not in IA:2, IA:13 or IA:Vraks, against me automatically becomes TFG because I am completely unfamiliar with the rules.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this game is encountering new rules and combos that you weren't expecting and reacting accordingly imo. It is what would happen on an actual battlefield. If an opponent can't deal emotionally with rules/combo surprises then they are certainly in the wrong game unless they are a millionaire with enough time on their hands to read and consider every dex, imperial armour book, supplement, data sheet, formation etc.
Don't hide anything from the opponent if they ask, that is certainly a douche move, if somebody asks what a Solitaire is, you show them the rules for it and allow them to make their own judgements (maybe pointining certain things out if you wish) also clarify certain subtle rules (like the cognis flamer example you made) before they come up, but if an opponent wants to deploy on their deployment line against an army known for its fast scouting tanks and they happen to have massive flamer turrets on top (my example), then that's a mistake they need to recover from.

I think you got the idea. It's about not hiding things, about not purposefully obfuscating them so you can do a "Gotcha!" moment. It's up to both players to communicate is my point. I play a Harlequin army, and I know most of my opponents haven't encountered them before. I make it a point to educate my opponents at least briefly as to what each unit does before the game. When I go against something new, I make sure to ask my opponents what everything does as well. I'm in a good spot, since I'm a veteran of the game and pay attention to what's coming out, so I'm generally pretty well informed, but I know that many others are not so well informed.

Playing something new or unique is not TFG. Playing something new or unique and specifically avoiding informing your opponents what your capabilities are in order to grab an easy win against an unexpecting opponent, is being TFG.

Yeah, doesn't seem that TFG. I would chalk it up as a learning experience and deploy differently next game. I've gotten turn 1 charges before plenty of times,and every time it was because my opponent deployed/moved in a way that allowed me to do it. Nobody likes being charged turn one but they recognize that they left the unit in a vulnerable position.

I agtee with Poly ranger. I don't expect someone to know my entire codex, I don't even know it by heart myself, but I'm not going to bother explaining every single rule to every player I face. I'll go over the units and their wargear (e.g. "One squad of 10 praetorians with Rods of the covenant, here's 2 units of ... with .... and ..., etc). If they don't know what it does, they're free to ask.

My opponents will always be surprised. I bring wildly varying lists for wildly varying armies. The only thing they get to know beforehand is whether it's going to be competitive or goofy, because that's something we agree upon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Yeah, doesn't seem that TFG. I would chalk it up as a learning experience and deploy differently next game. I've gotten turn 1 charges before plenty of times,and every time it was because my opponent deployed/moved in a way that allowed me to do it. Nobody likes being charged turn one but they recognize that they left the unit in a vulnerable position.

And if you had read the thread, you'd know that what he did was illegal as he was not allowed to move his vehicles like that.

Turn 1 charges are not the problem, illegal moves are.

Guy sounds Luke a douche to be honest. If he tries again mention the movement is from nose to nose. If he has to pivot and move, the nose is where the measuring starts BEFORE pivot.

To be honest i had typed out that post and not submitted it yet, and in the interim many others posted. When i hit submit, i noticed the page had filled up while i was typing and working. So yeah, i thought it was still legal as it was in 6th. Now that i see the other posts, i'm more enlightened. Maybe he still wasn't being TFG and didnt know himself that it had been made illegal for 7th. My bad, dude. Sorry.

Just to be clear my turn 1 charges had nothing to do with this pivot/movement interaction.

People get rules wrong all the time, particularly if they've played multiple editions. This was something that was allowed in 6th and got changed-the correct thing to do is check the rules, and if he then sticks by his mistake or gets mad, maybe consider ending the game.

The incorrect thing to do is let the mistake go, get mad about it and ask the internet to tell you that your loss didn't count. This just spreads the whole toxic attitude about the game.

Hardly "TFG at its best" especially given the rules changes between editions. I think rushing to brand someone TFG after they did something that was legal in previous editions is a little bit hasty, to say the least.

Talk to your opponent. Not us.

Not letting the other guy forge his narrative of highly mobile transports is pretty TFG, if you ask me.

Without the consent of your Opponent, one does not have permission to change the Rules even to 'better fit the Narrative.'
Calling the Opening Poster 'That ******* Guy' for questioning why their opponent is breaking a Rule without having asked for concessions to do so... that is far from polite!

Vehicles are very clearly intended to move 6" RAI unless Fast.

Exploiting oversights in the rulebook rather than playing strictly to RAI is pretty clearly TFG behavior.

If you disagree, you probably are one!

In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

DaPino wrote:
If I pivot and gain 3 inch, then move 6 inch forward, how did the front of my vehicle remain within 6" of where it was at the start of its movement phase?.

If you pivot the vehicle 180 degrees on the spot, and then move 6 inches forwards, how far has the front of the vehicle moved from where it was at the start of the movement phase?



That's the problem with this interpretation. It results in you having to count the distance that every part of the vehicle moves, and as soon as you move in anything other than a straight line, that gets complicated very quickly, and drastically cuts down the distance that vehicles can actually move.


Frankly, I don't see any practical difference between the wording of the current rules and the way they were worded last edition. They've re-worded it slightly, but the end result is the same, and the pivot trick is still legal.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

It didn't make me upset - like I said, everything else in the game was just fine - but it's not the way I prefer my games. I don't want to win because my opponent simply didn't know something, I want to win because even though they knew it, they were not skillful enough to avoid it. The same applies to myself. And it was a casual game, so I didn't get mad or make any mention of it to my opponent - I'm not going to ruin his game for doing something that he was obviously very proud of - but it was still enjoyment based on making someone else feel badly, which I think is the core of "surprise!". There's nothing wrong with that kind of game, if it's communicated that you'll be playing with surprises - but then I think it's important that you're both on the same level and not assuming that the other person's play-style is the same as yours.

I think that's the crux of it. It depends on the playstyle of the person or group. How open or sneaky you want to be is dependent on those around you.

Edit: Referring to GTF discussion part not the particular rule about pivoting.

How do you conclude that 'any part of the Base' does not require us to ensure every part of the Base obeys this Rule?

While this Rule is one of the many I put forth as an example of the Vacuum Effect, as it only works when applied to pure-Infantry Unit Types, that phenomenon does not grant us permission to ignore a Rule without permission to do so. Talking to your opponent about the phenomenon, and getting concessions to disregard the Rule, is still very much required if one is going to completely ignore its existence. Given how terrible this Rule is for any Unit Type other then pure-Infantry, and for Vehicles in particular, the Opponent is more then likely to concede that it needs to be ignored for the game to function... just one of many.

Assuming your opponent is going to ignore a poorly written Rule, without discussing it with them first, is a recipe for disaster.

It doesn't work for infantry either.

If you have a model on a 1" base, who pivots 180 degrees as they move 6", the leading edge of the base at the end of that model's movement will have moved 7".

Attempting to complete an action that is in violation of a Rule does not mean that Rule is 'incorrect,' all it does is make your action illegal.

From a pure Game Mechanic point of view, I have been trying to think of a reason why rotating the pure-Infantry Model would even matter. The few I am able to think on all involve placing the Model in such a way it gains a benefit, one the Authors may actually be trying to prevent with this very Rule. These include ensuring the Model is 25% in cover by presenting the thinnest side towards the enemy, maybe not a whole 180 degree turn but far more realistic a pivot that one may see on the table top. Another was oval shaped Bases using the pivot-move manoeuvre to ensure they get a little closer to the enemy, which could make the difference between getting into Range for a Shooting attack or not.

Therefore a rule specifically designed to forbid these types of outcomes makes complete sense to me and the only complaint I have is the Vacuum Effect, but such is common with Game Workshop's sloppy Rule writing....

 insaniak wrote:
It doesn't work for infantry either.

If you have a model on a 1" base, who pivots 180 degrees as they move 6", the leading edge of the base at the end of that model's movement will have moved 7".

The difference being that infantry does not have a facing as per the rules while vehicles do. And if that's what it takes to make you follow, I'll gladly not pivot my infantry models all game, because you ARE technically correct, even tough it would have very little bearing on the game' s outcome (as opposed to the shennanigans in OP's post).

Yes it restricts vehicles in a major way and in a friendly game I wouldn't be a dick about it unless they're clearly trying to break the rules, either through malicious intent or ignorance, and it's giving the a major advantage that I just cannot overlook (as was the case in OP's post).

If a Leman Russ pivots and some part of it's hull has travelled 7 inch instead of 6, but there's no real impact to the game because he'd still be in range regardless and the facing barely changes, I'd be fine with that. If he travels 6" and completely pivots the vehicle so my melta's are forced to shoot his AV14 front instead of AV10 read, I'd tell them that's not according to the rules.

In wargaming (in the proper sense, which is not necessarily limited to the tabletop) the idea is to test outcomes based on realistic actions to gain information, which helps to inform real-life decisions.

Vehicles do not go 50% faster because they pivot. It's completely wrong to do this if you're interested in gaming an outcome based on the tactical choices of both parties.

Feel free to explain to me how this kind of behavior would be in any way constructive if we were trying to wargame as a simulation model.

It's WAAC behavior. End of discussion. There really isn't more to discuss.

Yoyoyo wrote:
In wargaming (in the proper sense, which is not necessarily limited to the tabletop) the idea is to test outcomes based on realistic actions to gain information, which helps to inform real-life decisions.

Only if the game is supposed to be an accurate simulation.

40K is not a simulation. This is a game where a guy who is kneeling down spends the entire game kneeling down, and as a result can't see over obstacles that other, more upright members of his unit can see over. It's a game where the guy who is closest to the enemy magically absorbs every incoming shot until he dies, at which point the next closest model becomes the bullet magnet. It's a game where shooting at a stationary vehicle the size of an apartment block parked an arm-length away has the same chance of hitting it as shooting at a rapidly moving drone on the other side of the table...

And what do these flaws justify, exactly? In short, what is the point of the game to you?

I'm sure you'd find a lot of players who simply would respond "to win". Which is exactly what I said.

Yoyoyo wrote:
And what do these flaws justify, exactly? In short, what is the point of the game to you?

The point of the game is, as with any game, to have fun.

The best way to do that, from my experience, is to find opponents who approach the game with a similar outlook to your own, rather than just declaring that anyone with an opinion differing from yours is doing it wrong...

There is a very clear and easily understood limitation of 6" moves before disembarkment (specific exceptions exist). If both players prefer to play with 9" opening moves, or to give one player the ability to do so, that's fine. Obviously, that's not really the situation as it played out, is it?

A ruleset exists for a reason. If you're deliberately trying to subvert it without the knowledge of the other player --- which includes being obtuse or aggressive when arguing against clearly intuitive rulings, such as Immobile vehicles Jinking or 9" moves before disembarkment -- what do you want, sympathy? F the guy in this game who played OP. No sympathy.

If both players agree they can do whatever the hell they want. In the context of playing without a prior understanding, it's wrong. Players who are WAAC don't like to recognize that and will constantly smokescreen to avoid accountability.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Players who are WAAC don't like to recognize that and will constantly smokescreen to avoid accountability.

I've actually found that to rarely be the case.

Most of the more hardcore players that I've come across over the years have been quite upfront about it. In many cases, they simply don't comprehend how anyone could enjoy playing any other way, and so they have no particular reason to obfuscate about it.

On the other hand, I've seen that 'WAAC' label thrown around an awful lot when all that is really happening is that two people have different views on what is acceptable and what isn't. A disagreement over a single rules interaction is a long, long way from being sufficient cause to apply that label.

Hell, I was accused by an opponent of being a WAAC player for running attack bikes in my Red Corsairs army in a tournie back in 2nd edition. You had to pay 150% of their normal points cost to use them, and back then attack bikes weren't even particularly good. But he didn't feel that they belonged in a Chaos army (because who cares what the codex says, 'miright?) and so I was clearly just using them to gain an unfair advantage...


Sometimes it pays to have an open mind, and accept that the fact that an opponent is reading a rule in a way you don't agree with doesn't automatically make them some sort of unscrupulous tool who just wants to win at any cost.

Agreed!
It is really annoying that, in a system as poorly written as Warhammer 40k, somehow players with different interpenetration of the Rules are labelled 'That ******* guy' for simply having a difference of opinion.

 Yarium wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

It didn't make me upset - like I said, everything else in the game was just fine - but it's not the way I prefer my games. I don't want to win because my opponent simply didn't know something, I want to win because even though they knew it, they were not skillful enough to avoid it. The same applies to myself. And it was a casual game, so I didn't get mad or make any mention of it to my opponent - I'm not going to ruin his game for doing something that he was obviously very proud of - but it was still enjoyment based on making someone else feel badly, which I think is the core of "surprise!". There's nothing wrong with that kind of game, if it's communicated that you'll be playing with surprises - but then I think it's important that you're both on the same level and not assuming that the other person's play-style is the same as yours.

I knew I should have put more of a qualifier on my statement, but was in a rush. I was using "you" generically not speaking about you specifically. And while I personally would, as a general rule, be amused and entertained by learing of the rule (assuming he wasn't just making something up) the way the opponent revealed the surprise and acts in general could either make the process more entertaining or potentially turn me from a positive to negative attitude. "Ha, Ha, check out this stupid newb who didn't know what the Deciever could do and totally deployed his units where I'm gonna blow him off the table turn one". Good feeling gone. Its all in the opponent's demeanor. I'm just saying that in a vaccuum, assuming the opponent is a decent guy, I would enjoy the surprise and would hope others could as well. Wacky, unexpected, cool stuff is part of the fun of the game. (Except when it isn't and that line is personal and admittedly can be arbitrary.

 insaniak wrote:
On the other hand, I've seen that 'WAAC' label thrown around an awful lot when all that is really happening is that two people have different views on what is acceptable and what isn't.

If you're not a WAAC player you simply come to the sensible and intuitive compromise, where there is one.

This is not hard to understand, except for people who prefer not to understand it.

If OP's oppenent wasn't a WAAC player this post wouldn't exist. Recognize it for what it is man.

On what basis are you making that assumption?

 insaniak wrote:
On what basis are you making that assumption?

The wrong basis, apparently.

While what the OP's opponent was doing is clearly illegal under the 7th edition rules, I would not go so far as to start bandying about everybody's favorite terms, "WAAC" and "TFG".

Pivoting for extra movement was technically legal in 6th edition (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), and was a trick that many Dark Eldar players used. The OP's opponent may have simply missed the change in wording and assumed that the technique was still legitimate.

Both "WAAC" and "TFG", while possessing separate definitions, has similar contexts: they are dependent on attitude more than anything else, and consequently lead to patterns of behavior. One incident, unless the OP can provide information otherwise, does not make a player "WAAC" or "TFG".

It's better to assume ignorance instead of malice, especially on the internet.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

While what the OP's opponent was doing is clearly illegal under the 7th edition rules, I would not go so far as to start bandying about everybody's favorite terms, "WAAC" and "TFG".

Pivoting for extra movement was technically legal in 6th edition (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), and was a trick that many Dark Eldar players used. The OP's opponent may have simply missed the change in wording and assumed that the technique was still legitimate.

Yes, it was legal under 6th, and every prior edition back to 3rd. And, as I mentioned before, the interpretation that makes it illegal in 7th renders the movement phase far more complicated than is practically worthwhile.

A lot of players still see it as a perfectly legal tactic, and it's been a thing for so long now that most don't consider it a big deal. Particularly when there is such an easy counter to it.

"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

As insaniak pointed out earlier, the only way to make skimmers move without gaining any extra movement is to measure from every part of the model, which could lead to skimmers losing movement for pivoting on the spot. In this case, it would be more RAI for skimmers to be able to move easily without sacrificing movement.

No part of the 40k rules are meant to be "realistic". If they were, Bolters could cover the board in range and assault would be impossible even by 7th edition standards.

If you want to explore the realm of "technically legal", you will find most of the psychic phase there. After all, what exactly happens when a psyker joins a unit? And how do mastery levels work anyway? In any case, only the basic structure of 40k is makes easy logical sense for new players.

What you see as an unfair advantage, I see as a fair penalty for making the mistake of deploying too close to a fast assault unit. If you're going to bandy "WAAC" about, you would have to include anyone who has moved a skimmer in any edition after 3rd ed.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

Yes, it says that it's something that is technically legal, that some players regard as a trick or an exploit, and that others just see as a result of the movement system having to deal with things that aren't all perfectly round, and not a big deal.

The fact that you regard it as somehow inappropriate doesn't make that a universal truth.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

Stop being so obtuse. And stop throwing around acronyms you don't understand.

If anything, you're the WAAC player.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can at least agree that quite a lot of GW's rules writing is rather ambiguous. So some people are going to interpret things differently.

There are also quite a lot of rules and rules interactions.

And a lot of small, niche things change between editions without GW helpfully pointing it out. Some things just kind of disappears.

Pivoting for extra movement used to be perfectly legal, but is no longer legal in 7th (maybe, unless it is, because it's unclear).

So, for OP's opponent there are three options;
1. He hadn't noticed the change, and kept playing with the pivot-move as it was in past editions (rules mistake due to editions).
2. He interprets the current rules as still allowing it (rules "mistake" due to difference of interpretation).
3. He's a devious slimeball who only cares about winning and will purposefully cheat to accomplish his goal (rules "mistake" due to cheating).


Anyone who's played 40k for more than two weeks knows that 1 and 2 are very common, and pretty much everyone has done it. For myself, as an example, for the last few years I've been playing mostly shooting armies, so I haven't been doing much assaulting. I've also been playing 40k for 16 years. When I, once in a blue moon, multi-assault, there's a hodge-podge of rules from different editions that on several occasions have caused me to make mistakes. It happens. It's happened to you too. It's OK.

And as for difference of rules interpretations, it's happening right now. You interpret a rule one way, someone else in another way. OP and OP's opponent didn't discuss it, OP's opponent just played the way he thought it was supposed to be (or maliciously cheated), and then OP goes on the internet and whines about it. Like a mature adult. But here's where you, and OP, become WAAC. Instead of accepting that these things happen, and just figuring out a solution with your opponent (or, in this case, other posters) you shift the goal posts. You can't win at the game? Don't make it about the game! It's about the moralities! Some rules are more moral than others, right? The spirit of the game! What the developers intended! Luckily, you, in all your superiority, have a monopoly on taking these concepts from the abstract to the concrete, so there can't actually be differences of opinions; there's you being right, and your opponent being a douchebag.

Nah. You can't deal with losing, so you attach morals to rules interpretations. And, I'm assuming, army lists. Which is pretty pathetic.

@OP: Communicate with your opponent. He does something that doesn't seem quite right? Ask. "Uhm, can you do that? I didn't think you could do that." It's literally that simple. You figure out that your opponent was actually wrong later? If he's a friend, mock him relentlessly. If he's just some guy, then remember the rule for the future, and move on with your life. You lost a game of 40k. Life goes on. Don't start moaning about it, and don't start throwing disparaging terms around and drawing in morals, just because someone either made a mistake or interpreted a rule differently. Because, when you do stuff like that, well, you're that guy.

You guys sure write a lot.

Vehicles are supposed to go a maximum of 6" before disembarkment.

Thank you, come again!

Obviously what newblood said is relevant -- we don't want to unfairly penalize a skimmer either. But that is also playing within the spirit of the rules in order to make the game as fair as possible for both parties, rather than trying to eke out some one-sided advantage through the power of sneaky exploits, isn't it?

Contrary to what some think... it's not that hard to figure out who believes in what!

Write a lot huh? Anti-intellectualism and "effort is totes uncool" sentiment on an internet forum for tabletop wargaming? Bold move, Cotton.

And yeah, IMO, you're right about pivoting for extra movement doesn't work in 7th. Congrats. But people can feasibly interpret it differently, and people can get rules wrong. Doesn't make them TFG or WAAC. It does make you TFG, though, for how you attach morality to game rules and appoint yourself the arbiter of what's the spirit of the game.

Also, your condescension just looks sad when you're so obviously strawmanning.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Vehicles are supposed to go a maximum of 6" before disembarkment.

Nobody has argued that point.

Where you're getting disagreement is with the method of determining that 6".

...rather than trying to eke out some one-sided advantage through the power of sneaky exploits, isn't it?

This particular 'exploit' has been widely known about for more than 15 years now. It's been one of the more frequently discussed rules issues in every edition of the game since 3rd edition. By this point, it's 'sneaky' in about the same way as drinking energy drinks is a 'sneaky' way of consuming caffeine.


And therein lies the disconnect. You're seeing it as something that is against the rules, and so anyone who tries to do it is clearly just trying to win at all costs.

Most of the players who do it are seeing it as something that is perfectly within the rules, has been perfectly within the rules and an accepted part of the game for longer than some of the people playing the game have been alive, and is simply how the movement rules work.

'That guy' isn't the one who does something that someone else finds questionable. He's the guy who insists that anyone who has a different viewpoint to his own as to how a game of toy soldiers should be played is wrong and clearly a bad person.

If you can move 6" and pivot 6.124421" then isn't that breaking the rule, as you are not moving 6", where is the ambiguity of that?

 Formosa wrote:
If you can move 6" and pivot 6.124421" then isn't that breaking the rule, as you are not moving 6", where is the ambiguity of that?

The ambiguity comes from the fact that if you apply the 'no part of the vehicle can move more than 6"' literally, movement in anything other than a straight line becomes a nightmare. You can't just pick a point and measure from there... you suddenly have to measure every single point on the vehicle to make sure that no part of it moves further as a result of pivoting. A rhino turning 180 degrees at the start of its movement has suddenly moved around 6" before it even actually moves from the spot. A monolith would be unable to perform a 180 degree pivot on the spot and still move in a single movement phase.

And infantry models on 25mm bases would have to move less than 6" if you want them to finish their movement facing a different direction.


Essentially, in an effort to make the movement rules clearer, GW actually managed to completely break them.


If you go slightly more abstract, and measure from whatever the leading edge is before the movement to whatever the leading edge is after the movement (which is how the people who think that 7th ed killed this tactic think the rules are supposed to work) then there is absolutely no point in the rules dictating that vehicles pivot on their center point. It literally makes no difference whatsoever how the vehicle pivots... You just measure from start point to end point, and plonk the vehicle down facing whatever way you want. So you remove the ability for long, narrow vehicles to 'gain' extra distance by turning to the side and moving in that direction... but you ignore a section of the rules to do so. And you also just reverse the tactic being discussed here... You go from 'gaining' extra distance by turning to the side and moving in that direction, to 'gaining' extra distance by moving directly forwards and finishing your movement sideways.


The logical conclusion, then, is that we're supposed to continue using the movement system that's been working just fine up until now, and that GW just worded it really badly.

Or that we're supposed to use the second method above, and the bit about pivoting on the center of the vehicle is just a legacy of last edition and isn't really supposed to mean anything any more.


Which of those is the best way to go is going to come down to personal interpretation. So it's a good idea to discuss with your opponent prior to the game if you're concerned about it being an issue. From my experience, most people aren't.

the rules spell out exactly how far you can move a vehicle. Before moving the vehicle at all, including turning it, just measure from the hull and mark out the distance, if your opponents says no because what he wants to do is legal, then pack up your little plastic men and tell him to go play with himself. (Pun intended)

Its very easy and the rules say it very clearly. At the start of the movement phase. That's before any pivoting is done. You measure from the most forward part of your vehicle in the direction you are going and you are free to pivot(because it costs no movement) and move as much as you want when you move as long as you do not exceed your vehicle's movement past the distance from that point. Not that hard.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

So where is the line between "trick" and "thing that I can do to gain an advantage" oh great and wise psychic guru? Since you obviously know the intentions of GW, maybe you can tell me if it's unsporting and WAAC if:

-I position my special weapons always at the back of the squad (how unrealistic!!)

-I try to position my models 2" apart when facing blast weaponry (Don't they like each other??)

-I sometimes move my vehicles sideways to keep the heavily armored sides facing the enemy

-I apply special rules to the unit even when it doesn't make total sense that they would carry over

Is that WAAC behavior? Am I TFG? Or maybe, am I playing a game that has concrete written rules and using common sense to get the most advantage I can out of them? My army includes a vehicle that has three guns, all with 180 degree arcs, one of which faces backwards. You better bet that it crabwalks around most of the time so I get to fire all my weapons, I paid for that freaking thing after all.

People who use the term "WAAC" tend to care about winning and losing way more than the people they're playing against, I find. They have a need to make their losses "not count" in their eyes whenever their opponent does something they don't like. Sure, I kitted out all my tactical squads with the optimum weaponry and loadout, duh, but my opponent fielded TWO RIPTIDES-what a WAAC douche! Never mind the fact that I brought six tactical squads to unlock my 10 free razorbacks-I just like those models and it's fluffy

No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

The vehicle actually ended its movement the exact same distance from where it was, but only because you made another pivot move after the unit disembarked.

You can pivot as many times as you want to right?

 Icculus wrote:
No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

Once you disembark, the vehicle cannot move any more, at all.
The Eldar Vectored Engines upgrade changes that, but generally you move model X, disembark unit Y, and move [onto the next unit].

[Edit: Tidied up bad wordings]

When rules have several loopholes in them people have and will take advantage of them. Until GW learns to write clear rules people will keep taking advantage of them.

Everyone needs to relax, some great points were made about how people may use little things like this to gain an edge but it doesn't necessarily make them bad people.

One of my best friends tried this on me and I just looked at him and said "we are playing games like this now?" And he promptly changed the way he moved his vehicles back to the normal mode. (During 6th) Now in 7th it is rather clear that you can't do that at all anymore.

Sometimes the best response is to just call people out for abusive use of rules and ask them if you honestly feel the game was intended to work that way.

In all honesty I can't stress this enough but do your best to learn all the rules, people do make mistakes, but people also like to use inexperience as an opportunity to cheat.

Even with my own good friends from time to time we double check how rules work to make sure we are having a fair game.

Everyone just chill we are all people here and sometimes things are too serious. That being said the guy is clearly WAAC because he plays harlies and purposely built his entire list to abuse this one mechanic which technically doesn't exist anymore.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

Once you disembark, the vehicle cannot move any more. At all.
The Eldar Vectored Engines upgrade changes that, but generally you move model X, disembark unit Y, and move on.

Does a pivot count as a move?

The answer is yes in this case.

Just looked it up. We can move on, my theory was wrong.

 insaniak wrote:
This particular 'exploit' has been widely known about for more than 15 years now.... most of the players who do it are seeing it as something that is perfectly within the rules.

Unfortunately insaniak this obviously wasn't the case between these two players!

Playing rules with a eye towards clarity, consistency and intuitiveness is an attitude. Playing rules with an eye towards eking out non-transparent advantages is also an attitude. The benefits and drawbacks of both should be pretty obvious.

If you plunk down your vehicle facing the direction you want it to face, you will never have these misunderstandings or get into lengthy rules discussions justifying legality. It is an exploit though, even if normalized among the player base. Vehicles aren't supposed to get "extra movement" on turn 1 and that's the functional effect of this action. As you said yourself the only reason someone might anticipate this is experience.

If two players want to play with extra movement by common agreement, that's fine.... but why not just declare a global 2" combat speed buff on turn 1 and reduce all the silliness of spinning around your vehicles? It pretty much works out to the same thing.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Unfortunately insaniak this obviously wasn't the case between these two players!
.

Well of course it wasn't, or we wouldn't have this thread.

That doesn't mean the player who did it was in the wrong, though, just as he wouldn't have been in the wrong if he drew LOS from a model's belt buckle and his opponent hasn't realised you could do that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

If you plunk down your vehicle facing the direction you want it to face, you will never have these misunderstandings or get into lengthy rules discussions justifying legality.

Yes, you will.... Because you'll find yourself having to explain why the rules tell you how to pivot the vehicle if it doesn't actually matter.

And, as I mentioned before, you don't remove the extra movement issue by playing that way... You just change the direction that it works in. So you'll also find yourself having to explain why your vehicle is gaining extra movement when it finishes its move sideways.

The player that did it is clearly in the wrong. Both in rules and in intent.

I'm a bit confused, and I didn't want to necro the ymdc thread, so I'll ask - why is the pivot trick illegal in 7th? I've been trying to read the reason from the thread, but I can't see any specific rules citation that says so.

Furthermore, everyone seems to agree it was legal in 6th, yet the vehicle movement paragraphs for 6th and 7th are, as far as I can tell, almost ver batum identical.

Specifically:

7th edition quote:

" The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later.

• Stationary. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.

• 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.

• Cruising Speed. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible – all of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.

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."

End quote

6th edition quote:

" The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons and how easy a target the vehicle will be if
assaulted, as described later.

. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.
. 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.

. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the
vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible - all
of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.

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

End quote

Those blurbs, to me, seems to be completely unchanged from 6th to 7th, with the exception of the 6th edition mentioning how easy it is to hit a vehicle in CC. Why then is it illegal in 7th?

I won't disagree it's a bit cheesy to use such a tactic, but to say that rotation counts as movement means that long vehicles like a ghost ark can rotate like 270 degrees before any point has moved more than 6".

Because in addition to that rule you have to look at these

movement phase section

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.



from the vehicles section

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, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.


So you treat the hull of a vehicle like you would the base of an infantry model. And pivoting is part of the movement of the vehicle (you can't pivot THEN move and claim that the pivot was free movement. A pivot is only free movement if you do no other movement during the phase). Therefore, strict RAW is that no part of the hull can move further than the allowed distance.

As insaniak pointed out though, this means you would have to measure each point on the hull separately to follow strict RAW. Some are house ruling that you only need to measure from the point closest to where your vehicle is going but this isn't RAW. Others are just sticking to the old way of moving where the pivot is free even if you move after pivoting.

In the end it's up to the players to figure out how they want to do it because GW can't write clear rules.

Col. Dash wrote:
The player that did it is clearly in the wrong. Both in rules and in intent.

If it was clear, we wouldn't have this thread, or people with disagreeing opinions.

Further, unless you have a written statement from the entirety of the design team as to how the rules is supposed to function with a detailed explanation, or can read minds, you don't know the intent. Even further, intent is meaningless if the practical way of employing said rule is equally muddy and messy.

That seems a bit strict interpretation, but I honestly can't disagree with it.

And like I said, the pivot trick was always a bit cheesy, so I won't defend it.

But to the OP's question, I'd probably file this one under honest mistake based on previously known and legal rules. It does happen. Just learn, understand the rules argument, and be ready next time with a polite correction.

The problem lies in the conflict between three rules:

General Movement:

BRB p.18: "Movement Distance" 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 in the Movement Phase.

Vehicle Movement:

BRB p. 73: "Vehicles in the Movement Phase" 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, Immobilized vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from moving more than intended or allowed.

(emphasis in original)

Skimmer Movement:

BRB p. 89: "Skimmers and Measuring" Unlike most other vehicles, Skimmers have flying bases under their hull. However, distances are still measured to and from the Skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons and Fire Points, all of which work as normal, The base of a Skimmer is effectively ignored....

Because of the conflict between these three rules, it is either the case that the "pivoting trick" is not legal and pivoting on the spot costs movement which would make the movement phases infinitely more complicated, or pivoting on the spot does not cost movement and the "pivot trick" is therefore legal.

I am inclined to believe in the latter interpretation, at least with regards to vehicles. The line "No part of its base" can be RAI interpreted to mean only the vertical surface, allowing models to pivot freely. Because skimmers measure from the hull of the vehicle, open-topped vehicles treat all of the vehicle as an access point, vehicles may not move more than 6" when disembarking passengers, and pivoting does not count as moving or reduce movement distance, my conclusion is therefore that, in light of there not being an explicit prohibition against doing so, skimmers pivoting to potentially allow for extra distance for passenger disembarkation is legal.

Clear as mud, I know. But it's the only logical interpretation I personally can come to due to the conflicting rules. Is the "pivot trick" a polite move? Arguably no, as there is enough room to argue against doing so, at least in polite company. Is it technically legal due to the conflict between rules? Yes.

Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

So everyone that disagrees with your opinion is a cheater?

Got it.

Great attitude. You'll go far on an internet forum.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

The problem is, as it has been repeatedly pointed out, that in the absence of an official FAQ on the subject or statement from the design team the situation and intent are not clear.

What you see as an intentional work-around of the intent of the rules, I see as rules allowing for the potential for user error in movement and the ability for units disembarking from certain vehicles to gain a small bonus in doing so. The bonus movement does not come from the vehicle moving, but from the unit disembarking in a strategic way.

If the rules regarding the situation are themselves not transparent, the situation cannot therefore have a transparent resolution. HIWPI: it may seem cheesy, but due to poor wording in the rules it is a legal move.

I don't mind ruffling a few feathers.

The minute anyone tells me what value the "pivot trick" adds to the 40k experience in general -- rather than trying to dodge this question by bringing up other "unrealistic" factors or pedantic rules interpretations -- I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion of the motivations behind it.

Good luck with that, though.

@newblood, you might not have perfect 6" movement due to models and gameflow but that's different from a player intentionally leveraging this limitation for advantage. It's not really about user error.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

If you've been reading the thread at all, you'd find it is not very clear.

Telling everyone else they're wrong, and calling/labelling them as WAAC/TFG if they don't agree with you, is the very definition of TFG on your part.

Being rude and condescending isn't helping your point. Its only making people think you're the WAAC/TFG in this discussion.

Even if you were to measure from the hull of a raider, it still gains extra movement from a pivot. Couldn't you purchase the Item that makes raiders/ ravagers have that pointy tip? (The DE version of a battering Ram). You would still be able to use it since that piece is now part of the hull and has a function.

It is extremely clear. There is no room for seeing it differently. This isn't 6th edition. Anyone who uses this is cheating if they know the rules have changed, that is clear and simple. Its like calling hits on 3s when your BS is only a 3 or rerolling a reroll. You know that's not how the rule works and are trying to do it anyway.

Measure the hull at the start of the movement phase. That is before anything is done including pivoting. No part of the hull may go past 6" from that point at the end of movement phase. You can pivot all you want in the space between and it costs nothing. The rules say this. Yeah its typical GW putting them all over the place but they have been posted throughout this thread with page numbers. You cant get much clearer from a GW rule book. Thus there is no need for an FAQ.

Why not solve the problem with a "disembark/shooting distances of crew measure from skimmer base, not hull" house rule and call it even?

I can't believe people still support this company when they charge so much for such gak rules writing.

Col. Dash wrote:
It is extremely clear. There is no room for seeing it differently. This isn't 6th edition. Anyone who uses this is cheating if they know the rules have changed, that is clear and simple. Its like calling hits on 3s when your BS is only a 3 or rerolling a reroll. You know that's not how the rule works and are trying to do it anyway.

Measure the hull at the start of the movement phase. That is before anything is done including pivoting. No part of the hull may go past 6" from that point at the end of movement phase. You can pivot all you want in the space between and it costs nothing. The rules say this. Yeah its typical GW putting them all over the place but they have been posted throughout this thread with page numbers. You cant get much clearer from a GW rule book. Thus there is no need for an FAQ.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that it isn't clear due to conflicting rules about general movement and vehicle movement. The problem with measuring from the hull is that it leads to pivoting costing movement, as the lateral movement could cause a part of the vehicle to move more than 6". For example, the Necron Monolith has a base about 6" long. Pivot on the spot while ensuring that no part travels more than 6", and the Monolith cannot move any farther forward. Another example: a Raider pivots 90 degrees, and moves 6" to disembark its passengers. Because of the design of the Raider's hull, the pivot has gained about 2"-3" of extra movement. It doesn't matter when the pivoting occurs, as the result is still the same.

I will agree that the "pivot trick" relies on poor and ambiguous wording. I tried it in my last game, and my opponent disagreed with my doing so. In the interest of not having a lengthy rules discussion, I pivoted and then made the move. The result was still the same, but didn't look like I was blatantly exploiting a loophole in the rules.

@lustigjh: In this case I don't blame GW.

First things first. It's a wargame. You set the forces up on their axis of advance as such time as they make contact.

This might be sideways in a scenario where there's a linear ambush on a convoy, which carries a lot of implications in terms of ranges, who goes first, so on so forth. I don't care about 2" of extra movement in this situation; that's completely besides the point.

The kind of people to argue sideways deployment to gain a 2" advantage are the same kinds of rules lawyers who were going on for days inventing fluffy reasons why Immobilized Skimmers should jink. GW should never have had to write a FAQ for that; 40k players should have the self-respect not to abuse loopholes and take on some responsibility for their own experiences playing the game. We usually blame GW in part because it's easier to trash a distant corporation than get into it on the guy across the table from you.

My opinion aside, "should" is obviously irrelevant, human nature will never change, and this will keep happening until the 40k rules are airtight. Unfortunately without monitoring and rapid correction of the shady yet ingenious tricks, this is hard to fix. GW needs a real-time digital ruleset and a hard-ass uncaring bad guy to immediately step on creative rules exploits.

Ironically, this would be appreciated by competitive players because it makes the game more fair for everyone. Everyone wants rules that are clear and intuitive. WAAC players (who are not necessarily cheaters) simply don't place that priority above winning; and they will fight against corrections unless there's a 3rd party with absolute authority applying them impartially to both players.

Yoyoyo wrote:
40k players should have the self-respect not to abuse loopholes and take on some responsibility for their own experiences playing the game.

People that disagree with my opinion of how a rule works lack self-respect.

Jesus, dude. Come down off that high horse before you get a nose bleed.

Obviously, that's a complete misinterpretation of what I said.

Do you care to argue what I quoted at face value?

I'm sorry...but what? I'm not going to forgo shooting my Gretchin's gun at a space marine because there's no "legitimate Wargame simulation reason" that a flintlock pistol could harm a superhuman in power armor... Because the rules say it's a S3 weapon, he's T4 and has a 3+ save, so I can kill him.

This isn't a simulation Wargame. It's an abstraction. Fluff reasoning for basic stuff in the game makes absolutely zero sense. I'll tell you why a skimmer could Jink when immobilized pre-FAQ: because Jink is a 4+ cover save conferred by a special rule applied to models of the Skimmer type.

Now you tell me why:


-Models that cross a certain line in the field are dead forever

-my army's objectives are totally random and can include capturing the thing they're already on 3 times in a row, or trying to kill a psyker when the entire race of the enemy army I'm facing contains no psykers?

-A 20-ton tank can be immobilized by crossing a bush

-After a certain length of time both armies declare a winner, pack up and go home even if they're still locked in mortal close combat

-My psykers and warlord aren't exactly sure what they can do before each battle starts

If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff, then I'll make the equally valid claim that my psyker is an Invisibility master who has trained specifically that art since birth so I should always get that power, and furthermore the objective I have placed right here on my side of the table is a priceless STC and my army cares for nothing besides holding that objective so all my cards automatically become hold that objective.


Orrrrrr, we could agree to play by a third party's established rule set to theoretically keep things fair.

to try and find a middle ground someone tell me if I'm wording/understanding this correctly: (in casual games) Positioning your models in a way where you intend to gain the extra 3" of movement, regardless of the edition, is a fairly gaky move to make, being that it goes against the intended use of the rules. However, if you rotate your model around to go a different direction, to maintain an idea of immersion, make the table look cool, or other similar situation, and happen to gain a few inches due to pivoting rules, it's less of a slap to the face, as it's for the sake of the battle, not for the sake of squeezing out a few more inches. Yes?

As an example: Why would an Eldar force start facing all of their weaker side armor to the opponent, to only turn around and rush them? However, if the "fluff" behind the battle is a surprise attack on a convoy, it makes more sense.

In my personal opinion, even when it was allowed by the rules, it wasn't an action you should have ever taken in a casual "for fun" game, since it's just bending/abusing the rules in your favor.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me explain, if you care to keep an open mind.

Nothing in games is more important than consistency in rules.

Games frequently attempt to model real-life situations. In these games, we typically draw on real-life as a common reference point by which to intuit actions and consequences.

By insisting that our intuitive conclusions from real-life do not apply, and that the game is in fact an abstraction rather than an imperfect model set in a fantastic world, we destroy the value of intuitive conclusions and place greater value on understanding the finer details of the abstract ruleset.

This gives an advantage to those players who may understand highly counterintuitive details of the ruleset, and a disadvantage to those players who could never expect it or are playing 40k as a model.

That is why a lot of players, when faced with a "common sense" argument, try and defend this advantage by immediately expanding the scope of the issue into "well if X doesn't make sense, why should anything make sense?"

This attitude encourages conflict as both players now lack a common reference point to resolve issues, and now selectively argue or counter-argue whether the game is a model or an abstraction (primarily based on which interpretation gives them to greater in-game advantage).

Sounds a little familar, doesn't it?

If we agree to play as close to our shared reference point, being real-world cause and effect, the more we both understand the game intuitively and the more consensus we will possess in resolving rules disputes. This is an attitude that doesn't imply advantage -- its goal is transparent and intuitive rules.

If you value winning over clarity of gameplay for both parties.... well, what kind of player do you think you'll be seen as?

Yoyoyo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me explain, if you care to keep an open mind.

Nothing in games is more important than consistency in rules.

Games frequently attempt to model real-life situations. In these games, we typically draw on real-life as a common reference point by which to intuit actions and consequences.

By insisting that our intuitive conclusions from real-life do not apply, and that the game is in fact an abstraction rather than an imperfect model set in a fantastic world, we destroy the value of intuitive conclusions and place greater value on understanding the finer details of the abstract ruleset.

This gives an advantage to those players who may understand highly counterintuitive details of the ruleset, and a disadvantage to those players who could never expect it or are playing 40k as a model.

That is why a lot of players, when faced with a "common sense" argument, try and defend this advantage by immediately expanding the scope of the issue into "well if X doesn't make sense, why should anything make sense?"

This attitude encourages conflict as both players now lack a common reference point to resolve issues, and now selectively argue or counter-argue whether the game is a model or an abstraction (primarily based on which interpretation gives them to greater in-game advantage).

Sounds a little familar, doesn't it?

If we agree to play as close to our shared reference point, being real-world cause and effect, the more we both understand the game intuitively and the more consensus we will possess in resolving rules disputes.

Yes, exactly this.

The common reference here is how special rules work. If you've got a special rule, you've got it unless something specifically says it's gone. If I attach a mega-armored character to my Mek Gunz, they can move and fire because the rule confers to any unit containing a SnP model. This makes no objective sense but if we disallow it, we have to change how a lot of special rules work that could make objective sense.

Like you just said, it's about having a consistent rule set to avoid confusion. What is "intuitive" to you is maybe not "intuitive" to me-and that doesn't make me an donkey-cave, it makes me a person with a different opinion. Which means if we take "intuitive judgement" as a rules interpreting criteria, we will never stop having pointless arguments.


Yes, someone who understands how the system works might gain an advantage because of that. That's how game systems work. There's no "moralistic" bearing on that. Me moving my guns and shooting with slow and purposeful is the same as you placing a special weapon at the back of a squad. It's just playing the game.

So... The argument now is that playing by the rules gives an unfair advantage to players who know the rules better then their opponent?


I think we've wandered far enough afield here. The original issue had been thoroughly hashed out, and we're just having a rules argument in a thread that was never intended for one, so I think it's time to move on.