Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

topic says it all. My firend says they can since walkers pivot in shooting phase and it doesnt count as movement.

I'd say that movement counts as movement, regardless of what phase it is.

No one really knows when it comes to walkers. The answer is leaning towards "no", but some people feel that walkers can rotate without their legs. I disagree, but it isnt a 100% situation.

iamthecougar wrote:topic says it all. My firend says they can since walkers pivot in shooting phase and it doesnt count as movement.

Yes they can , im 99% sure its in the rule book ( but im usually wrong so... )

Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Technically, the rulebook has it correct, since this doesn't even need any arcane judgments of rules interactions to come to the correct answer

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Willydstyle has it correct again :3

Technically, the rulebook has it correct, since this doesn't even need any arcane judgments of rules interactions to come to the correct answer

Lies, Now that I am back I henceforth Decree that each question must have at least 7 contradictory rules interactions!

It was covered in 4th, but not specifically in 5th.
As walkers are different from vehicles, and vehicles can still rotate any turrets even when immobilized, there is some reasoning for them to be able to rotate. As an immobilised walker can still not be assualted in the rear armor even when immobilised, my thoughts are it must be able to rotate to defend itself, so turning to shoot would sound logical, and match the previous rules. As the rules for immobilized specifically state that an immobilized vehicle (does not say walker), can't turn in place, I'd be inclined to treat them as a turret, but whatever way they face to shoot with the upper body would as the rules for dreads state, affect what direction their rear armor is facing.

But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

@Daytona: What?? Walkers are not different from vehicles, they are simply vehicles with extra rules. The "walkers" section in the rulebook is a subheading under the main heading of "vehicles."

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

[sarcasm]Oh that's not conceited, narcissistic, or inflammatory at all.[/sarcasm]

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

Pish.

See my signature please

Canonness Rory wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:HOLY CHRIST IN A CAMARO!!!! GWAR! ... Where were you dude?

Off-topic... people act like Gwar is the only poster on dakka with in-depth rules knowledge.

Most of the time I am

[sarcasm]Oh that's not conceited, narcissistic, or inflammatory at all.[/sarcasm]

Notice the Winky smiley. It was intended as a joke.

Sheesh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:See my signature please

My e-peen Signature is bigger!

So anyway, can we all agree Page 57 is clear, they cannot pivot?

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

But since you are obviously the most smarteerest player on dakka, I only need one quote!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

Because the "always attack front armor in CC" rule is completely independent of the walkers capability to move. It has a movement-based fluff justification, but as far as the rules go the two things are completely unconnected. Otherwise you'd be able to hit an immobilized walker's rear armor. The only time that it's represented in the game is the fact that if you ram a walker in the rear, you hit the rear armor, and it cannot DoG against the ramming vehicle.

You guys, please allow me to say something.

If you guys can work with just discussing the rules, everything would always be fine.

But it always end up with the sole purpose of trying to prove Gwar! wrong , and hence the fight starts.

LunaHound wrote:You guys, please allow me to say something.

If you guys can work with just discussing the rules, everything would always be fine.

But it always end up with the sole purpose of trying to prove Gwar! wrong , and hence the fight starts.

Im curious as to how you direct this towards people who disagree with him (while not me in this case, I have in the past), yet he's the one that comes out and simply says "youre wrong". How is that discussing rules? Atleast the person he quoted had other rules and was bringing something to the discussion, instead of just repeating the same things that have been said.

Who is trying to prove Gwar (actually me, in this case, since he just agrees with me) wrong?

Wait calm down guys , if my observation is wrong , then i apologize.

But if deep inside you do admit yes it turns out the way i described, dont forget what i said.

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

You cant simply dismiss other people's arguments as opinions when they have a few rules on their side, especially when the rules for your argument isnt clear either.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251302.page - A topic where a lot of people play it the other way because of the rule on page 72:

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

When you combine this with only hitting front armour in CC, and the walker models themselves, I can see where theyre coming from, especially when I dont think the way I play it is clear either.

Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

By RAW the rules on pg 57 prevent an immobilised vehicle from pivoting in the Movement phase.

Walkers pivot in the shooting phase, representing their "vastly superior agility". This throws enough doubt into the mix for there to be discussions about it. Preferably something more than "you're wrong" but we all know what we've had a vacation from recently...

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."


Seems simple to me, you try to pivot, but can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

Gwar! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

Dont twist words. If Im playing in the store and my opponent does this to me (my dreads are CCWs, so I would never do this), Im going to simply scream out "BUT GWAR SAID YOURE WRONG!"? No. It doesnt matter if its clear to you if its not clear to everyone else. That was my point.

Gwar! wrote:
"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."


Seems simple to me, you try to pivot, but can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

So I say "In my Opinion it is clear" and then you insult me.

Lovely. Glad to know the right people get banned.

People get banned on Dakka for political reasons, not reasonable reasons.