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.

And the Rulebook states that pivoting does not count as movement, so the part of the vehicle that moved due to pivoting is ignored. So yes, it has been proven.

whitedragon wrote:The rules make no mention of where you measure from

Yes, they do.

Page 12, the handy Diagram that has a Rhino in it.

Read it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And the Rulebook states that pivoting does not count as movement, so the part of the vehicle that moved due to pivoting is ignored. So yes, it has been proven.

You're right, it doesn't count as movement, or rather as the rulebook states "no movement is lost due to pivoting". However, it doesn't allow you to gain movement either.

Gwar! wrote:

whitedragon wrote:The rules make no mention of where you measure from

Yes, they do.

Page 12, the handy Diagram that has a Rhino in it.

Read it.

Forgive me but I don't have my rulebook handy, I will have to consult it later.

It's as simple as that. From beginning of movement [before touching the model] to end, if you are further than 6" from the edge of where your hull BEGAN, you're doing it wrong.

Please read the rulebook pivoting does not count as movement. By your reconning a Landraider pivoting 180 degrees has moved cruising speed, yet the rulebook tells us it hasn't moved at all...

"You prove I'm wrong!"

"No, you prove I'm wrong!"

Etc, etc, etc....

"You prove I'm wrong!"

"No, you prove I'm wrong!"

Etc, etc, etc....

Not really. Those of us advocating that you pivot round the centre and it doesn't count as moving are following exactly what the rulebook says:

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre point, rather than 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move. This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving..."

I really don't see the confusion. Page 12 even gives yo ua helpful diagram to show how you measure (from the same point).

Maybe we should all re-read the OP. Particularly the red bits.

One must account for the "free" move in turning or potentially infinite moves are possible.

To illustrate why I have a diagram showing a simple setup of a DE transport, making 5 turns and 4, 3 inch moves in turn one. Look at the difference this makes.

It's clearly exceeding the maximum move allowed with only a 12 inch move, as it picks up 3 free inches (about half the vehicle length every time it turns on center for "free").

It's cheating to do that, seeing the example with multiple iterated really makes the point obvious.

I have a feeling you have doctored that image, as there is NO WAY for that to happen if you follow the RaW.
In fact, that has annoyed me so much, I am going to post my own version of that diagram.

Gwar! wrote:I have a feeling you have doctored that image, as there is NO WAY for that to happen if you follow the RaW.
In fact, that has annoyed me so much, I am going to post my own version of that diagram, with scales to not trick people with perception tricks.

He really obviously didn't follow the raw and measured from the front and then placed the vehicle sideways at the end, or pivoted around a point other than the center and compensated for it.

The fact that people still can't understand the really basic geometry behind rotating/measuring from a rectangle is completely baffling to me.
Thank god for vassal making these easily scaled and measured diagrams so people can't skew the results and make up fake 'infinite move' combos that have nothing to do with the raw.

The issue with Augustus's is that he is measuring from the front and then to the side. If he goes front to front even with the turn it makes no difference.I even tried using some angles but if you use the same measuring point you should only get about a half ship length.

Ok, I actually improved on that last diagram. Admittedly its only 9" of movement, but I ran out of space!



So, in short, the Diagram provided by Augustus is not following the RaW.

Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

Demogerg wrote:Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

You have actually read the RAW, yes?
"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move."

Stop making claims that pivoting counts as extra movement for some parts of the vehicle or somehow reduces or affects or counts as part of the total movement allowance of the vehicle.
You're, quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Personally I'd say B. Yes, it's allowed by the rules. Yes everybody plays that way. But it's like using the n00b tube (grenade launcher) in Call of Duty. Perfectly legal, plenty of people do it... but why? That's not how the game was meant to be played. Here, it's clearly taking advantage of poor wording in the rules. Net result being a vehicle moved more than 12" in a phase. Argue it all you want that you didn't TECHNICALLY move more than 12", you did. Thus, not how I'd like to play the game. I wouldn't call anybody on it (unless maybe in a tourney I'd bring it up before we start) but it's not how I'd like the game.

Pvt. Jet wrote:Personally I'd say B.

You know A and B are the same right?

Question: Why is it "not how it was meant to be played" when it has been like this since 3rd edition and what the rules say to do?

I voted A because there has the potential for turning your side to the enemy on turn 1 to problematic if they steal the initiative.

In general, I find that as long as you measure movement distance from the same point at the beginning and end of the move it isn't a problem, if you pivot a bit at the beginning and then measure from the front or center of the vehicle the move is 100% legal in my opinion.

Most players due this without giving it much thought, it is only real d-bags that try to pull off crazy questionable manuevers in my experience.

I personally know that its totally legal(rules wise) to start sideways, measure and then pivot(as pivoting is basically a free move that doesnt count) but personally it just seems like a nice way to cheat out a few inches. Kind of like how many people will measure from the front of the base and try to slip the BACK of the base to the end of the measurement.

I know that is actually covered as wrong in the rule book(the base measure part), but personally I chose B. It just seems wrong to me personally to gain a few inches because of the pivoting.

I've always played version B, due to not wanting to be the local jerk rules lawyer...and not seeing that as what was intended, even if the rules say so(GW never makes rules errors, right?).

As for knocking somebody sportsmanship for this, I don't see why you could argue that he doesn't have the right. Some lists are legal, but are still friggin' mental and made to be played by trained monkeys. Some people model their tanks with walls attached to them, mostly Orks obviously...extra bitz n' all. And people dock sportsmanship points for this all the time, legal or not.

It comes to if you feel the opponent is making the game enjoyable or clearly stretching as far as he can go to simply win, that's how I usually do sportsmanships(I know, I know...feel free to flame away).

Gorkamorka wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Although you all have worked out the right-angle geometry very well, points of the vehicle exceed their maximum move value, which, when you consider that

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

the total distance moved on parts of the vehicle (the front corners) exceed the vehicles maximum movement allowance, and because they are not pivoting alone, but rather pivoting and moving forward they are then breaking the raw on how far they can move.

this would be akin to "front to back" measuring for infantry

You have actually read the RAW, yes?
"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move."

Stop making claims that pivoting counts as extra movement for some parts of the vehicle or somehow reduces or affects or counts as part of the total movement allowance of the vehicle.
You're, quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Stop trying to rules lawyer for something that is unsportsman like, against RAW, logically flawed, and quite simply, completely and clearly wrong.

Turning does not reduce a vehicles move, it doesnt allow you to gain additional distance either. In 2nd edition if you turned at all, your vehicles maximum movement forward or backwards was reduced (on top of being limited in how many degrees of turning you were allowed)

consider a land raider that is parked 90 degrees to the left, from that start point, it cannot move more than 12", if you pivot (which in itself doesnt count as movement) then move up, you can only move up as far as that no point on the vehicle has exceeded its 12" move restriction. You can rotate and pivot all you want, but you cannot exceed 12" from the start point.

Ok i have changed my mind. "A" is cheating

For starters it makes no difference where you measure you distance from front to front, back to back, centre to centre its all the same.

For the purpose of my argument I am going to measure front to front, not only that the "front" is going to be the "direction of travel" (you will see why later). I don't have any fancy pictures so I'm going to have to try to explain this.

The problem comes from "when" you measure.

If you pivot then measure your distance from the new position you will gain extra distance.

If you measure (in the direction of travel) then pivot to face that direction you gain no extra distance to movement.

So what should we do, measure > pivot/move. or pivot > measure > move?

So lets look at some vehicle movement rules.

"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, (which lets be honest is also like any other model)

Ok so lets look at normal (ie infantry) movement rules and don't forget to look at the rules for turning and facing.

"It is perfectly fine to measure a units move in one direction, and then change your mind"

"AS YOU MOVE the models in a unit a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover"

Both these sentences strongly suggest to me that the measuring should be done both before movement and more importantly turning.

So..... Measure > turn/move ie no extra movement A is cheating.

Now the naysayers are going to say a vehicle can turn/pivot with out using any movement distance, so what so can any other model, yeah sure unlike other models the turn/pivot can only be done in the movement phase but as far as I am concerned that is a moot point. Why? because although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Demogerg wrote:

Page 12 of the BRB proves you wrong here. It very clearly shows how to measure movement for vehicles.

Lorne wrote:The issue with Augustus's is that he is measuring from the front and then to the side. If he goes front to front even with the turn it makes no difference.I even tried using some angles but if you use the same measuring point you should only get about a half ship length.

Why is that a problem?

But even without that you get a free half ship length at the start.

It's just cheating for extra distance, if the vehicle's move is 12 there should be no way to get further on the board, or closer to the enemy or objective than 12 inches closer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:...although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Exactly the problem comes from models that do not have a footprint that is circular.

When you spin any non circular footprint then move you can pick up the distance of variance in the radiance from the shortest point to the longest.

This is moot with circular bases for infantry but makes a significant difference on anything else with a non circular foot print.

What ads to the problem is the part of the rule that says:

"any number of turns while moving"

There probably needed to be a caveat that the movement had to be forward, or the example I showed, of sideways to front movement after a pivot will add the difference between the radius everytime the user pivot turns for free.

Augustus wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:...although the pivot uses no distance, and doesn't count as the vehicle moving it is still part of the vehicles movement done in the movement phase, therefore measure > turn/move, it just that your move is equal to zero inches.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Exactly the problem comes from models that do not have a footprint that is circular.

When you spin any non circular footprint then move you can pick up the distance of variance in the radiance from the shortest point to the longest.

This is moot with circular bases for infantry but makes a significant difference on anything else with a non circular foot print.

Why is it only moot with round bases. I think I over expanded on what I was saying so to sum up

1/ As far I can tell RAW suggest very strongly that you should measure before you move.

2/Turning/pivoting is movement therefore you should measure first.

3/"Pivoting on the spot ALONE does not count as moving" A vehicle pivoting and then moving is not pivoting on the spot alone, it is in fact moving the pivot is part of the movement and therefore you should measure before pivoting

This thread is amazing. I didn't realize so many flatearthers played 40k.

I don't know who's wrong... Someone's gotta be... Head... Swimming...

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know who's wrong... Someone's gotta be... Head... Swimming...

The real question is is shouldn't we have all followed the instructions in Yakface's OP

yakface wrote:

"Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.

Augustus, your diagram is wrong, after the first move. You're showing the raider's center "teleporting" up to its front end, and pivoting around that point. That's not how pivoting works, and that's why you're getting infinite movement.

Gwar's diagrams are correct.

As I posted before, the rulebook's rules for movement do allow a vehicle to gain distance once per turn with a pivot, presuming they want to move in a direction not congruent with their longest axis.

I have Gwar on ignore, I'll never see his diagrams.

All the pivots in mine are on the center. I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that moving and measuring from front to side is illegal?

(My Red arrow and Ghost image.)

PS, if by wrong you mean illegal, then yes I agree. I don't think thats a legal move. I think it is what could happen in the A solution.

Augustus wrote:I have Gwar on ignore, I'll never see his diagrams.

All the pivots in mine are on the center. I'm not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that moving and measuring from front to side is illegal?

(My Red arrow and Ghost image.)

PS, if by wrong you mean illegal, then yes I agree. I don't think thats a legal move. I think it is what could happen in the A solution.

How about you click the "Show Post" and have a look then? Then you will be able to see why your Diagrams are completely wrong!