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.

In our group, we measure as you're moving (we are a bit lax sometimes with rules), as when moving around a bit of terrain, you cant measure in a straight line

ie, move forward 3", pivot 45 degrees, move forward another 3", pivot another 45 degrees, move forward etc etc as you 'wheel' around a dome for example.

Misusing this for those extra couple of inches when not necessary, while seemingly legal, is about as ethical as selling diamonds on a black cloth.

That's why I dont really play non-friendly games. It's like the internet. While in real life only 1 in 50 people are feth-heads, online (and in pro-games) about 1 in 10 people are feth-heads.

It's a good job you cant play tabletop games online!

PrometheusZero wrote:
Misusing this for those extra couple of inches when not necessary, while seemingly legal, is about as ethical as selling diamonds on a black cloth.

This.

Yeah, okay. MAYBE by the letters of the rules, pivoting long vehicles to get a couple extra inches is "legal".

But c'mon.

All you folks who do it KNOW how beardy it is. The only reason that it "works" legally speaking, is because Games Workshop is more concerned about making the vehicle movement rules SIMPLE enough so that casual and young players are easily able to play the game and move their models around, and so that movement for vehicles is not unnecessarily time consuming.

No one I've ever played against has done it, for the same reason we don't fudge dice-rolls. The game isn't about exploiting every loophole in the rules to win at all costs.

Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

This has been legal since 1998! GW are most certainly aware of this, and the continue allowance of it in the rules shows their support for it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

This has been legal since 1998! GW are most certainly aware of this, and the continue allowance of it in the rules shows their support for it.

Lost cause nos. As I already pointed out; simple proof for pivoting granting extra inches can be found in the Tank Shock rules. You pivot to face, declare the number of inches to be moved, measure, and move. If I pivot 90 degrees to face the direction I am going to tank shock with my Land Raider, Battlewagon, Rhino, or Raider I have effectively been granted the extra inches for the models length according to the rules. The Tank Shock rules don't say pivot to face making sure you are no closer the the enemy then you previously were or anything along those lines.

Anyways this is the last I have to say on the topic, it is getting repetitive, especially since this was covered in another thread already and in other editions of 40k.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

Murrdox wrote:Nothing in the rulebook says I can't . . .

Finish that list, in its literal entirety, and then continue. Otherwise, it is just silly to start with one you like.

Silly - yes, that's my point

Murrdox wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

Of course it's cheating. Everyone who has ever played a proper dice game knows that rolling dice properly, not placing or skidding them, is the fair way to play and other tricks are cheating.

The rules of card games don't say that you aren't allowed to sneak in cards from other packs, because everyone knows it is cheating.

I've got a vehicle which is three inches wide and 13 inches long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:I find it interesting that Yakface's poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page was almost exactly one year ago, and no new points are being raised in this thread.

The poll was a 2:1 split. Although the majority agree with the pivot move, a substantial minority don't.

You'll never get agreement when one in three players thinks the move is "morally wrong", whatever the actual rulebook says.

time wizard wrote:

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

A: Because you don't measure distance from the base. BRB page 71, skimmers and measuring distances, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull...".

That's not what I asked. I asked how have I gained any movement. The question remains open.

It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

Murrdox wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fudging dice rolls is different though, as its cheating

IS it cheating? Really? Nothing in the rulebook says I can't palm the dice a certain way and toss them a certain way to maximize my chance of getting the roll I want. So I guess it's allowed, huh?

This logic is why rule conficts become so annoying.

1) The rulebook also defines a D6 as a 6 sided dice. No where does it say i can't have all 6's on every side.
2) 40k is a permisive game. The models are just peices of plastic until the rules tell you that you may move, shoot, and assault. You don't have to prove you *CAN'T* do something, you have to prove you *CAN*

Otherwise, it would be possible to move your models along the Z-axis... that would make the game really cheesy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

IIRC, (I will check when I get home), you declare a Tank shock, measure to see it you are in range, pivot, and then move. You also must declare a distance unless you are ramming, in which case you are moving as fast as possible 100% of the time.

and may I ask what the underlined statement means?

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:It would appear several people have already answered this question. OverwatchCNC makes the most compelling argument. By the Tank Shock rules you gain distance from pivoting, therefore gaining distance from pivoting is legal by the rules. I am not sure why people who are against gaining movement from pivots are ignoring this, perhaps it is because it definitively proves them wrong? If you are serious about an answer to the question wisdomeyes you wouldn't be conveniently ignoring responses that prove you are incorrect.

IIRC, (I will check when I get home), you declare a Tank shock, measure to see it you are in range, pivot, and then move. You also must declare a distance unless you are ramming, in which case you are moving as fast as possible 100% of the time.

and may I ask what the underlined statement means?

You ignored the tank shock argument several times.

When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

ElCheezus wrote:When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

Exactly. This grants you the free inches gained from pivoting. That settles this issue in my mind. I am sure you will continue to beat your heads against the wall and rail angrily at the world for doing you injustice since 1997 when this was first discovered as being legal.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I've got a vehicle which is three inches wide and 13 inches long.

That actually got me thinking that really the reason this is being brought up now is probably due to raiders. Now, what if the new Necron codex actually has transports that are built like this:



Put that vehicle on a flying base and it gets quite a lot of free movement from pivoting. Only then would GW clarify the rule, I would think.

On a side note, could you drill a hole further backwards on the underside of a raider and then glue the flying base there? That would let you pivot from a point that gives even more free movement to the prow of the vehicle.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

"It's been that way for ages" is not a good argument. It's condiered "appeal to tradition," which is a logical fallacy.

The discussion is worth having every once in a while. I never knew the reasoning behind why people thought this worked. Now I do, and I'm glad of this thread. You never know when new arguments will turn up, and theadomancy is generally looked down up, especially of really long threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oaka wrote:On a side note, could you drill a hole further backwards on the underside of a raider and then glue the flying base there? That would let you pivot from a point that gives even more free movement to the prow of the vehicle.

No. You pivot about the center-point of the model, not the center of the base.

Sliggoth wrote:"vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn" from pg 57. Its important to also examine the surrounding contextual rules regarding wheeling / pivots here as well.

It's also important to not chop out the part of the statement that completely changes its meaning.

The rules don't say that vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement, meaning that vehicles can only move forwards or backwards. They make a bunch of statements about vehicle movement, and then go on to say that this means that vehicles can combine forwards and backwards movement so long as they don't exceed their maximum move.

As I explained before, that's not saying that vehicles can only move forwards and backwards. It's saying that they can do both in the same turn. Nowhere outside of the Tank Shock rules do the rules actually define a set movement direction for vehicles.

It should be stated, but isn't.

If vehilces can move in any orientation then the more specific phrasing for moving forward and backward doesnt make any sense.

It makes perfect sense for what it is: It's a clarification that you can move in one direction, pivot, and then reverse direction, if the mood strikes you. For backing into a narrow space between terrain features in order to bring guns to bear while in cover, for example.

However, as I also explained earlier, I do believe the rules are written on the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards. They just never bother to actually clarify that.

Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

bryan40kman2000 wrote:Could someone please explain how the Tank Shock argument does not settle this? I have yet to hear a proper argument saying the steps for Tank Shock do not legitimize gaining inches from pivots.

The obvious counter (which has been presented in previous discussions on this) is that tank shock has its own rules that are slightly different to the normal process... otherwise they wouldn't need to specify pivoting before measuring.

Not that I agree with this...

That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

Not that I am saying you disagree with me

If there were well-defined rules for movement (which there aren't), then the tank shock rules wouldn't apply, since they're instructions for a specific type of movement.

Sadly, GW write crappy rules. Therefore, a section on specific movement that shouldn't have bearing on general movement gains creedence.

Basically, the Tank Shock rules don't aplpy. But since we're given so little else to go on, it's easy to think that they do.

I personally see current RAI as supporting the "extra movement through pivoting" argument, but that's only because of certain cues I pick up throughout the book, like the tank shock rules. They seem to strongly indicate a "matchbox car" type movement. I also think this implies moving only forward and back. (I know insaniak, you disagree because it's not spelled out. But then, most of movement isn't spelled out) Ultimately, there's not enough RAW on the subject.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:You move around objects by bending the very flexible tape measure you've been blessed with.

So, by your interpretation, a rhino that turns 180 degrees to move towards something that was behind it has to travel, what, 6 inches? without actually making any ground in order to do so? Despite pivoting not actually (supposedly) reducing the vehicle's movement?

No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out). If it turns 180 degrees on the table, you made it turn 180 degrees on the table. It still has to end up at EOTTM.

insaniak wrote:

Unfortunately, its not a willful misreading. Its the gakking sentence. It never, ever, anywhere says in any way, shape, or form to be consistent. It tells you never to put a model past the end line. That's the consistency were all digging for. But please, do quote from the book where it speaks of consistency, maybe I missed it while re-reading every sentence of the movement phase.

Sorry, you seriously want me to find a rule that says that you have to measure accurately?

Because that's all the 'consistency' that I'm talking about is there for. You measure from and to the same point on the model because doing anything else is not actually measuring the distance moved in an accurate fashion. If you change your reference point, your measurement is going to be wrong.

That's nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with elementary geometry. They don't really need to spell it out any more than they need to explain how to pick up a die. But they did, in the form of a diagram that shows the correct way to measure: from the front of the base to the front of the base, rather than changing your reference point.

Seriously, I want you to find something to support your argument from RAW, not but-this-is-how-I-feel-it-should-be-played.

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on). The end. The only reference points when you move a model are the base of the model or the hull of the vehicle facing the direction you want to move and the EOTTM. There's no geometry involved (much like how there's usually no use of a dictionary in these arguments). The image of a rhino moving from front to front is NOT mutually exclusive with their written declaration that you measure to the EOTTM. You can measure side to front, back to side, or back to front so long as no part of the vehicle goes over the EOTTM. you can measure in such a way as to lose movement (and it's your own bloody fault if you do) but if you measure to the EOTTM you will never, ever gain movement.

Once again, rebut me. With rules. Preferably quoted from the BRB as is traditional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:If there were well-defined rules for movement (which there aren't), then the tank shock rules wouldn't apply, since they're instructions for a specific type of movement.

Sadly, GW write crappy rules. Therefore, a section on specific movement that shouldn't have bearing on general movement gains creedence.

Basically, the Tank Shock rules don't aplpy. But since we're given so little else to go on, it's easy to think that they do.

I personally see current RAI as supporting the "extra movement through pivoting" argument, but that's only because of certain cues I pick up throughout the book, like the tank shock rules. They seem to strongly indicate a "matchbox car" type movement. I also think this implies moving only forward and back. (I know insaniak, you disagree because it's not spelled out. But then, most of movement isn't spelled out) Ultimately, there's not enough RAW on the subject.

Seriously, go the top of page 12 and read that paragraph. Carefully. Notice how it tells you to (and I quote directly here), "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure".

There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

Slackermagee wrote:There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

And denying this "trick" means you are insisting the pivot reduces that move.

Or am I mis-reading again?

kirsanth wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:There, crystal clear. Do not, DO NOT, move past the EOTTM. Stops this trick flat.

AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

And denying this "trick" means you are insisting the pivot reduces that move.

Or am I mis-reading again?

You are not thinking about it in the right way. You get a move to EOTTM. Pivoting will not stop your model from putting one of its many faces on the EOTTM regardless of which face movement started from. You will not arbitrarily (like in a certain fantasy game I could name) lose 2" of movement for pivoting while moving.

You (yes, YOU) want to move such that you get to the EOTTM and then push your model beyond that line by pivoting AFTER ending movement (after reaching the EOTTM).

It was done for years. Fifth edition came along with that very specific and clear sentence on page 12. Now it can't be done.

Slackermagee wrote:No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out).

Can you seriously not see how this is a nonsensical interpretation in light of the fact that they specify how we are supposed to pivot the vehicle? There would be absolutely no point in doing that if we are supposed to just place the vehicle down at the final measurement facing whichever way we want.

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on).

Which I do. For what it's worth, under my interpretation (which includes the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards, not sideways) you will never move past the end of the measure. At least not with any vehicle currently in the range, since there are none that are wider than they are long. And even then, the vehicle wouldn't be moving past the end of the tape... it would be moving and pivoting.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:All you folks who do it KNOW how beardy it is.

Once again, it's only dodgy if you assume that it's not the intended way to play the game. As I said before, the fact that they haven't bothered to change it in 3 editions, while they have fixed so many other problem areas, suggests that it is the way it's supposed to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

I think you misunderstood. You have to turn and face before measuring for a Tank Shock because the Tank Shock rules say so. The argument is that this is proof that it's not how it works the rest of the time, because otherwise there would be no need to so specify for Tank Shocks...

It's a rather backwards argument, but there is a certain amount of logic to it. It's just not backed up by the rest of the vehicle movement rules.

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

bryan40kman2000 wrote:That counter doesn't work though. You have to turn and face because then you could Tank Shock with the long edge of a tank thus creating larger gaps or killing more models etc. The fact they have you pivot with out any qualms about increasing the distance you are going to move proves that the movement gained from pivoting the vehicle is perfectly legal.

I think you misunderstood. You have to turn and face before measuring for a Tank Shock because the Tank Shock rules say so. The argument is that this is proof that it's not how it works the rest of the time, because otherwise there would be no need to so specify for Tank Shocks...

It's a rather backwards argument, but there is a certain amount of logic to it. It's just not backed up by the rest of the vehicle movement rules.

Hmmm... I've got my eye on you, and your shifty interpretations!

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:No. This is what people are doing wrong. The turning and pivoting are abstract things that happen on your way to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on so I don't have to write all that out).

Can you seriously not see how this is a nonsensical interpretation in light of the fact that they specify how we are supposed to pivot the vehicle? There would be absolutely no point in doing that if we are supposed to just place the vehicle down at the final measurement facing whichever way we want.

We do this with infantry every single time. You pick it up, put it down where it goes. 'Driving' the model around is okay so long as you pivot/turn/dance/sing your way to the EOTTM having placed the thing down and not manipulating the vehicle in any way after you pick the tape measure back up. When you stop measuring, you stop moving. Whether you pick and place or drive, the trick doesn't jive.

insaniak wrote:

The rule tells you to consistently measure to the End Of The Tape Measure (EOTTM from now on).

Which I do. For what it's worth, under my interpretation (which includes the assumption that vehicles move forwards or backwards, not sideways) you will never move past the end of the measure. At least not with any vehicle currently in the range, since there are none that are wider than they are long. And even then, the vehicle wouldn't be moving past the end of the tape... it would be moving and pivoting.

And this is exactly my point. You want to physically pivot the vehicle once you hit EOTTM. That's NOT in any way, shape, or form pivoting as you move. That's pivoting after you move. Movement is going a measured distance from A to B. If you get to B and then fiddle about some more, you're still moving AND you're moving past the EOTTM which is just as wrong as putting an infantryman's base a quarter inch past the line.

As Walter would say, "OVER THE LINE!"

Slackermagee wrote:We do this with infantry every single time. You pick it up, put it down where it goes.

And, quite coincidentally, infantry don't have rules specifying the correct way to turn them... because such rules would be completely uneccessary.

'Driving' the model around is okay so long as you pivot/turn/dance/sing your way to the EOTTM having placed the thing down and not manipulating the vehicle in any way after you pick the tape measure back up. When you stop measuring, you stop moving. Whether you pick and place or drive, the trick doesn't jive.

Which completely sidesteps the actual question.

Again, why would they specify how the vehicle must pivot as it moves if you don't actually pivot the vehicle as it moves?

insaniak wrote:And this is exactly my point. You want to physically pivot the vehicle once you hit EOTTM. That's NOT in any way, shape, or form pivoting as you move. That's pivoting after you move. Movement is going a measured distance from A to B. If you get to B and then fiddle about some more, you're still moving AND you're moving past the EOTTM which is just as wrong as putting an infantryman's base a quarter inch past the line.

Except, again, pivoting the vehicle as you reach the end of its movement will not result in any vehicle currently in the game winding up past that mark, provided you are moving your vehicle forwards rather than sideways.

Once again, it's only dodgy if you assume that it's not the intended way to play the game. As I said before, the fact that they haven't bothered to change it in 3 editions, while they have fixed so many other problem areas, suggests that it is the way it's supposed to work.

Not nesesarilly true. It could Clearly be that it can't work. Games-workshop has not, to my knowledge, officially ruled it. Therefor this statement actually holds no water...

----------

tanks shock argument. Tank shocking does have explicit rules, as insanik has said, but does not agree with. However, there is something I would like to point out.

When you tank shock, you:

1) Declare the tank shock
2) Turn to face
3) Declare how many inches
4) Move straight forward until you hit enemies or the distance declared
5) the rest of the stuff tank shock does

The fact that the rulebooks mentions this particular order of operations suggests that it is different from normal order of operations. In normal cercumstances, you measure, and then move, you don't move and then measure.

Now, obviously insanik has a very good point with the pivot during your move argument. That is where I do concede with this. This is indisputable. (but honestly is one of the only arguments that used rules to prove ones point)

Now, on a note, I have never actually told a DE player he could not do this. I only found good arguments somewhere else as to why they can't.

but, those who are saying it isn't game breaking... are incorrect. 3" from a DE raider is a big deal when you apply all the other extra movements they get. the worst a DE wytch's charge range can be when applying all of these buffs and assuring a 1 on the fleet roll, is 24". When you apply the ability to deploy 12" forward in a pitched battle, you dominate the entire board. 21" means that those not deploying as far forward as possible are likely to not get hit by the barrage. It increases the minimum threat range, which for free is a big deal.

Thank you for explaining why you think it to be correct. That is all I wanted.

Slackermagee wrote:You (yes, YOU) want to move such that you get to the EOTTM and then push your model beyond that line by pivoting AFTER ending movement (after reaching the EOTTM).

No, not me.

I have no vehicles in my Tyranid army.