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.

I always felt that the movement rules and pivot rules are independent of each other.

Yes, the rules say you can pivot any number of times during your movement. But I don't see how that lets you exceed the predetermined movement allowed.

Movement always seemed pretty simple to me. Pick the direction your going to move. The spot on the vehicle furthest in that direction is the starting point (This is before any pivoting, nothing say you are allowed to pivot before movement starts. So your measurements should be done based on the current position of the vehicle.) Measure out how far you want to move (6", 7", whatever you choose) now move your tank there. What ever direction you want you tank to face if fine (You can pivot as much as you want during the move) When you get you final position. The part of the hull facing in the direction you moved should not be more then the number of inches you choose to move. This method meets all aspects of the rule without violating any.

(The above method is similar to how infantry move.)

The method most people use would be fine is all the vehicles where the same size. Since models differ between armies, I don't think it should be used. I normally overlook it when playing against people. but if someone tried to use it as a start of the game maneuver to gain clear advantage I would put a stop to it.

I do this all the time with my Orks. The primary reason that I do so is because it can make it much easier to fit numerous trukks into my deployment zone corners (especially on diagonal deployment, which comes up far more than 33% I am sure).

I have to say, that if someone refused to play against me because of this, that I'd interpret them as being a massive douche who wanted to control the game. This person would have to be theoretical, of course, because in years of playing normal and tournament 40k I've never had a problem, but this theoretical person would be trying to make me conform to his own mental impression of how the game works. And that isn't very fair, really; my mental image includes the idea that I can follow the rules and, you know, turn my vehicles. Why is it acceptable for him/her to place restrictions on my (rulebook legal and consistently applied) actions?

 kronk wrote:
I've never done it, I don't like it, but would accept it if someone did it.

I agree with kronk

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

If someone did that to my Raider I would report them to the police and demand restitution.

@Rismonite

Pre measuring of any sort is Kosher in 40k.

Personally, I would demand a new raider, and then demand retribution... With fire! 'cause if I ever get a vehicle ( a friend might be getting me a predator in a few months) it will probably take a week to paint.

Coyote - you're mistaking movement for displacement. Per the rules it does NOT move further. At all. It does result in parts displacing further, but that isn't important.

1998 . Best part of 16 years. The studio is FULLY AWARE of this, and they ackowledge it is a problem but an acceptable compromise.

So no, no "spirit of the rules" gak.
It is legal. Don't do it if you don't want. But do not guilt others into thinking your house rule is Anyang but what it is, a house rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
thank you for vindicating my views on this as what you posted supports everything I have said throughout this entire thread.
of course, the ONLY way I could have been wrong is if there is never even a single player past , present or future living or dead who would not take advantage of an elongated model to wring extra distance through pivoting. it would also require it to be physically impossible to model or convert a model to be elongated in any way shape or form longer than the stock model. BOTH of those would have to be true statements.

Pivoting isnt REALLY shenanigans. It is making effective legal use of game mechanics.

Did this really need two posts? You already responded to him.

And, again, he wasn't responding to your claim that people build extra-long vehicles. At least that's not how I read his post. But if you want to feel 'vindicated' because some random person on the internet may have agreed with you, by all means feel free. The rest of us will carry on playing games against people who haven't modelled their land raiders to be 2' long, secure in the knowledge that this isn't actually something that is likely to come up at the table.

yes it did because the two posts contained different information.
Likewise, he was not responding to me. this made the vindication more real because his independent post showed that others have seen this sort of behavior instead of disagreeing with me and saying it isnt possibleas others have done . Had I asked him to make his post, it would not have been independant and he likely would have been accused of saying it without it being true. Independiant people agreeing with you and vindicating your statements without intending to are a good thing.
That event isnt likely to come up at a table, but despite your protestations it IS possible that a player will make a vehicle longer to take advantage of pivoting. Whether this is through a 2 foot long land raider or putting the side doors on the land raider on the rear instead of the front is irrelevent.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Whether this is through a 2 foot long land raider or putting the side doors on the land raider on the rear instead of the front is irrelevent.

A) No, it's not irrelevant.
B) How in the hell does changing where the doors are make a Land Raider longer?

Man, two foot long Land Raiders... that has to be the dumbest idea ever even to gain an advantage in movement. If you place the terrain right you can make it so that he has to take a whoooole lot of DT tests if not be unable to move very far. In addition, that would make it easy to get it within your melta guns range. It also makes them easy as cake to figure out where they are going which allows you to counter charge the cargo.

And that is why I think MFA is a bunch of hooey. Most of the time there are advantages and disadvantages to it.

the claim was that it is not possible in any way shape or form to ANY degree and that it is not possible for a person to want to do it. think of it as being pregnant. You either are or you arent.

Buy a tape measure. set a land raider on a table (one with the doors on the front. measure from the doors to a point on the table. Then replace the land raider with one with the doors on the back. Now measure from those rear doors to the point. Is the distance the same? Likely not.
Now convert a rhino so that the hatch is on the front and the round gun hatches are on the rear. Do the same sort of measurement. Again, you will find there is a difference.
it is actually simple math. For example, 12-8=4 compared to 12-10=2.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
I'm shocked to see so many people opposed to pivoting.

I can't fathom what the problem with this is. I do this all the time with DE and to a lesser extent mech SM. Opponents do this routinely as well - as they should.

I'm so shocked because not only is this a perfectly legal maneuver, but it also makes a lot of sense from the forging a narrative point of view as well - your mechanized force got flanked by an enemy, or they are unwittingly driving past one.

I think most surprising, is the vitriol offered by some posters with respect to this. To the point of wanting to ostracize a players simply for pivoting. Seriously guys, how can a legal and even perfectly logical maneuver possibly deserve such ire?

theyre not against pivoting. they are against you ignoring the sponsons, which are in fact part of the model... a large part really.

I never said anything about ignoring sponsons... Sorry if I somehow implied that.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man, two foot long Land Raiders... that has to be the dumbest idea ever even to gain an advantage in movement. If you place the terrain right you can make it so that he has to take a whoooole lot of DT tests if not be unable to move very far. In addition, that would make it easy to get it within your melta guns range. It also makes them easy as cake to figure out where they are going which allows you to counter charge the cargo.

And that is why I think MFA is a bunch of hooey. Most of the time there are advantages and disadvantages to it.

i agree with you. in showing possibilities, you have to take those sorts of extremes into account as possibilities. SURE they arent liklihoods, but somewhere, sometime, some idiot is likely to do it. after all, hello kitty marines are so silly and extreme that you would think no one would do them, but they did. lol

This is why I and my gaming group model and convert for cool value instead of advantage. When you start MFA or accusing people of it, you go down a slippery slope and have to decide to draw a line SOMEWHEREThe problem with that is where YOU draw that line is likely to be different from where someone else draws it. THATS why you gotta take the extremes into account. I'd rather avoid that whole issue altogether and just play for fun.

 EVIL INC wrote:
the claim was that it is not possible in any way shape or form to ANY degree and that it is not possible for a person to want to do it. think of it as being pregnant. You either are or you arent.

No, that wasn't the claim.

Buy a tape measure. set a land raider on a table (one with the doors on the front. measure from the doors to a point on the table. Then replace the land raider with one with the doors on the back. Now measure from those rear doors to the point. Is the distance the same? Likely not.
Now convert a rhino so that the hatch is on the front and the round gun hatches are on the rear. Do the same sort of measurement. Again, you will find there is a difference.
it is actually simple math. For example, 12-8=4 compared to 12-10=2.

Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider?
How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model.

Answer the question I asked please - don't just make statements pretending they answer the questions and then pretend I'm being foolish by asking.

"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim.

You never answered my question. Are the measurements different? Siple yes or no will suffice.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it.

"How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model." Again, you are skirting the issue. Take a 2 foot long land raider. Find the center pint from front to bal. Now, take your handy dandy tape measure and measure from that point to the front. Am I correct in assuming the distance you got was 1 foot? Good. Now, take a normal land raider. Find the center point from front to back. Now, again using your handy dandy tape measure, find the distance from that point to the front. I dont know the distance it will be so I will let you find that number on your own.
NOW, that you have those two numbers, compare the two. Are they the same number? I'm guessing not. Now, subtract the small number from the larger one. The difference is the extra distance gained in the pivot move.
Again, we come back to my point of modeling/converting for cool value over MFA. Take a rogue trader land raider and do the same thing. You'll find that as its shorter, using it would effevtively be modeling for a disadvantage in this regard. However, TFG would possibly call MFA for using it anyway because it is not as wide as a "normal" land raider and could thus fit between beuildings while a normal land raider wouldnt be able to. Just another example of a player using a model for cool value alone and some TFG calling MFA just to call it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim.

Again, no. That's what you assumed it to be. You invented a point simply so you could argue against it.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it.

... What?

"How does it change where the centerpoint of the model is? Because you're required by the rules to pivot around the center of the model." Again, you are skirting the issue.[/quoet]
No, I'm not.
How does the doors being placed on the front or back of the model change how the model pivots? You stated that it does. I'd like to see evidence.
Not these mythological 2 foot Land Raiders that are wholly irrelevant, simply evidence that the placement of the doors changes how a vehicle pivots.

"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim. There is no way to honestly deny this.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it. It doesnt get any easier to understand than that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim. There is no way to honestly deny this.

I will honestly deny this.

"Now - how does that measurement determine the length of the Land Raider? " It does not, the length of the land raider affects it. It doesnt get any easier to understand than that.

Then why did you state that changing where the doors were placed on the model had any relevance to pivoting?
Or are you going to honestly deny you said:

That event isnt likely to come up at a table, but despite your protestations it IS possible that a player will make a vehicle longer to take advantage of pivoting. Whether this is through a 2 foot long land raider or putting the side doors on the land raider on the rear instead of the front is irrelevent.

Also, the quote system on this forum isn't that hard. It's polite to use it so people don't misconstrue who said what. Please do so.

Well, since this type of movement obviously represents the driver drifting like a champ, I'd move that you should only allow it if the model in question is lowered, and has some sweet ground effects.

"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim. There is no way to honestly deny this.

It boils down to a fewitems
1. Is there at least one single player past present or future living or dea or yet to be born who WOULD models something for an advantage. For example, making a land raider 'longer". If the answerr is yes, Your argument is ended right there as you will be admitting I am correct.
2. Is it physically possible to convert a model to gain an in game advantage (it does not even have to look good or be painted or make any sense. An example would be making a land raider longer from front to back. If the answer is yes your argument is ended right there as you will be admitting I am correct.
3. Simple math. I measured a "stock" land raider at 7 inches long. Half of that is 3.5 inches.Compare 3.5 to 12. if one number is larger than the other, your argument is ended as you will be admitting I am correct.
4. If there is even a single person past present or future, living, dead or yet to be born, who would accuse another person of MFA when that was not the actual reason for the conversion. If the answer is yes, your argument is ended and you will be admitting I am correct.

I do this - but as a DE player i use it to create a large area to hide my other raisers/venoms behind.

Would be easier if tanks/skimmer etc just measured from the centre/ flying stand for movement shooting etc that way pivoting wouldn't really matter and wouldn't gain you any extra movement.

i can see why people dont like it, however it is part of the game and there are pros and cons to it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim. There is no way to honestly deny this.

Repetition != fact.

3. Simple math. I measured a "stock" land raider at 7 inches long. Half of that is 3.5 inches.Compare 3.5 to 12. if one number is larger than the other, your argument is ended as you will be admitting I am correct.

I never - ever - said otherwise.
You claimed that moving the doors increased the length of a Land Raider. Please explain that statement.

Hunam0001 wrote:
Well, since this type of movement obviously represents the driver drifting like a champ, I'd move that you should only allow it if the model in question is lowered, and has some sweet ground effects.

I... would allow that. *IF* and only if, including sweet ground effects, the model also had functional hydraulics.

And bumped mad tunes.

 Coyote81 wrote:
The spot on the vehicle furthest in that direction is the starting point (This is before any pivoting, nothing say you are allowed to pivot before movement starts. So your measurements should be done based on the current position of the vehicle.) Measure out how far you want to move (6", 7", whatever you choose) now move your tank there. What ever direction you want you tank to face if fine (You can pivot as much as you want during the move) When you get you final position. The part of the hull facing in the direction you moved should not be more then the number of inches you choose to move. This method meets all aspects of the rule without violating any.

Except for the part where it's not an accurate measurement of how far the vehicle moved, because you are changing your reference point for measurement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the claim was that it is not possible in any way shape or form to ANY degree and that it is not possible for a person to want to do it..

Nobody in this thread said that it was impossible for this to happen. Just that people don't do it.

Please stop inventing arguments.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"No, that wasn't the claim". That was the implied claim. There is no way to honestly deny this.

It boils down to a fewitems
1. Is there at least one single player past present or future living or dea or yet to be born who WOULD models something for an advantage. For example, making a land raider 'longer". If the answerr is yes, Your argument is ended right there as you will be admitting I am correct.
2. Is it physically possible to convert a model to gain an in game advantage (it does not even have to look good or be painted or make any sense. An example would be making a land raider longer from front to back. If the answer is yes your argument is ended right there as you will be admitting I am correct.
3. Simple math. I measured a "stock" land raider at 7 inches long. Half of that is 3.5 inches.Compare 3.5 to 12. if one number is larger than the other, your argument is ended as you will be admitting I am correct.
4. If there is even a single person past present or future, living, dead or yet to be born, who would accuse another person of MFA when that was not the actual reason for the conversion. If the answer is yes, your argument is ended and you will be admitting I am correct.

Quoted for truth as no one has been able to prove otherwise despite making the claims that it is.
Again, as I have said throughout, it is not something that you will see every day or even often. You may even go through a aming career and never see it at all. However, as with the hello kitty marines, there will always be some clown who actually WILL go to the extreme mentioned (or further). When you see it, it is much more likely to be done to a lesser degree.

The point that you guys are also proving for me is the reason why we shouldnt worry overmuch aboutwinning at all costs where you will argue or quibble over such things. As you have amply demonstrated for me, it is far more likely to come across conversions that are done for the cool factor and that it is usually a better idea to assume it is done for cool instead of instantly blasting your opponent making accusations of MFA (with the exception of the aforementioned obvious extremes. Winning is just THAT important (even in a tourney).

as I(and a few others) have proven myself correct on this and some others to be wrong. I'm sure they will try to find some way to accuse me of something that they are guilty of and tell me to stop proving them wrong in some way.

Ok, let's make it a little more clear then: Evil Inc - you are inventing arguments that nobody has actually made. Repeating them doesn't make them any more worthwhile, and from here on out will be considered spam.

Quoting yourself 'for truth' in order to continue making a point against an argument that nobody actually made will also be considered spam.

If you have an actual, valid point to make in this thread, feel free to post it. If you instead wish to continue making up nonsense in order to make a point against a completely made up argument, I would strongly recommend finding something different to do with your time.

- Removed by insaniak. Seriously - if you want to debate MFA, do so in a separate thread -

 insaniak wrote:

 Coyote81 wrote:
The spot on the vehicle furthest in that direction is the starting point (This is before any pivoting, nothing say you are allowed to pivot before movement starts. So your measurements should be done based on the current position of the vehicle.) Measure out how far you want to move (6", 7", whatever you choose) now move your tank there. What ever direction you want you tank to face if fine (You can pivot as much as you want during the move) When you get you final position. The part of the hull facing in the direction you moved should not be more then the number of inches you choose to move. This method meets all aspects of the rule without violating any.

Except for the part where it's not an accurate measurement of how far the vehicle moved, because you are changing your reference point for measurement.

It is accurate. Geometry doesn't care the facing of the box, if a box is at a point on the x plane , and goes in the x direction 6", where it stops on the x plane is it's new point, it doesn't care if it rotated during the move, just how far in the x direction the tank moved. this is measured by checking the point that is furthest in that x direction of movement.

If that was the case, then you would be able to position it along it's side at the edge of the deployment zone. Measure from the side facing your table edge, pivot, move 6" so the rear is within 6" of the initial side facing.

Check the linked page where the discussion was dragged out for 15 pages. It's pretty clear that you don't just pick a random spot on the vehicle to measure in a direction it can't move in at that point for it's final position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look at the tankshock rule. It specifically shows a diagram measuring from the front facing, and measuring out the max distance. It notes to do this after pivoting.

Coyote - except you aren't allowed to change the point at which you measure from. So your method is illegal.

Seriously. Known to the studio, not an exploit. There are far worse abstractions to be worried about.

 Dracos wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
I'm shocked to see so many people opposed to pivoting.

I can't fathom what the problem with this is. I do this all the time with DE and to a lesser extent mech SM. Opponents do this routinely as well - as they should.

I'm so shocked because not only is this a perfectly legal maneuver, but it also makes a lot of sense from the forging a narrative point of view as well - your mechanized force got flanked by an enemy, or they are unwittingly driving past one.

I think most surprising, is the vitriol offered by some posters with respect to this. To the point of wanting to ostracize a players simply for pivoting. Seriously guys, how can a legal and even perfectly logical maneuver possibly deserve such ire?

theyre not against pivoting. they are against you ignoring the sponsons, which are in fact part of the model... a large part really.

I never said anything about ignoring sponsons... Sorry if I somehow implied that.

well if you ignore the sponsons, most of this is academic. A tank turns in place and moves. this does indeed cause extra movement. NO part of the model can move more than 12" so it's usually from the leaing edge that you measure after rotating. Rotating again effectively erases those inches or at best puts them in a different direction.

So as long as the pivot is from center and no more than 12" then i really don't care. But the sponsons must be considered as part of the model as you (the global you) are damn sure going to call someone on it if they come within an inch of them.

I think there are so many minor inaccuracies in the movement phase that I tend to only care when a charge is imminent or could become imminent because of the vehicle. Good faith is the best way to play this game. Do your best and shame your opponent into doing his with your good behavior over time. =)

(DE) Raiders gain about ~1.5 inches by pivoting 90 degrees and moving in a straight line. It is academic for many, but not all vehicles.

edit: I'm not understanding what you mean by 'no part of the vehicle can move more than 12 inches'. That is quite incorrect as I read it. Pivoting 90 degrees on a raider, and then moving it 12 inches forward causes the front to be displaced on the pivot, and then moved 12" for a >12" total displacement.

Unless you simply meant that you can't move more than 12 inches (ignoring any displacement from pivoting). But then it seems weird to say it like that. *shrug*