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

Because most infantry have round bases. Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules, as there is no way to interpret how to pivot a base that is not round. Vehicles "bases" are not round, therefore it is easily assumed you use the same method. Pivot from the center.

Slacker you were wrong the last time this came up and you're wrong again. The votes have been cast and we all know that major tournies allow this to be done. If you want to mark down an opponent at a slacker soft score tournament then that's on you. Frankly if you complained I'd torpedo your score so neither of us could win anything.

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

winterman wrote:

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

Move the tyrgon 3", turn its base via the center point, move it 3" more. Exactly the same as a vehicle.

A) You can argue this is not how it is done, but you would contradict your vehicle argument
B) You could say it isn't pivoted via the center point... but that wouldn't be a very intelligent argument.

All in all, it is the exact same as a vehicle.

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

But they still must adhere to page 12 and stopping at the EOTTM. You can measure from any side of the base in any other direction you please, you can't gain movement. The same applies to vehicles (so you can lose movement but never gain it).

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

They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how. Movement is abstract (and I'll keep hammering this home with each reply), you don't see your little men marching across the table. You only move the tank across the table because you can and it looks cool. You don't have to, you could (with a few specific exceptions) pick it up and place it down where you want it to have ended up. They tell you how to pivot if and only if you pivot without moving.

insaniak wrote: 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.

Wait, so how are you advocating for the pivot trick here? You can't go over the finish line and you have to start at the starting line... You've lost me (and I'm not being snarky here).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:Slacker you were wrong the last time this came up and you're wrong again. The votes have been cast and we all know that major tournies allow this to be done. If you want to mark down an opponent at a slacker soft score tournament then that's on you. Frankly if you complained I'd torpedo your score so neither of us could win anything.

Quote me some rules for once. All I hear from you is, "Waah, its always been that way, you're wrong! You're wrong because we do it this way!"

Page 12: GW tells you how to measure (and, spoilers, it doesn't allow for moving things beyond EOTTM)

Page whatever it is: GW tells you to pivot as you move, not before you move, not after you move. You may not, you may never pivot a vehicle over the EOTTM. You can pivot any which way you like up to that point. Golden rule: never go over the movement allowance you're given.

Everything else in this argument is extraneous. Moving only forward or backward? Doesn't matter so long as the vehicle ends up abutting the EOTTM (go over without ending movement, pivot (during movement, because you haven't ended it yet, end movement proper behind the EOTTM.) Tank shock as the exception which proves the rule (wrongly)? Its an exception. With special rules. In a different part of the book. Its stunning.

I know you really, really don't want admit you haven't a leg to stand on in the RAW so you should just keep quiet instead. Page 12 and the magical word 'as' will be there to rebut you until 6th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

winterman wrote:

Trygons have to use vehicle pivoting rules

Ahh. No, they don't.

You can, like I do, ensure no extra movement occurs when moving your trygons via pivots but there are no rules that govern how to deal with oval bases (or biker/beast bases for that matter). I only do it to avoid conflict though, not because I think its RAW.

Move the tyrgon 3", turn its base via the center point, move it 3" more. Exactly the same as a vehicle.

A) You can argue this is not how it is done, but you would contradict your vehicle argument
B) You could say it isn't pivoted via the center point... but that wouldn't be a very intelligent argument.

All in all, it is the exact same as a vehicle.

You may not ever have a model move beyond the EOTTM. Ever. It may not pivot over, lean over, or stretch over. When you end movement, if your model is Over The Line, you have cheated.

Slackermagee wrote:They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how.

So when the rulebook says that vehicles don't turn by wheeling around, but rather to pivot them on their centre point, that's not telling you how to pivot the vehicle while moving?

Movement is abstract (and I'll keep hammering this home with each reply),

...and it will keep being incorrect.

Movement is abstract in that yes, the models don't actually march across the table. But it follows the models actual movement path.

hey tell you how to pivot if and only if you pivot without moving.

I would recommend having another look at the vehicle movement rules, because this is blatantly incorrect.

Wait, so how are you advocating for the pivot trick here? You can't go over the finish line and you have to start at the starting line... You've lost me (and I'm not being snarky here).

The pivot trick works by starting the vehicle sideways, pivoting and moving. The reverse (moving sideways and pivoting at the end) only works if you assume vehicles can move sideways, which I (and from my experience most other players) don't.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:They tell you when to pivot while moving, not how.

So when the rulebook says that vehicles don't turn by wheeling around, but rather to pivot them on their centre point, that's not telling you how to pivot the vehicle while moving?

I think it's entirely possible that this is clarification of the difference between this and other editions. You used to have to wheel around, now you don't. There are a number of other places where they explain differences between the editions. The first one that comes to mind is wound allocation, where they tell you a model can't pick up his buddy's weapon, explaining how allocation is different. Just a thought.

Vehicles haven't wheeled since 2nd edition. We've been pivoting on their centre points for 3 editions now.

I'll read from the book when I get back home in an hour, but to address one of your points Insaniak:

Regardless of how you measure the vehicles path, you must actually measure the vehicles path. If you do with without the vehicle on the table (because most of the time the terrain is clear or well wide enough for a rhino) or with the vehicle physically moving around, it won't matter. The distance must be measured.

Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move. Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

I do not dispute that you pivot on the center point and neither do you dispute that pivoting must happen during movement. I don't understand why this is still an issue at this point.

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move.

Arguably, yes. But for the sake of saving arguments, pivoting before move is functionally identical to pivoting after moving .000000000000001 of an inch directly forwards.

Most people just cut the uneccessary first step, and go straight to the pivot.

Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

And that is where I suspect the biggest difference is coming from. You're claiming that you measure the whole distance before moving at all, which renders the rule tellin gyou how to pivot the vehicle completely uneccessary. The opposing argument is that you measure as you move, so you measure up to the first pivot, pivot the vehicle, and then measure on... which is more accurate, and actually gives some point to the rules telling you how to pivot the vehicle.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting before you move is as illegal as pivoting after you move.

Arguably, yes. But for the sake of saving arguments, pivoting before move is functionally identical to pivoting after moving .000000000000001 of an inch directly forwards.

Most people just cut the uneccessary first step, and go straight to the pivot.

Measure to where you want to go then move (by pivoting, twirling, moving, etc) to that point.

And that is where I suspect the biggest difference is coming from. You're claiming that you measure the whole distance before moving at all, which renders the rule tellin gyou how to pivot the vehicle completely uneccessary. The opposing argument is that you measure as you move, so you measure up to the first pivot, pivot the vehicle, and then measure on... which is more accurate, and actually gives some point to the rules telling you how to pivot the vehicle.

For the sake of a simple argument, yes, I was treating everything as one move. You can (however, as I discussed at length before) segment your move.

You are totally allowed to go .000000000000001 (but I watching you and your sigfigs young man!) of an inch forward, so long as absolutely no part of your vehicle is in front of the EOTTM at the end of that segment of moving. That's why I couldn't see this as a viable way around. You can't stop measuring and keep calling it movement. That's akin to using half of your marines with bolt pistols in the shooting phase, realizing that its not working out so hot and changing the rest to bolter shots halfway through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify my position a little bit: you measure out an extremely small distance and move your rhino to it, pivoting as you do so. The back of the rhino will now be farther behind than the side used to be, but only for this segment of movement. Total displacement is what you have to watch out for in the end but each and every step must follow the movement rules laid out on page 12 (not going beyond the EOTTM)

Slackermagee wrote:To clarify my position a little bit: you measure out an extremely small distance and move your rhino to it, pivoting as you do so.

Except that doesn't work. You have to pivot once you reach the end point, otherwise, your measurement refernce point has moved and you have no way of knowing how far the rhino actually moved.

What you seem to be saying is that you should measure out your distance and then move to the measure point, rotating the vehicle as it goes.
What I'm saying is that this (a)completely removes any point in the rules telling us how to pivot the vehicle and (b) makes it impossible to accurately measure the vehicle's movement.

If you are using a consistent measurement point (which you should be, for the reasons I explained earlier) the vehicle's orientation has to remain the same as you physically move it. Pivoting can occur between segments of movement, not while the vehicle is physically moving.


So: you want to move your vehicle... You pivot to face the direction you want to go, measure out the first part of the movement and move the model to that point, pivot to face the next direction you want to go, measure out the next part of the movement, rinse and repeat as necessary.

That pivoting is happening as the vehicle moves, by virtue of occuring during the vehicle's movement. Nothing in the rules suggests that the movement is all one big abstract 'the vehicle magically moves from here to [/i] there[/i] with its orientation in between not mattering at all' type affair... Exactly the opposite, in fact, given the explanation on how to pivot the vehicle as it moves.

Total displacement is what you have to watch out for in the end but each and every step must follow the movement rules laid out on page 12 (not going beyond the EOTTM)

Nope, the total displacement is irrelevant, due to the vehicle rules allowing you to pivot as it moves without it counting towards the vehicle's movement allowance. The distance the vehicle actually moves in a forwards or backwards direction in between the pivots is what counts.

@slacker It seems however that your line of arguement is ignoring the part of the rules that says:

"Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move"

This does tell us that turning/ pivoting is not part of the measured movement of the vehicle, so no matter how you want to try and position the tape measure it cannot be used to simply measure from the vehicle's starting location and then bend the tape. Take a vehicle and a tape to a flat surface and try out a few variations on moving with various pivots. The distance is badly warped if one tries to follow this method.

The diagram on pg 12 shows a simpified case of moving in a straight line. This diagram doesnt begin to address what happens when a vehicle pivots.




Sliggoth

Just as a note, it's impossible to gain distance from a trygons pivot before they move, as infantry models may only turn 'as they move' Pg 11
So to pivot and then measure is illegal.

You may not ever have a model move beyond the EOTTM. Ever. It may not pivot over, lean over, or stretch over. When you end movement, if your model is Over The Line, you have cheated.

The rules are made for round bases in the case. games-workshop was so kind to not make any rules for this type of base.

You can move and then pivot the model, and then continue to move it. This is unarguable unless you are one of those people who measure turns by the arc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:Just as a note, it's impossible to gain distance from a trygons pivot before they move, as infantry models may only turn 'as they move' Pg 11
So to pivot and then measure is illegal.

I don't see how the timing changes this. Vehicles are also pivoting as they move.

This thread needs diagrams. It's hurting my head and i think at least two of you are arguing the same side with different wordings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foo wrote:

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.

basically, take a model which is 4x9 (Ork Battlewagon for example). Place it with a East/West Orientation.
On your movement phase do the following:

1) move 1/4 inch East.
2) Pivot about center 90 degrees, (you are now facing North/South)
3) Move an additional 11.75 inches South.

You have moved 12 inches. The southern most point of your Battlewagon after your move is 14.25 inches from your southern most point before your move.

net gain of 2.25 inches!

I suspect that tacking back and forth at 60 degree arcs every inch may increase this discrepancy, but I'm having a bad day and haven't worked the math out yet.

I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

Your aren't actually "gaining" extra movement.

What is happening here is that, unlike infantry, vehicles hulls are not usually round.

Take one of the vehicles you own (if you own any, which i would assume you do). Place it so that the longer edge is the closest thing to where your opponent would be. now, pivot the vehicle on its center 90 degrees. The vehicles hull is now closer to the enemy than it was before you pivoted. This gives one less distance that they have to cover to get to the enemy. \

No extra movement is gained, but more distance is covered.

as you see, the vehicle (the rectangle) only moved 12" (11.99999999" forward, then a pivot, then .000000001" forward...12" of movement) , yet the front of the vehicle, or back if you wanted to expose it for some reason is further ahead

also on a related note. For those who say "no portion of the vehicle may move more than the allotted distance". No matter what (as far as i know), if the vehicle pivots at all, and moves its full distance (leading point to leading point for example) at least one corner of the model will have moved more than 12".

example, a rhino measures from the front grill, 12" forward, pivoting 45 degrees clockwise so that the front left corner is 12" from the starting point. the back left corner will have moved more than 12". Is this therefor illegal as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, sorry for the sloppy drawing, did it up quickly

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

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.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

Because it never mentions inches. Yes, it does have rules that lead to a potential inch gain, but it's also a VERY specialized sub-set.
1) It only applies to tanks.
2) You must declare distance.
3) You're only allowed to move in straight line.
4) You can move through enemy models.

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

A tank shock is both an attack AND a move, since its referred to as both in its rules. Since its described as move and moving this would mean that it is indeed movement.




Sliggoth

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Tank Shock does not apply to all vehicles, only to Tanks.

I have kind of been watching this debate with interest, and am really on one side of this argument; although I can now see the rationale for the other side better delineated.

With that said, this is a really good point. I feel the tank shock rules are a specific exception to the way models and/or vehicles typically are supposed to move, rather than an extra delineation of how they actually move.

Most people in a friendly game would have no issues with playing either way, as long as they can agree on the interpretation. However, in a competitive game, I think you need to get this cleared with a TO, your opponent, etc., ahead of time, as this would have a major affect on how people deploy, move, etc., and what their expectations are. No offense to anyone on the other side of the argument, but pivoting to gain a few extra inches, outside of a specific tank shock move, looks like an Easter egg to me. I'm not adverse to playing it that way though, just let me know ahead of time...

Just chalk this up to the rulebook being full of holes (yet again). Sadly, I am slowly compiling a list of rules I have to discuss with my opponent ahead of time to determine what game mechanics we will use; and this one just got added to it.

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

Foo wrote:

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

except guns are ignored for the purposes of measuring the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

I would still say it is a move. it does not have to happen during the movement phase though, so i am not going to argue either way.

hmm, guess its easy to pull a first turn 26-31" Charge out of a raider with DE.

27-32" with orks.. on 2nd turn

wisdomseyes1 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So a 5th uniqueness (gains inches) wouldn't be out of place. Also, to get Rules Lawyery, Tank Shock is an ATTACK not a MOVEMENT, so it's more in line with Assaults than moves.

I would still say it is a move. it does not have to happen during the movement phase though, so i am not going to argue either way.

Mind explaining how a Tank Shock doesn't happen in the movement phase?

Star Engines

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Foo wrote:

Bounty wrote:

Foo wrote:I still don't see how I've gained any movement if I measure base-to-base on a skimmer exactly as I do for infantry.

a) you aren't gaining movement, you're gaining DISTANCE.

b) Vehicles measure from the hull, not the base.

As to why it matters, disembarks are 2" from hull, and guns are measured from barrel, so a 2 inch swing on a 18 inch shot gives you 20 inches, or a 11% more range.

I'm going to get that extra distance from disembarking no matter what, though. That's just part of the rule for disembarking (especially from open-topped).

I can kind of see the weapons thing being an issue, but since you don't count weapons as part of the hull for purposes of measurement, isn't the point moot? My guns still stick out over the measured line and gain distance for purposes of shooting, no?

except guns are ignored for the purposes of measuring the hull.

Sir, that's what I said.