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.

kambien wrote:
Vehicles turn by pivoting - is correct
Turning does not reduce a vehicles move - is also correct

Thank you.

kambien wrote:Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

So that thing you were accusing people of saying - no one has.

You're just misunderstanding how the rules of vehicle movement work.
That's okay - I used to make the same incorrect assumptions.

Re-read the thread, making sure to examine all the pictures as well.
What you're saying now is that long vehicles (Ghost Ark, Valkyrie, Stormraven) cannot pivot and then move their full distance.
Well, no vehicle can, but those are the worst offenders.

Edit: oh, and no, I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. The vehicles have not moved farther than their maximum movement.

Nungunz wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:1-2 inches is nothing. Try doing this with a ghost ark.

The ghost ark is about 8-10 inches long on a 2 inch base somewhere in the middle.

Lets say it's facing forward 12" from an enemy unit. If I measure from the tip of the hull 6" then PLACE THE MODEL SIDEWAYS, then rotate it to face forward. From the starting point of the tip of the hull to the ending point of the tip of the hull, it will have probably moved 10 inches.

I would not do this because from the start of the move to the end of the move, the hull moved 10". If I'm moving it the full 12", at the end of my move it will probably have moved 16". It's obviously cheating.

How so?

1) The ghost ark deployed sideways -- Nothing wrong with that
2) You pivot on the spot to face forward -- Rules say that pivoting does not count as moving...nothing wrong with that.
3) You move 12" forward measuring hull-to-hull -- Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see how the above violates any rules in the book.

And really all you've done is move your giant bunker closer to the enemy and putting you well within melta range of mech troops or very close to assault troops. Sure you "gained" movement, but you're you're risking your 115 point repair bunker.

Pros and Cons here. Pros and Cons.

Your Ghost Ark is a vehicle with a base, you must always measure from the base with it. You are cheating measuring from the hull.

About the original question: it is not a cheat by RAW, it is just a rule exploration, that could be seen as cheesy and bad...

kambien wrote:

Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

Look at my last post, kambien. Your argument actually allows someone to move FURTHER than rigelds and mine does.

Your Ghost Ark is a vehicle with a base, you must always measure from the base with it. You are cheating measuring from the hull.

Please read the rules for skimmers.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're just misunderstanding how the rules of vehicle movement work.
That's okay - I used to make the same incorrect assumptions.

Re-read the thread, making sure to examine all the pictures as well.
What you're saying now is that long vehicles (Ghost Ark, Valkyrie, Stormraven) cannot pivot and then move their full distance.
Well, no vehicle can, but those are the worst offenders.

Edit: oh, and no, I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. The vehicles have not moved farther than their maximum movement.

Correct , not the way you are measuring it.

and your edit . Are you telling me , if you move the way you say you do . and i place a ruler on the table and it shows the distance you started movement from to where your model ended , using the furthest point traveled on the model, that it would not be further then 12 inches ?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kambien wrote:

Are you asking for me to find somewhere in the previous posts to find exactly stated "move more then allowed max move" ?
How about acknowledge that the said unit has indeed moved further then allowed but claim is legal because pivoting is free.
No one has come right out and said move more then the max allowed to move , so i cannot answer your first question.
but they are doing so anyways , under the illusion that they get to add frontal displacement to there max move thereby going further then they are allowed to move.

Look at my last post, kambien. Your argument actually allows someone to move FURTHER than rigelds and mine does.

no it doesn't allow it to move further at all .

BeRzErKeR wrote:It doesn't matter for me, because I measure my vehicle's movement from the center point.

- thats nice but goes against raw

BeRzErKeR wrote:This is the difficulty with claiming that pivoting changes the distance you are allowed to move; the AMOUNT by which a pivot alters your move changes according to where you measure from! And there's no rule that says you have to measure from any specific spot.

- p12 the diagram shows it is incorrect to measure from a differant spot. even says NO! when they show the measuring from the front pre movement to the back post movement.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Assume that you start perpendicular to your line of travel, pivot, and then move, ok? Furthermore, for the purpose of this exercise we'll assume the vehicle in question is 4" long.
According to the general reading (ie you are allowed to pivot and then move your full distance), you pivot on the spot and then move forward; you will gain half the length of the vehicle, or 2". The front of your vehicle ends up 14" ahead of where the side of your vehicle was before you moved.

Not sure why you are pivoting then moving and not pivoting and moving. The actual wording is Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. That line right there clarifies you turn when moving or further down it alows you to turn and it would count as stationary.

BeRzErKeR wrote:According to your reading (measure, then pivot and move freely so that the point from which you measured ends up within your maximum move from the point it began the turn at);
If you measure from the front, the front will end up 12" away from where the side was before the move.
But if you measure from the center, the front will end up 14" away from where the side was last turn. Why? Because the center didn't move at all.
And if you measure from the rear, the front will end up 16" away, because the pivot moved the rear of your vehicle backwards!

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

It would show a displacement furhter than 12". Good job that isnt equal to the vehicles movement, which isnt measured how you say it is measured (to the furthest point)

If I measure from the centre to the centre, I have moved 12".

Repeat: this has been legal, and a consequence of the vehicle simplified rules, since 1998. This is not cheesy, as it is known by the studio. You can choose not to do it - but that is your choice to restrict yourself.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It would show a displacement furhter than 12". Good job that isnt equal to the vehicles movement, which isnt measured how you say it is measured (to the furthest point)

are you saying the model has moved further than 12 ?

No, I am saying the model has a displacement, in one direction, greater than 12". It has a displacement in other directions less than 12". It has moved 12", however, when you actually read the rules for movement

Move is a 40k defined term. Displacement is only used on 2 occasions i can think of - TB and to-hit against vehicles in close combat

If we ttake your misreading of the rules as being correct, then pivoting ends up reducing movement. Which we know it cannot do. So your reading is wrong. Its that simple

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I am saying the model has a displacement, in one direction, greater than 12". It has a displacement in other directions less than 12". It has moved 12", however, when you actually read the rules for movement

Move is a 40k defined term. Displacement is only used on 2 occasions i can think of - TB and to-hit against vehicles in close combat

If we ttake your misreading of the rules as being correct, then pivoting ends up reducing movement. Which we know it cannot do. So your reading is wrong. Its that simple

ah but did the pivot reduce the movement or did the displacment reduce the movement ?
quick question , when do you measure during the movement phase ?

The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

davidgr33n wrote:Lately I have seen players turning their vehicles sideways before their movement begins, move "forward" their full distance, then turn their vehicles facing forward again at the end of movement, giving them an extra 1 to 2 inches of movement depending on hull size. It has happened to me a few times allowing tanks that may have been out of firing distance to suddenly be able to hit my units.

Reading from the little book, it says that "pivoting alone on the spot does not count as moving", but this just seems like gaming the rules for advantage. So is this tactic legal?

I had been watching a couple of the local WH40K game nights @ the comic shop in town. the group there when turning a vehicle count that as part of the movement.

Example; a rhino moves straight ahead 5"'s then rotates to the right 3"'s then moves ahead further (and yes they to measure how far they are turning) one player even made a rule/template for just that

Yesterday I played GK at a tournament, with pitched battle deployment and got a first turn charge with my two squads of wyches. Their raiders were deployed sideways, turn 1 I pivot which gains me 2" or so, then the raider moves 12", fleet and assault. Its a tactic that I've used a lot against optimistic marine players who deploy on the 12" mark.

But I can absolutely tell you folks that at no point did the flying stands on my raiders move before I did my 12" so it is completely legal. And I use the old raiders, which are about an inch shorter than the new ones!

This is common practice in my aread with LR's, raiders ghost arks or battlewagons. You could even try it with a monolith .....
No one bats an eyelid about it. And it can backfire. I tried it with a CSM land radier a couple of weeks ago and it was immobilised in that position ha!

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

No idea where that came from , clarification ?

Agen wrote:I had been watching a couple of the local WH40K game nights @ the comic shop in town. the group there when turning a vehicle count that as part of the movement.

Example; a rhino moves straight ahead 5"'s then rotates to the right 3"'s then moves ahead further (and yes they to measure how far they are turning) one player even made a rule/template for just that

They're doing it wrong.

kambien wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

So pivoting 45 degrees means you need to back up to stay still.

Unless you are trying to move back, then you move forward to stay still?

I get it.

I need to declare I am moving backwards to move my 5 x 25 forward.

LOL

No idea where that came from , clarification ?

Clarification: He's laughing and making fun of you, then attempting to disprove what you said by using your rules to do something nonsensical, going for the win by a logical strategy called "proof by absurdity".

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

But the less square a vehicle is, the more it reduces your movement. In other words, for every other vehicle in the game, pivoting using your rules reduces movement.

Also, page 12 isn't showing what you state it shows. There is no requirement to measure from the front of a vehicle.
You are only required to measure from/to the same point - front to front, rear to rear, center to center... It doesn't matter. The result will always be the same.

kambien wrote:

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

I am not talking about measuring to a different point.

If you measure from a point along the front of the vehicle, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the front of your vehicle reaches the point you measured to, it will be 12" away from where it started.

If you measure from the center, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the center reaches the point you measured to, it will end up 12" away; but the FRONT will be 14" away.

If you measure from the rear, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the rear reaches the point you measure to, it will end up 12" away, but the FRONT will be a whopping 16" away.

There is no rule telling you where you must measure from on a vehicle; you've asserted that, but it simply doesn't exist. There is a rule saying that you cannot measure from one point on the hull to a DIFFERENT point on the hull; in none of these examples have I done that. I have followed your reading of the rule in question precisely; and, as you can see, you are actually allowing people to gain MORE distance from pivoting, not less.

lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

Instead of making snide comments with an insulting tone, why not try and explain why you think it's illegal?

Also, addressing what you're talking about would be good - there are two methods described since the OP - the one in the OP is illegal, the other is legal. There's even pictures you can use to show which method you're talking about.

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

The YMDC community has made a choice to discuss 40k rules in a particular manner. We find it to be both entertaining and eventually productive (usually). Read the tenets for a better understanding. You are not forced to be here. If you think that a serious discussion of RAW vs RAI vs HIWPI for a game of toy soldiers is un-believable and not for you, then I suggest you do something else. I hear the internet also has pictures of catz doing silly things asking for fast food.

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:lol I like how people are claiming this blatant exploit is legal

as though if you were driving sideways you would move farther

this community is un-believable in so many ways.

Instead of making snide comments with an insulting tone, why not try and explain why you think it's illegal?

Also, addressing what you're talking about would be good - there are two methods described since the OP - the one in the OP is illegal, the other is legal. There's even pictures you can use to show which method you're talking about.

Do you know what an exploit is? It's an abuse of a glitch in the system, in the case of videogame software an exploit of the functioning rules of the game world in order to break the rules of the gameplay itself.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd. The rule that you must measure move distance from the front hull edge is clearly designed for the sake of consistency, and it's being broken for the sake of a few extra inches.

That you would actually play with anyone that abides by this rule blows me away. If you start allowing exploits, you're essentially allowing cheaters, allowing your community to get shredded with foolishness and chicanery.

Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening.

foolishmortal wrote:If you think that a serious discussion of RAW vs RAI vs HIWPI for a game of toy soldiers is un-believable and not for you, then I suggest you do something else. I hear the internet also has pictures of catz doing silly things asking for fast food.

Oh of course, the only things there are on the internet are cheezburger and 40k. Those are the only two options. The internet was not constructed as a university database or a communication model for scholarly work. There is no biology or technology or political science or current events on the internet, there is only srs bsns RAW discussions for 40k and cat pictures, and anyone daring to have the audacity to suggest RAI over RAW in a RAW designated thread must be relegated immediately to cat picture hell.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kambien wrote:

Why are you measuring from the front to the side , i don't believe i ever said use two different locations on the models to measure to. Are you talking about my example where i said measure 12 inches out from every direction from the vehicle , and that you were not allowed to pass that unless you have a specific rule for it ?
I in no way said to measure that way , it was for clarity and reason. If your movement is 12 inches at no point in time pre move to post move can any point be further then 12 inches. That is the gist of what i was saying/ or implied if i wrote something ass backwards.

Edit:damn quotes

I am not talking about measuring to a different point.

If you measure from a point along the front of the vehicle, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the front of your vehicle reaches the point you measured to, it will be 12" away from where it started.

If you measure from the center, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the center reaches the point you measured to, it will end up 12" away; but the FRONT will be 14" away.

If you measure from the rear, then pivot the vehicle as you move, when the rear reaches the point you measure to, it will end up 12" away, but the FRONT will be a whopping 16" away.

There is no rule telling you where you must measure from on a vehicle; you've asserted that, but it simply doesn't exist. There is a rule saying that you cannot measure from one point on the hull to a DIFFERENT point on the hull; in none of these examples have I done that. I have followed your reading of the rule in question precisely; and, as you can see, you are actually allowing people to gain MORE distance from pivoting, not less.

i'm totaly missing the point where they can move further then 12 inches, Is there a better example you could give ?

TedNugent wrote:Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening.

I have been playing 40k for only a few years, but some posters here have been playing for a very long time. Nosferatu is not infallible, but when he says that this has been the rule since 1998, I take that seriously. I invite you to show me a rule from 40k from the past 12 years that contradicts this.

I also invite anyone currently in the NO position to explain to me how far a 6" long vehicle can tank shock if it turns 180 degrees then tank shocks for maximum distance. I would say 12", I seem to be hearing 6"

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The pivoting, in your rules misreading, would reduce the movement.

the pivoting according to my rules does not reduce the movement . Use a monolith , pivot to your hearts content , its not going to reduce your movement.

edit: for clarification , a monolith is a sqaure correct ?

But the less square a vehicle is, the more it reduces your movement. In other words, for every other vehicle in the game, pivoting using your rules reduces movement.

Also, page 12 isn't showing what you state it shows. There is no requirement to measure from the front of a vehicle.
You are only required to measure from/to the same point - front to front, rear to rear, center to center... It doesn't matter. The result will always be the same.

Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

as for page 12 you state several times you measured from the front to side/center/rear unless i read it wrong

If you measure from the front, the front will end up 12" away from where the side was before the move.
But if you measure from the center, the front will end up 14" away from where the side was last turn. Why? Because the center didn't move at all.
And if you measure from the rear, the front will end up 16" away, because the pivot moved the rear of your vehicle backwards

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

The only way I can see you gaining a significant amount of distance is with the vehicle facing in one direction, and rotating 180 degrees while moving. So for example, you start, with the back of your tank facing your opponent, while moving 12" you "pivot" the vehicle 180 degrees. Since you measured from the back of the tank to the back of the tank, that 1 point moved 6", however you just gained the entire length of the tank as well. Pivoting 90 degrees then moving, or moving then pivoting 90 degrees can gain you a couple of inches of displacement, however, you still only moved X number of inches.

foolishmortal wrote:

kambien wrote:Again i will say pivoting in no way reduces movement . Take the monolith example . You can pivot it infinatly and you can't exceed the max movement . Don't confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is because they are not the same

You seem to be confused about this, while simultaneously suggesting others are confused about this, which in the end makes sense, since you seem to be confused about this.

Please state where i am confused about this. Are you confused to why i am confused on how people confuse what a pivot is and what displacement is ?