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.

We're arguing if it's the rules at all. So Norade, tell my why you would use this particular strategy of moving hm? What purpose does it serve?

Pvt. Jet wrote:Ok, the side armor is the same as the front armor. Fine, all right. For the sake of the argument, Front armor is 1 higher than the side armor. It's a fictional armored raider loaded for bear with wyches. Why would you present your side rather than your front? Why are you moving your vehicle in such a way?

See, here's my logic. Draw a line across the field. Say it's your deployment zone. You want to move straight away from it. Now, logically, if your vehicle was on the line at the beginning of the turn, after cruising speed the farthest any part of your vehicle should be away from the line is 12" yes? That is the max any vehicle can move (that's not fast, etc.) in a movement phase. Now if we do the raider-turn, if you measured from starting line to farthest forward point of the raider, you are MORE than 12" off the line. Tell me how that's legal. Please.

Oh, and TopC makes a fine, fine point. You measure your distance BEFORE your move. Pivoting is part of your move. You don't measure, pivot, measure again, and move. It's all one continuous move from your initial measurement from whatever point on the hull you'd like.

Please though, answer me the question, somebody. Why are you moving like this? Your answers are necessary for the debate.

You start sideways and pivot so you can legally get a first turn assault, though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given. Thus I will instead use an RPJ wagon for this. Pivot gains you 3", move forward 13", deploy out for 4" once you count a 2" base, and then assault 6" for a 26" assault range one the first turn 27"-32" if you get a WAAAGH! from a weird boy or are somehow doing this turn two.

Pvt. Jet wrote:And arschbombe? Please refrain from the personal attacks and such. Mature people are trying to have a debate.

Asking for clarification on an iffy position is a personal attack now? You must have tissue paper thin skin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pvt. Jet wrote:We're arguing if it's the rules at all. So Norade, tell my why you would use this particular strategy of moving hm? What purpose does it serve?

Have you missed the debate or something? These points have all been gone over many times in this thread so go back do some reading and then ask. Though I have been kind enough to explain why you would do this already I shoudn't have to state the obvious when you can do some research for yourself.

The flatearthers comment from arschbombe earlier got on my nerves, and his latest comment, well it didn't exactly raise my hopes that he would contribute much.

So may I quote you here?

"...though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given."

So you're using the rules to gain more than cruising speed in a single phase? Even if it's legal.. doesn't that seem a bit shady?

Pvt. Jet wrote:The flatearthers comment from arschbombe earlier got on my nerves, and his latest comment, well it didn't exactly raise my hopes that he would contribute much.

So may I quote you here?

"...though you'd mainly do this with medium bases for the extra range given."

So you're using the rules to gain more than cruising speed in a single phase? Even if it's legal.. doesn't that seem a bit shady?

The flatearther comment was awesome, and the sort of joke I would love to see allowed around here. Then again I come from a board full of 'sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people' so I try to understand the be polite rule here. It does irk me when people refuse toreply to a good point on the grounds that the person who posted it was rude and how people here love to argue with no evidence.

No, I'm gaining nothing, the center of my vehicle, where I pivot and measure movement from has still only moved the 13" allowed by the rules, thus while part of my vehicle is further forward by the rules I have moved legally. So I have moved no further than cruising speed. It is legal, both sides can do it if they wish, so how is it shady? It can be countered by deploying 4" or so back from your maximum edge and thus has only limited uses anyway.

Play as A, but wouldn't mind them altering that in the future to have it play like WOTR formations and the rumored 8th edition formation movement = farthest point.

Dude, Norade, I think we may (a page ago) have boiled the argument down somewhat. You cannot (according to RAW) pivot before beginning the measurement of the move. The real question is whether you measure for each segment of the move or for the move in its entirety.

Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

Slackermagee wrote:Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

However, you can't ignore the diagram on page 12. The "pivot" crowd is claiming the diagram on page 12 proves their point, but actually, it's the exact opposite. Page 12 proves them wrong, because the vehicle is measured front to front, not center point to center point.

Even though you pivot around the center and don't "lose" any movement as the rulebook says, you don't ever gain any movement. Page 12 and page 57 must both be obeyed when moving a vehicle, and that's why the extra inches gained doesn't work.

Ugh; this thread is spiralling again isn't it?




Option A can only work once; at first I did not believe this as well because the truth of the matter is that I can rotate ANY vehicle as much as I want; but its center never changes! Also if I rotate a vehicle on the spot and then measure from the dozer blade ((example)) 6" and move the dozer blade forward the 6" the exact center of the tank will have moved 6"; UNLESS you have a vehicle that is modeled up like an accordian. Although it WOULD be funny to have one of those mechanical spring boxing gloves modeled on a tank.



The only reason Option at works is because of the relation to the deployment zone line. Typically vehicles in 40 are rectangluar in shape meaning the center of the vehicle would be closer to the deployment zone when placed side ways. The advantage to this is that now when you pivot the front of the vehicle is legally already over the deployment zone line; then you measure your movement as you would normally and thus gain the extra range determined only by the length vs. width of the vehicle in question. Example a Dark Eldar skimmer would likely gain more from this than say a Land Raider. While a Valk would also likely gain more from this than the Land Raider as well .


This disadvantage is that you are exposing side armor; sure some vehicles that wouldn't matter because they're poorly armored anyhow; but if you're going second this would mean you've opened yourself up to enemy fire at a weaker side unless you take the initiative; but thats a big gamble. If you're going first there is also the risk that the enemy steals the initiative as well.


Any following movements could NOT possibly gain any movement by simply rotating.

Pvt. Jet wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Any notions of "extra" movement are entirely subjective.

Let me ask you a question here: Why are you turning your vehicle sideways to move? Why not go with the tactical decision to present the best armor facing to the enemy?

How do you know I don't want you to be drawn to shoot at my AV12 Wagon instead of my multitude of other killy things? It's called psychological warfare.

Yea I know what I said sounds wonky, and believe me it was hard even trying to write it out


But this is how Im seeing it. Your vehicle is only suppose to move 12 inches, period. But since the rules for movement doesnt say "you cannot have vehicle facing this way, measure, move 12 inches, and then pivot as your gaining 2 or more inches" you can do it. But that is clearly a cheating move.

A tank can only move 12 inches, period. Not move 12 inches, and then pivot to allow it to actually move 14 inches. Thats cheating in my book. EVEN THOUGH the rules allow someone do legally get away with it.

Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

So cheatring is following the rules?

What you mean is you dont *like* the rules and want to houserule - which is fine.

Howveer the actual rules allow it, so if you dont come to an agreement on the houserule to do what some have suggested, and knock sportsmanship, should be penalised in return.

KingCracker wrote:Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

Not at all.

You became that guy about 7 posts ago.

And as I have said, the vehicle is NOT moving 14", it is moving 12". It might SEEM like it's moving 14", but it isn't, because the rules say it is moving 12". The "extra" distance is entirely subjective.

And of course, no-one is making you deploy your vehicles sideways. If you feel it's not "right", don't do it, just don't have the nerve to tell someone else, who is following the rules, that what they are doing is wrong.

For me, it's the "Firing from the hatch when smoked". I know it's legal, I Know it's been legal for 12 years, but I never personally do it. If my opponent does it, that's fine, he is allowed to. I just don't like doing it myself!

Before I get hit with a "way to completely miss the point" let me preface this by saying these rules are different but similar. The rules are tank shock and vehicle movement.

Look at tank shock. Yes, I know the rules say that tank shock is an attack and the tank makes this attack "instead of moving normally" but, a tank shock is conducted by turning the vehicle (pivoting?) on the spot and then declaring how far it is going to move. It then moves that distance.

So if my landraider is 13" away from your boyz, I can pivot it towards them, then declare I'm moving 12". I measure ffrom the front of the landraider and move forward 12" contacting and thereby tank shocking your boyz. This has been done exactly according to the tank shock rule.

But if I deploy my land raider sideways in my deployment zone, then in my movement phase pivot it on the spot and move it forward 12", this is cheating because the movement rules don't specifically say pivot first?

The movement rules say I can pivot any number of times as I move. This means that I can pivot, move x number of inches, pivot again, move x more inches, pivot again, etc. All of these pivot moves are part of my movement, including the first one.

Moving a vehicle like this is not cheating, cheesy or any other kind of adjective anyone would want to place on it. It is a kind of move that is allowed by the rules. It has advantages and disadvantages. It is called tactics and tactics are important in any wargame or warfare based game.

Gwar! wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Am I making more sense now? Or am I quickly becoming that weird fella with the members only jacket?

Not at all.

You became that guy about 7 posts ago.

And as I have said, the vehicle is NOT moving 14", it is moving 12". It might SEEM like it's moving 14", but it isn't, because the rules say it is moving 12". The "extra" distance is entirely subjective.

And of course, no-one is making you deploy your vehicles sideways. If you feel it's not "right", don't do it, just don't have the nerve to tell someone else, who is following the rules, that what they are doing is wrong.

For me, it's the "Firing from the hatch when smoked". I know it's legal, I Know it's been legal for 12 years, but I never personally do it. If my opponent does it, that's fine, he is allowed to. I just don't like doing it myself!

I loled. Dammit Im THAT guy. Maybe I can figure out how to add a members only jacket to my avatar then *ponders*

Timewizard - you know explaining it that way actually makes much more sense the just saying you can because the rules say so. I would allow someone to play it that way anyways, as I know the rules allow it, but Ill pull a GWAR on the shooting with smoke situation. Ill let others do it for sure, but personally it still seems a bit off to me to do that

Option A.

Norade wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Wait! You're claiming that you can cheat by following the rules?!? Please show me how that works?

By not allowing any models w/o eyes to shoot might be RAW, but it is clearly cheating.

The Bringer wrote:

Norade wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Yes but from what Im reading on all this is, people are laying the tanks sideways at the closest line of deployment to the enemy. Then on their turn pivoting the vehicle(so now the front of the tank is BEYOND the deployment line, and measuring from the front of the vehicle out to the 12 inch move(or whatever your movement is)

Now if thats what your all getting at, that is so wrong. Im sorry but cheating is cheating. Im curious if this is so obvious that people are over looking it. Your gaining what, 2 inches or so just from that pivot? I dont care HOW the rules are wrote in the book, if you do something that breaks rules your cheating, weather or not the rules suggest you can or not.

Wait! You're claiming that you can cheat by following the rules?!? Please show me how that works?

By not allowing any models w/o eyes to shoot might be RAW, but it is clearly cheating.

I don't have any idea what your point is.

Its easy, you're cheating... by following the rules!


Anyways, back to the actual subject, I would consider pivoting for possible better LoS to be more tactical than cheating, I pivot a little all the time to just get that extra needed distance. As stated by many, you aren't actually getting any farther, even if the pivot was on any other part than the center, you still aren't getting extra distance, unless you can actually change the point that you pivot on.

whitedragon wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Measuring for each segment might allow for you to pivot if you ignore the diagram on page 12 and follow the directions on a page 57 as to the pivoting not taking from the total movement allocated. If you obey the rules of movement set out by page 12 (ignoring some of the wording of the second part the paragraph... which is what makes this too quite dubious) and the 'pivots are only taken as part of movement, not before or after' bit on page 57 then all of a sudden that pivot takes up 1-3" of movement allocation.

However, you can't ignore the diagram on page 12. The "pivot" crowd is claiming the diagram on page 12 proves their point, but actually, it's the exact opposite. Page 12 proves them wrong, because the vehicle is measured front to front, not center point to center point.

Even though you pivot around the center and don't "lose" any movement as the rulebook says, you don't ever gain any movement. Page 12 and page 57 must both be obeyed when moving a vehicle, and that's why the extra inches gained doesn't work.

Too true. The pivot does not counti as moving when the vehicle is only performing a pivot in the movement phase. Otherwise, the act of turning does not reduce the vehicles movement inherently (like wheeling or whatever it is in Fantasy) but may result in distance moved after the pivot is completed since you may only pivot during a move which you are measuring (from front to front or what have you).

And as I have pointed out:
PIVOTING DOES NOT REDUCE THE VEHICLES MOVE.

This is what the rules say. I can, therefore, pivot at the start of my move, which does not reduce my move. I have therefore moved 0". I now move it straight forward 12", as per the diagram on page 12.

But this is all just going in circles now.

Pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move but may result in the vehicle having moved.

You CANNOT pivot without beginning a move. At the beginning of the move you start to measure distance by placing the tape measure on the front armor (or what have you) of the tank. You pivot, then proceed to move the 12 (or whatever) inches from where the front armor began as per the diagram on page 12.

Slackermagee wrote:Pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move but may result in the vehicle having moved.

You CANNOT pivot without beginning a move. At the beginning of the move you start to measure distance by placing the tape measure on the front armor (or what have you) of the tank. You pivot, then proceed to move the 12 (or whatever) inches from where the front armor began as per the diagram on page 12.

Ok, so, tell me, how far has this tank moved:

To me, that's moved 0", because the rules very clearly state that pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move. If you count that as having moved however many inches, that's a pivot reducing the vehicles move, which is something the rules explicitly tell you is not the case.

By doing that though, you've moved one part of the tank further than it's maximally allowed move by segmenting the move (and the measuring) and not making it one continuous process.

The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

It can pivot about, dance on the spot, or whatever while it moves but that is something we never see as we are worried about the placement of the vehicle at the final destination being within its allowed move distance.

On another note, while it may say that you do not reduce the vehicles move by pivoting it does not say the vehicle may gain any extra distance during its move, a move of which the pivot is a part.

Edit: Alrighty, I think I understand the diagram now, I thought originally that you had simply been going over movement. Still, you must begin measuring from the front armor and then pivot, not pivot and then begin moving when the front of the tank has gained a little distance over the sides. Measurement begins when movement begins and the starting position of the tape shouldn't (according to page 12 RAW) change position once movement has begun. Static beginnings also allow for the forward and reverse movement on page 57, which is also said to not reduce movement. It's the destination that counts, not the journey.

So you're saying this should be illegal?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So you're saying this should be illegal?

Of course not. Look at the diagram on page 12 BRB. Your diagram is exaclty the "NO!" example.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So you're saying this should be illegal?

A cunning plan Mr. MSP, but alas, I am your Doom!

This is what page 12 instructs us to do.

By Slakermages logic, as you pointed out there MGS, pulling a 180° Pivot uses up like 6" of move, despite being explicitly told Pivoting does not use up movement.

Guys, I know it's legal. Just refuting this:

Slackermagee wrote:The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

Slackermagee wrote:By doing that though, you've moved one part of the tank further than it's maximally allowed move by segmenting the move (and the measuring) and not making it one continuous process.

The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

It can pivot about, dance on the spot, or whatever while it moves but that is something we never see as we are worried about the placement of the vehicle at the final destination being within its allowed move distance.

On another note, while it may say that you do not reduce the vehicles move by pivoting it does not say the vehicle may gain any extra distance during its move, a move of which the pivot is a part.

Edit: Alrighty, I think I understand the diagram now, I thought originally that you had simply been going over movement. Still, you must begin measuring from the front armor and then pivot, not pivot and then begin moving when the front of the tank has gained a little distance over the sides. Measurement begins when movement begins and the starting position of the tape shouldn't (according to page 12 RAW) change position once movement has begun. Static beginnings also allow for the forward and reverse movement on page 57, which is also said to not reduce movement. It's the destination that counts, not the journey.

Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Guys, I know it's legal. Just refuting this:

Slackermagee wrote:The vehicle could arrive at its destination point backwards or facing eastward so long as no part of it ever went further than 12" in any way shape or form (which is what page 12 rather explicitly warns us about).

Yes, I know, I was backing you up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

For those of you too lazy to Google, the Planck Units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants:
* Gravitational constant
* Reduced Planck constant
* Speed of light in a vacuum
* Coulomb constant
* Boltzmann's constant

What Norade is actually doing is moving it a Planck Length. In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.

Gwar! wrote:

Norade wrote:Then, still totally legal, I tap my model, say it moved planck unit that way, pivot, and still go through with the plan. I moved before I pivoted so all is legal.

For those of you too lazy to Google, the Planck Units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants:
* Gravitational constant
* Reduced Planck constant
* Speed of light in a vacuum
* Coulomb constant
* Boltzmann's constant

What Norade is actually doing is moving it a Planck Length. In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.

Sorry, I didn't post that as clearly as I could have. Thanks for making it more clear.