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.

RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point. If you measure from center, to center the vehicle will gain (or lose) movement based on the orientation at the end of the move. This is not illegal, or cheating as the rules do not specify where you need to measure from on the vehicle. Even if you pivot the vehicle during movement as opposed to before or after, you will still end up in the same spot measuring from center to center. You will end up closer on a pivot without moving the vehicle and simply pivoting in place, and in this scenario the vehicle doesn’t even count as having moved. On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move

Anubis_513 wrote:RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point.

Not that I've ever seen. Reference, please?

If you measure from center, to center the vehicle will gain (or lose) movement based on the orientation at the end of the move. This is not illegal, or cheating as the rules do not specify where you need to measure from on the vehicle.

On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

ElCheezus wrote:On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

Actually, that is for measuring distance between two units, not measuring a unit's move.

The movement rules state only that a model can move up to six inches.

The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

Permissive ruleset. Where else does it tell you how to measure?

Anubis_513 wrote:
RAW state that you may move the vehicle measuring from any point on the vehicle as long as it is the same point beginning and end, usually the center point.

Not that I've ever seen. Reference, please?

I will try to find it when I get access to my rulebook. If you can not measure vehicle movement from the center(pivot) point then I will change my view on this discussion. If you must measure from an edge then that is no different than measuring from a point on the base of a troop, and spinning your troop so that point is now on the other side, gaining the base in movement, which is specifically stated as illegal I believe...... The only way I can see it makes sence to gain movement from a pivot legaly is if you can measure from the pivot point itself.

pivoting a vehicle to gain extra movement is not allowed.

The distance a vehicle moves is measured from its start point to its end point, not the actual path you intended to move it along.

if its end point is further than its max move it is illegal and is NO.

if the end point is within the max move distance it is legal and YES.

the ruleset is permissive, and it permits you to move a certain amount of distance between 2 points as per the permitted rules on how far a vehicle can move. If at the end of your movement you have beyond that you have not followed the permission the rules have given you and have broken the rules allowed.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:On pg. 3 where it tells you how to measure, it tells you to use the edge of the base, or the edge of the hull for a vehicle.

Actually, that is for measuring distance between two units, not measuring a unit's move.

The movement rules state only that a model can move up to six inches.

The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

ElCheezus wrote:Permissive ruleset. Where else does it tell you how to measure?

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.
With round bases this is a point.

Since a specific side is not demanded, it is permissible to "gain" via pivots--which explicitly do not reduce movement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:pivoting a vehicle to gain extra movement is not allowed.

Actually the rules state that pivoting does not REDUCE movement.

Measuring to the side, as per the previous quote, no extra movement occurs.

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.

It says no such thing. If you want to interpret the diagram explicitly, you can only move forward, and must measure from the center of the front.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The diagrams (page 12, main rules) specify that the measurements must be done from the same SIDE of the model.

It says no such thing. If you want to interpret the diagram explicitly, you can only move forward, and must measure from the center of the front.

.... Ignoring the picture the vehicles rules explicitly tell you that you can only move forward (or backwards) also that vehicles do not wheel; they pivot on the spot. The may pivot as many times as they like during their move.

Can pivoting give a vehicle a shooting advantage? Yes, some vehicle with rear mounted turrets can gain 2-3" by turning 180.

Can pivoting give passengers an advantage? Yes it can boost their charge range by 2-3".

Does pivoting increase the movement of a vehicle? No, if a vehicle was a 1 dimensional point it would move the same distance as a vehicle that was 12" by 1".

Sliggoth wrote: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

It only applies to tanks, whether or not it is movement, so it cannot be taken as a rule for non-tanks.

This seems to be a common sense thing.
Although, I've never run into this in game because everybody I play with pretty much moves forward and doesn't dance around with pivots.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:
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.

No, Vehicles pivot while stationary as they move to combine forwards and backwards movements.
"Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’
round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move." Page 57

"As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don’t worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase (although dramatically facing off against their foes is traditional)." Pg 11
So one can't pivot before the start of one's move to 'gain distance' as one can only turn while moving, one already has a reference point of the base and to measure this move it must be done from the same point on the base - otherwise one is performing the type of miss-measurement shown of page 12 - So one can gain at the point of shooting with an oval base as this is the time one's allowed to "Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don’t worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase" Pg 11
But again if one couldn't reach the target already people are going to be looking at one quite funnily, "Oh the trygon I moved as far as I possibly could is half an inch out of range, well I'll just 'turn' on the spot and voila pew pew pew".

"A player must move all of the models in each assaulting unit before moving on to the next unit." Pg 34

OK, I ran a half dozen scenarios this morning, and if you treat a vehicle as a single point (such as it's pivot point) then the distance moved will never be more than 12 inches, regardless of how you pivot.

So the max gain is the difference between the long and short radii. So for most this will be less than 2 inches. I think the DE ship thingie that took out my HammerHead one game (NEWB!) will be the worst offender.

Anubis_513 wrote: On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move

The above statement is incorrect.
Pg. 11 of the BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

A Trygon model IS a model in its own unit, therefore I may turn it to face any direction as I move it. I am moving it from the time I touch it to move it until I remove my hand and stop moving it. Simple physics. I interact with it by touching it, so it is therefore moving until such time as I am not interacting with it any longer, and this defines how I may "...move the models in a unit...". So, I turn it, as allowed by the rules on page 11, while I am moving it, so that it faces any direction (again pg. 11), measure the distance I wish to move and then turn it to face any direction before removing my hand, and thus ending the movement of that model. As stated on pg. 11, this turning does not affect movement, which means that any extra distance gained from the movement phase on into the shooting phase (when I will likely choose to Run!) actually does NOT affect the distance the model moved (because the rules on pg. 11 says it doesn't).
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

And just to be clear with regards to facing and its application in the game mechanics...LoS (for the purposes of shooting) is traced from the models-eye view, from a model's eyes (pg. 16 of the BRB). Facing has no bearing on assaults (because pg. 11 says it DOESN'T affect movement).

Of course this does mean that most models that have eyes cannot shoot at something behind them, because facing clearly matters (as outlined on pg. 16 for models with eyes, pgs 56 and 59 for vehicles). It also means models without eyes cannot shoot ranged weaponry...

Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything from this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Edit: Spelling. Shows me to drink and post at the same time...

I'll take a stab at that one, Evil Lamp 6...
While reading through all these comments someone might actually one day stumble upon the Rosetta Stone of GW rules.

P.S. Check out my comment about models not having eyes.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

Tri wrote:Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

Pretty much sums it up.

I would add D)new people have wandered in who didn't participate in the previous discussion, and E)there's no particular reason for people to not discuss it again if they have a mind to do so.


We discourage repeat threads where the previous discussion was just at breakfast time. But once it's slipped back a few pages, it's generally fair game unless it is something that has a history of turning messy.

Anubis_513 wrote:
On a separate note, this trick does not work with Tyrgons, or beasts as the rules state they must be moved from base edge to base edge, Non vehicles are not allowed a pivot move, there for can not take advantage. Vehicles are distinctly allowed a pivot move


The above statement is incorrect.
Pg. 11 of the BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

A Trygon model IS a model in its own unit, therefore I may turn it to face any direction as I move it. I am moving it from the time I touch it to move it until I remove my hand and stop moving it. Simple physics. I interact with it by touching it, so it is therefore moving until such time as I am not interacting with it any longer, and this defines how I may "...move the models in a unit...". So, I turn it, as allowed by the rules on page 11, while I am moving it, so that it faces any direction (again pg. 11), measure the distance I wish to move and then turn it to face any direction before removing my hand, and thus ending the movement of that model. As stated on pg. 11, this turning does not affect movement, which means that any extra distance gained from the movement phase on into the shooting phase (when I will likely choose to Run!) actually does NOT affect the distance the model moved (because the rules on pg. 11 says it doesn't).
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

And just to be clear with regards to facing and its application in the game mechanics...LoS (for the purposes of shooting) is traced from the models-eye view, from a model's eyes (pg. 16 of the BRB). Facing has no bearing on assaults (because pg. 11 says it DOESN'T affect movement).

So, you metioned several times that pivioting, or facing the model Does not affect movement, or the distance you can move. How then do you justify using th pivot to gain extra movement? Seems to me that is clearly affecting movement, and the idstance you are allowed to move. Seems a clear contradiction to me.....

You seem to be confusing movement and distance/ orientation. A model can move as described in the brb. Then a model also can measure distance in various ways as described in the brb. By pivoting a model can change the distance from the model to various points...this does not count as movement however.

So by changing the orientation of a model we can be changing its distance relative to other objects while still not actualy "moving" the model. At least in terms of using up its movement allowance.




Sliggoth

Anubis - displacement is not always equal to the distance moved.

You gained displacement, in one direction, but not movement.

Pg. 11 of BRB (Turning and Facing) states: "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn and face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover. Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the shooting phase..."

Gaining even displacement IS affecting the distance they are able to cover, as they are only able to cover 6" during the move, however you a enabling them to cover more than this 6" with the pivot. Is the trygon and infantry unit (dont have a nid dex) I thought it was an MC.....

No, they are allowed to move 6"

Displacement is not movement.

Please do us the courtesy of reading over this, and the other thread, before giving arguments that have been proven false many, many times.

Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

Tri wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

If by "2/3" split you mean roughly a "2:1 split," then yes. 63% to 35% is not "2:3," it's "2:1." Given the way most rules contentions go, that is a startling majority who play that pivoting to "gain" movement is legal.

There are exactly two camps on this issue. The first camp are playing the rules as they are written and deal with the fact that GW didn't give half a second's thought to non-imperial vehicles (just try to measure the front/side/rear arcs on a Wave Serpent... I dare you), and wrote the pivoting rules with roughly rectangular vehicles in mind. Imperial players have been using this trick for many, many years with sideways-deployed Rhinos but apparently it was not an issue then. Is the rule poorly written? Possibly, but it was intended to make vehicles quite maneuverable and to not penalize them for making turns.

The second camp is the one who have played a game against Dark Eldar who use this method, and merrily assault their way into the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1 (or those who have a good enough imagination to consider the possibilities). Then they are upset that they didn't have enough foresight to realize that Dark Eldar have a significantly longer assault range thanks to this technique, and deploy well within range. This issue pretty much only comes up in deployment for Dark Eldar. I can't deny that pivoting on a Raider/Ravager "feels" wrong, but the rules are quite permissive in allowing you to do so. These people are butthurt by the fact that Dark Eldar can pull this trick off to great effect.

In the end, though, the pivot maneuver is perfectly legal. The fact that Raiders can take great advantage of the rule is not "cheating," it's smart players taking advantage of the ruleset they are given. All I can say is that you should prepare for it, don't deploy too close, and don't get horribly upset when someone does it to you. Don't be the guy who watches their opponent set up their raiders sideways in their Deployment, then deploy 3" too close, and then get furiously upset when the DE player moves and pivots. Suck it up and learn to play the game by the rules, however flawed they may be, and accept that this is a legal maneuver and you MUST plan for it.

Anubis_513 wrote:Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

It hasnt affected the distance, assuming you have measured consistent point to consistent point.

It has affected the displacement of parts of the model, which is not the same as the distance moved.

And again: read the thread, you argument is not only not new, it has been answered many many many many many times. It's called common courtesy.

Anubis_513 wrote:Then why is "without affecting the distance they are able to cover" specifically stated in the rules.

because pivoting on the spot does not increase the amount a model moves.

see bellow two model different dimensions both moving the same speed, At first glance the brown seems to be moving two blocks more.

It hasnt affected the distance, assuming you have measured consistent point to consistent point.

It has affected the displacement of parts of the model, which is not the same as the distance moved.

And again: read the thread, you argument is not only not new, it has been answered many many many many many times. It's called common courtesy.

Just because I don't agree with the stance of those that have declaired that their view is correct many many many times does not mean I have not read the thread. and that type of reply is insulting, especially as this is an opinion based thread. I simply do not agree that it has been case closed answered. I am not trying to be difficult, and I have no hope of changing you mind, but I felt like sharing my view was encourage in this thread. At first I saw nothing wrong with the pivoting trick, until I reasd that statement in the rulebook. As far as I am concerned, I look forward to your rebuttles, makes things interesting...

commissarkurn wrote:
Because the Trygon is a Monstrous Creature, and NOT infantry, I cannot turn it to face a target in the shooting phase (pg. 11 ,again).

"Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry." Pg 51

KestrelM1 wrote:

Tri wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Serious question: Why are we rehashing just about everything form this thread again?

As far as I know, no new rulings have come out to have any effect on this whatsoever. So why are we letting this go to another 15 pages?

Just curious.

Because A) that was a year ago B) dakka's search function doesn't always work C) that was a 2/3 split

If by "2/3" split you mean roughly a "2:1 split," then yes. 63% to 35% is not "2:3," it's "2:1." Given the way most rules contentions go, that is a startling majority who play that pivoting to "gain" movement is legal.

There are exactly two camps on this issue. The first camp are playing the rules as they are written and deal with the fact that GW didn't give half a second's thought to non-imperial vehicles (just try to measure the front/side/rear arcs on a Wave Serpent... I dare you), and wrote the pivoting rules with roughly rectangular vehicles in mind. Imperial players have been using this trick for many, many years with sideways-deployed Rhinos but apparently it was not an issue then. Is the rule poorly written? Possibly, but it was intended to make vehicles quite maneuverable and to not penalize them for making turns.

The second camp is the one who have played a game against Dark Eldar who use this method, and merrily assault their way into the enemy deployment zone on Turn 1 (or those who have a good enough imagination to consider the possibilities). Then they are upset that they didn't have enough foresight to realize that Dark Eldar have a significantly longer assault range thanks to this technique, and deploy well within range. This issue pretty much only comes up in deployment for Dark Eldar. I can't deny that pivoting on a Raider/Ravager "feels" wrong, but the rules are quite permissive in allowing you to do so. These people are butthurt by the fact that Dark Eldar can pull this trick off to great effect.

In the end, though, the pivot maneuver is perfectly legal. The fact that Raiders can take great advantage of the rule is not "cheating," it's smart players taking advantage of the ruleset they are given. All I can say is that you should prepare for it, don't deploy too close, and don't get horribly upset when someone does it to you. Don't be the guy who watches their opponent set up their raiders sideways in their Deployment, then deploy 3" too close, and then get furiously upset when the DE player moves and pivots. Suck it up and learn to play the game by the rules, however flawed they may be, and accept that this is a legal maneuver and you MUST plan for it.

If your argument is strong you have no need to resort to Ad Hominem, so please don't tar 1/3rd pf players with a "butthurt by Deldar" brush.

Your point is not logical anyway. The survey was completed a year ago. It is unlikely that more than five or 10% of players had ever faced a Deldar army at that time, so they could not have been butthurt.

Please accept that many people feel the pivot move is beardy and prefer not to play with it.

If you like the rule and play a game with someone who doesn't like the rule, the two of you need to come to some agreement, or abandon your game.

By telling potential opponents that people who have a different approach to playing than you are childish poopy heads, you are being unnecessarily antagonistic and setting yourself up for arguments.