Vehicles turning for extra movement...legal?

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.

**rigeld2**

TedNugent wrote: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.

I'm well aware of the definition of what an exploit is. It's also an unintended consequence of how the "rules" (code in the case of a video game) work.

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd.

Really? They've had 2 full editions and 14 years of FAQs to clear it up, and they haven't. That tells me that it's intended.

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.

There is no rule requiring you to measure from the front hull edge.

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.

Your implication is disturbing - I don't mind people that do this because - wait for it... it's not that big a deal. On turn one, for some vehicles, it adds a couple of inches. ohdeargod.

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

Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

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.

Well, since the tenets of this subforum imply that, then yes. Also, you're arguing RAI with absolutely no backing. As I said - 14 years of precedent and 2 full editions (likely 3 since I'd bet 6 doesn't change this) means you're wrong on what's intended.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
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 ?

You're confused because you're saying with one breath that pivoting does not reduce movement, but with another breath that a non-square vehicle that pivots cannot move it's full 6 or 12" allotment.

**blaktoof**

The concept that GW actually desired to allow vehicles to move further than their maximum move distance is absurd.
Really? They've had 2 full editions and 14 years of FAQs to clear it up, and they haven't. That tells me that it's intended.
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.
There is no rule requiring you to measure from the front hull edge.

Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening
Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

This vehicle issue has not existed 14 years. I'm also fairly certain that it's an issue with only this edition, fairly certain 4th you turned by wheeling at the front of the vehicle. Previous e dirk nagas limits on number of 45degree turns you could make depending on vehicle speed, turns being done by wheeling at the front of the vehicle.

Also the only rule for where you measure vehicle movement is a diagram that specifically shows measuring from the front to the front. There is no raw mention of any other way to measure.

kambien wrote:
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 ?

You're confused because you're saying with one breath that pivoting does not reduce movement, but with another breath that a non-square vehicle that pivots cannot move it's full 6 or 12" allotment.

**Dracos**

I like how the people supporting the idea that you measure your total distance before any pivots are completely unable to address the 180 degree pivot.

A 180 degree pivot turns the vehicle completely in the opposite direction. Yet, the front of the vehicle will now be the vehicle's length away from the starting position despite the fact that the vehicle occupies virtually the same space. If you had a 12" non-fast vehicle, this would result in the front having been displaced 12" away from its original location. The results of which are a vehicle that is unable to move [under this interpretation] after a simple pivot. Even better, if there was a vehicle longer than 12" or able to move less than 12", it would be unable to pivot the entire 180 degrees.

This example is why the rules were not written to work this way. This way a pivot CAN and WILL reduce movement of the vehicle which is explicitly what the rules are designed to prevent.

**mgraham**

Dracos wrote:I like how the people supporting the idea that you measure your total distance before any pivots is complete unable to address the 180 degree pivot.

A 180 degree pivot turns the vehicle completely in the opposite direction. Yet, the front of the vehicle will now be the vehicles length away from the starting position despite the fact that the vehicle occupies virtually the same space. If you had a 12" non-fast vehicle, this would result in the front having been displaced 12" away from its original location. The results of which are a vehicle that is unable to move [under this interpretation] after a simple pivot. Even better, if there was a vehicle longer than 12" or able to move less than 12", it would be unable to pivot the entire 180 degrees.

This example is why the rules were not written to work this way. This way a pivot CAN and WILL reduce movement of the vehicle which is explicitly what the rules are designed to prevent.

Wow, great example, well said; I can't wait to see the response(s) to this one.

**blaktoof**

It's easy to address.

If you follow raw correctly, the movement rules are broken.

If you follow raw incorrectly,even in the case of measuring after pivoting which is against raw, the movement rules are broken.

The only way to follow ra for a non square vehicle and not break a rule as written in the movement section, is to move only in a straight line the whole game.

The original question in this thread was is it legal to gain extra movement by pivoting.

It is not legal.

Although it is not legal to not gain movement because doing so breaks that pivoting doesn't reduce a vehicles movement, but by not reducing a vehicles movement you break that the distance from start to finsih of a vehicle cannot exceed it's movewment.

People for this edition and the past few years play in a way that disregards the written rules regarding either when or where you measure vehicle movement from to from, or that a vehicle move a distancera further than it's actual movement. Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

**rigeld2**

blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

**Happyjew**

I'm still confused as to how pivoting and then moving breaks the movement RAW. You may have greater displacement from where you originally were, but the rules say you can move 12". How far did you move? 12".

**rigeld2**

You don't have greater displacement. Your vehicle is taking up the exact same amount of space. It's just a differently configured amount of space.

**Happyjew**

Poor wording on my part. Trying to remember what word GW used, in regards to vehicles and movement, etc.

**rigeld2**

blaktoof wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:Anyway, assuming a FAQ is forthcoming I would err on the side of the rule being clarified to bar this from happening
Poor assumption, as I implied earlier. 14 years of waiting for one...

This vehicle issue has not existed 14 years. I'm also fairly certain that it's an issue with only this edition, fairly certain 4th you turned by wheeling at the front of the vehicle. Previous e dirk nagas limits on number of 45degree turns you could make depending on vehicle speed, turns being done by wheeling at the front of the vehicle.

Also the only rule for where you measure vehicle movement is a diagram that specifically shows measuring from the front to the front. There is no raw mention of any other way to measure.

I fixed the quoting for you.

I played some 3rd ed. and there was no wheeling, 45 degree limits, etc. that I can recall (I played nids back then too, so for whatever that's worth).
I tend to take nosferatu1001 at his word - if he says the rules have read similarly since 1998, they probably have.

As far as where to measure movement...
a) it just doesn't matter as long as you pick the same point (front left to front left, back right to back right, center to center)
b) The diagram shows a right vs wrong way to measure - and the only "wrong" is front to back. (ie not the same point both times). There is no rule saying that front-front is the only way to measure.

**Mannahnin**

1998 was when 3rd ed came out. The vehicle movement/pivoting rules have been functionally identical in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. The last one which had wheeling and such was 2nd edition.

Yes, you pivoting "gains" you a little bit of distance when you want to move at an angle to the direction your vehicle was pointed at the start of its move, if it's a vehicle which isn't a perfect square or circle. No, it's not a big problem, unless possibly someone converts a vehicle to be humongously longer than it is wide, in which case that falls under modeling for advantage, and you refuse to play against it in a friendly (unless you can see your opponent is deliberately not taking advantage of it), and the TO disqualifies it in a tournament.

**blaktoof**

rigeld2 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

**nosferatu1001**

blaktoof wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Nope, just you, over and over and over. You have yet to actually find a single rule that says what you claim are the rules.

You are also wildly incorrectly on your history. 3rd 4th and 5th have all used the same fundamental system for vehicle movement.

The RAW fully allows you to perform this "trick", and have done for 14 years. Theyre not going to change just because you've decided they dont work.

**rigeld2**

blaktoof wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Please cite the page number. I'll be nice and not require the paragraph.

**kambien**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
blaktoof wrote:Because the rules as written otherwise do not allow you to turn a non square vehicle without breaking the rules as written.

False, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

wrong

Nope, just you, over and over and over. You have yet to actually find a single rule that says what you claim are the rules.

You are also wildly incorrectly on your history. 3rd 4th and 5th have all used the same fundamental system for vehicle movement.

The RAW fully allows you to perform this "trick", and have done for 14 years. Theyre not going to change just because you've decided they dont work.

by following RAW you have move your vehicle further then allowed because you added the displacement and no where in the rules does it tell you to.If so site the page

**Kitzz**

Do we really need to do this thread again? We do it about once a year. Can't we put up an FAQ somewhere that....oh...wait, we did that. If you are new to 40k, and you are new to understanding the rules, do not immediately assume you know more than people who have been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you. There are no rules mentioning displacement for people to quote because the rulebook does not talk about displacement; it talks about movement.

If I was playing Necrons (my main army) and you told me I couldn't pivot and move my ghost arks, that would be our last game. If I wanted to move 6" with my monolith, and turn it around to dump guys out behind it so they could get cover, and you told me I couldn't pivot it because its front had already moved 6" that would also be our last game.

To deny necrons an entire movement phase with one of their vehicles simply because you have a minority (and also incorrect) interpretation of the rule is more cheating to me than simply allowing it to happen. The vehicle movement rules break down if you understand them incorrectly.

Oh, and good luck turning to assault a unit 8" behind your defiler. You can't reach it.

**foolishmortal**

rigeld2 wrote:You don't have greater displacement. Your vehicle is taking up the exact same amount of space. It's just a differently configured amount of space.

Happyjew wrote:Poor wording on my part. Trying to remember what word GW used, in regards to vehicles and movement, etc.

No, perfectly fine wording on your part, consistent with the past usage in this thread. Really good ambiguous English language nitpicking on rigeld's part.

The 40k 5th ed BRB doesn't use the term 'displacement' AFAIK. p63 (rolling to hit against vehicles) and p76 (turbo-boosters) describe a very similar concept, and I believe that is what most people here are referring to when they talk about displacement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Do we really need to do this thread again? We do it about once a year. Can't we put up an FAQ somewhere that....oh...wait, we did that.

Please link it.

Also, thank you for your work on the necron faq thread.

**Ghaz**

I think he means the first seven pages of this thread.

**foolishmortal**

Ghaz wrote:I think he means the first seven pages of this thread.

No, I found it http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page Great reading. Interesting to see who is still here, who has mellowed over time, and who was always cynical.

Edit: I had a thought last night. For those that think that a pivot is somehow counts as movement without counting as movement. If a vehicle pivots in area terrain, does it take a DTT? I believe it is generally established that it does not, but I'm not sure how you would reconcile this with your position.

**nosferatu1001**

"by following RAW you have move your vehicle further then allowed because you added the displacement and no where in the rules does it tell you to.If so site the page "

Cite

That is a nonsense sentence - I have not "added the displacement" - whatever that means

Pivoting does not reduce movement. Your interpretation, as has been shown by *many* examples now (which you failed to address, ever), results in a reduction in vehicles movement. Your interpretation is refuted, simply by this fact.

**Caranthir987**

I was joking with the monolith earlier BTW incase anyone thought i was serious..

**Lotus**

Here's my interpretation:

Distances are measured as if from the pivot point, always. Measuring from the tips of the hull is just a shortcut that works 99% of the time. Pivoting thus NEVER makes the model move forward. It's just a tactic that takes advantage of using an imperfect shortcut to the rules instead of going by the rules.

That's RAI for me.

**yellowfever**

So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

**BeRzErKeR**

yellowfever wrote:So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

No, you can't. You always pivot around the center of the vehicle; you don't get to pick which point you pivot around.

Pivoting will, once, gain you half the length of your vehicle in displacement towards the enemy. That's all.

**Dracos**

The funny thing is that you don't even gain half the vehicle's length. You gain half the vehicles length MINUS half the vehicle's width.

**Mannahnin**

BeRzErKeR wrote:
yellowfever wrote:So basically I can deploy a land raider sideways. Pick a point centered on the rear end. While keeping it sideways move up 12 inches. And then pivot the front towards my opponent. Basically gaining the whole length of the tank without actually measuring more than 12 inches at the point I chose. Correct me if I'm saying it wrong. (I personally won't do it just clarifying).

No, you can't. You always pivot around the center of the vehicle; you don't get to pick which point you pivot around.

This.

Dracos wrote:The funny thing is that you don't even gain half the vehicle's length. You gain half the vehicles length MINUS half the vehicle's width.

And this.

**yellowfever**

I turn the vehicle with the front facing the direction I want to go. Then I measure my movement. Then I pivot again if I want. This way I'm not gaining any extra distance and still freely pivoting. No one has ever complained about it.

**Cryage**

MasterSlowPoke wrote:ND, I wasted my time building this diagram to show how your steps don't work:

This is the way I play it, and seems legit. It's impossible to gain extra inches so I don't see the issue...

**nkelsch**

Cryage wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:ND, I wasted my time building this diagram to show how your steps don't work:

This is the way I play it, and seems legit. It's impossible to gain extra inches so I don't see the issue...

Stop at step 2 and you gained a few inches compared if the vehicle deployed facing forward. You can disembark from the front part of the hull. Seems to work just fine.

**Magpie**

Sorry to butt in but are we suggesting that vehicles can move sideways?

Probably ok for 'copters and skimmers etc but seems a bit odd for wheeled or track vehicles?