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.

I am, if nothing else, a stickler for clarity!

Edit: So, we have 288 votes so far. 181 for A (which is RaW) 100 for B (which is ALSO RaW ) and 7 for C.

281 - 7. RaW wins!

Doesn't really mean anything, the poll is busted. Option B is correct but it drew the wrong conclusion.

Also, I do believe we're still arguing RAW.

With the 'tap the model then pivot' okay. Sure, do that. Just make sure that the front of the model hasn't moved more than twelve inches from where it began. You can pivot left, right, and sideways so long as you don't leave the 12" of maximum move that are given to you when you begin moving.

Again, it's not the journey, its the destination. 12" from location A to location B (or 6 to B and 6 to C... which by way of trig would be less overall distance traveled in the direction you want than if you just took a straight trip, but these things happen sometimes).

Measuring and manipulating the journey is NOT R.A.W. under page 57 which says to ignore all forward, reverse, and pivot movement without exceeding its maximum move. To quote "This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move".

Measuring to the destination (however curvy and convoluted that might be) is the RAW.

By your logic, you cannot pull a 180 and move 12" forward and that a 180 turn uses up about 5" of move. It really is that simple. That is not RaW.

RaW is that you pivot, then move 12" forward and that is your 12" move. It doesn't matter of the pivot is 1, 5, 35, 90 or 180 degrees, the pivot doesn't reduce the vehicles move.

Slackermagee wrote:Also, I do believe we're still arguing RAW.

With the 'tap the model then pivot' okay. Sure, do that. Just make sure that the front of the model hasn't moved more than twelve inches from where it began. You can pivot left, right, and sideways so long as you don't leave the 12" of maximum move that are given to you when you begin moving.

Again, it's not the journey, its the destination. 12" from location A to location B (or 6 to B and 6 to C... which by way of trig would be less overall distance traveled in the direction you want than if you just took a straight trip, but these things happen sometimes).

Measuring and manipulating the journey is NOT R.A.W. under page 57 which says to ignore all forward, reverse, and pivot movement without exceeding its maximum move. To quote "This means a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move".

Measuring to the destination (however curvy and convoluted that might be) is the RAW.

So you say my diagram (chimera and bloodletters) is illegal?

Gwar! wrote:By your logic, you cannot pull a 180 and move 12" forward and that a 180 turn uses up about 5" of move. It really is that simple. That is not RaW.

RaW is that you pivot, then move 12" forward and that is your 12" move. It doesn't matter of the pivot is 1, 5, 35, 90 or 180 degrees, the pivot doesn't reduce the vehicles move.

You don't have to measure from the 'front armor' front so much as an arbitrary 'this is the direction I'm moving in' front. You measure a distance from the 'front' to where you want to go then place your vehicle there so no part of it is more than 12" away from the 'front' you began measuring from. Thus a 180 pivot is perfectly legal and doesn't subtract from your movement at all as the length between the 'front' and 'back' can't change. When you pivot 90 degrees the distance between the 'front' and the 'back' changes as the actual orientation changes, but this does not magically give you x" of movement on top of what you already measured out.

Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

So if a 180 degree pivot doesn't use up move, why does a 90 degree one do?

Slackermagee wrote:Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

And again, by this logic, a chimera that rotates 180 degrees and moves 12" forward has suddenly moved 17" because of the pivot.

You can't have it both ways.

Gwar! wrote:So if a 180 degree pivot doesn't use up move, why does a 90 degree one do?

Slackermagee wrote:Again and again and again I'll say this, what the model does on its journey doesn't matter so long as the model reaches (and never goes beyond) its measured destination. This is what pg12 tells us, you cannot end movement outside of the measured limitation point assigned before you picked up and moved the model.

And again, by this logic, a chimera that rotates 180 degrees and moves 12" forward has suddenly moved 17" because of the pivot.

You can't have it both ways.

No, it hasn't. You measure 12" from the hull in the direction of movement, you place the chimera there with not part of the hull beyond the point pre-measured but in whatever orientation you choose... just so long as NO part, in any way, shape, or form crosses that pre-measured line. I will agree (because my earlier points of contention were not terribly strong and you were right about it) that the pivot takes up no part of the move on the way to the pre-determined spot. However, in the case of the sideways rhino the rhino would have to pivot en route and arrive with its front end no more than 12" away from the 'front' which had been the side at the time.

You measure the distance, move the model, and orient it as you please within that distance and in that order. You absolutely cannot pivot on the spot and then start tape measuring from the most forward facing point, that just does not fit within the sequence of movement.

Edit: reading and re-reading page 12 again it never makes note of a 'front' or 'back', it simply insists that the model remain within the pre-measured distance however it ends up facing when it gets there.

I agree with slacker here. Again, for example, say you want to move left but you are facing up. There's an imaginary line at your left-most point which shows where you are now, and an imaginary line 12" left. No part of your vehicle can move past that mark. By pivoting, say, a trukk to the left, its front is now an inch or so over the line that you started on. Thus, you have advanced that far. Can you at least see what I'm saying? By turning and pivoting you end up more than 12" from your starting point.

Argh! But I totally see the option A group's point! I just don't know how to argue it one way without screwing with the other way! They're both right! Gnargh!

I think GW should take note of this and make future edition so that you move from the center of the vehicle. That way pivoting would still not be movement, and it would make the system straightforward. For now though? I think I'll play by option B merely because A doesn't seem right to me.

Oh, and the purpose of my earlier question Gwar was not so you could say "Oh, I might be luring you." It was to get you and everyone else to admit that you end up farther away from your deployment zone than if you didn't start sideways, thus proving my point that something is wonky. Blarg!

Because everyone should fear the horror that is spawned when I attempt graphics works, and I really don't understand the opposing position. Let me know if this should be moved to its own thread, even though I think it's a related question.

Rhino #1:

Rhino #2:


The rhino pictured in the diagram is Marneus Calgar's new Ultra-rhino which gets to go 27" (as fast as necessary for the diagram ). The red path and the dots show the position of the center of the rhino as it goes across the board.

In this situation, the blue rhino is starting out south of the monolith and attempting to drive around it. Each dot along the path is the vehicle moving one inch forward. So, as I understand it, in both diagram 1 and diagram 2, the rhino turns right, moves 5" forward, turns left, moves 12" forward, turns left, moves 5" forward, turns right, and then moves 5" forward, for a total of 27".

What I can't figure out is how far the opponents of "pivot over the deployment zone and then move an addition 12 inches forward" think that the rhinos in diagram 1 and diagram 2 have moved. (For simplicity, assume that rhino's a perfect 2x4, even though the diagram shows the rhinos slightly bigger than that.) Can anyone explain to me how the distance is supposed to be measured, and what the total distance is?

They ought to have both moved the same distance (27") as dictated by their movement speed (Marneus Calgar HUUUURRRRR :p).

If you were to move the rhino, pivot then begin measuring again from the front armor after pivoting then you would catch a few more inches due to the difference between side and front armor lengths.

This is not what we are supposed to do (in my opinion and from the rules on pages 12 and 57) since that would be counting the pivot for the purposes of movement, which it shouldn't be. Instead, simply measure the distance around the monolith (tracing out the path you desire) until you hit the maximum distance traveled, then place the rhino with no part of its hull past that point in any orientation you choose.

I'm still confused because as far as I can tell, the rules only provide for a vehicle to pivot on the spot and move backward and forward.

So, in order to execute the movement in diagram one in accordance with "pivoting across the deployment line and then measuring 12" forward is more than 12" of travel", the sequence breaks down to:

1. Rotate the tank 90 degrees right and then measure out so that the rhino's center moves forward 5 inches. At this point, the rhino's front has moved 6", so the rhino has moved six inches.
2. Now, rotate the tank 90 left, and measure out so that the rhino's center moves forward 12 inches. At this point, the rhino's front has moved an addition 13".
3. Rotate the tank 90 left, and again measure so that the center moves forward 5 inches. Again, six inches of movement.
4. Rotate the tank 90 to the right, and measure so that the center moves forward 5 inches. Again, six inches of movement because of the turn.

So, the rhino's speed in Diagram 1 would have been 31" to traverse the 27" path specified. To suggest otherwise implies that there's some distinction between intermediate measurements of distance and the final measurement of distance.

Otherwise, if I take the Monolith and the 5" detours out, both the forward facing rhino and the sideways facing rhino travel at the exact same speed in order to reach the exact same position (17"), despite the fact that in Diagram 2 the rhino's side in the initial position is 18" from the final position of the rhino's front.

Solkan, the issue is that non-circular vehicles can end up with portions travelling further than 12". Check out this diagram I made earlier:



Both battlewagons have been deployed along the Pitched Battle 12" line - the left one sideways and the right one frontways. In the Ork player's movement phase, the right one pivots forward and moves 12", and the left one just moves forward 12". Despite the fact that they were deployed the same distance "back", the one on the left moves "further". Pretty much everyone (besides Slackermagee) agrees this is allowable with the rules and are just disagreeing on if this is a dirty trick or not.

Slackermagee's position seems to be that no part of a vehicle can move more than 12", but that's not supported by the rules.

Your both measuring a bit wrong here, I think. Look at Page 12, you need to measure from one side of the tank and at the end of movement no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured.

Pivoting, turning, rotating, dancing, and prancing all occur rather ambiguously on the way to the destination. Final placement/orientation is up to you as long as you don't place the model farther than it can move.

Measuring center to center and front to front are the same thing. A 12" line is a 12" line, no matter how you displace it.

"no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured. " is something that I can't find in the rules.

Slackermagee wrote:Your both measuring a bit wrong here, I think. Look at Page 12, you need to measure from one side of the tank and at the end of movement no part of the tank may be farther away from the original side than what was measured.

Pivoting, turning, rotating, dancing, and prancing all occur rather ambiguously on the way to the destination. Final placement/orientation is up to you as long as you don't place the model farther than it can move.

Can you quote a rule that says no part may move further than the part you measured from in the rules. You also fail to address the points on center to center measuring which is also supported by the rules.

Pivoting "ALONE" does not use up any movement, and pivoting does not COST you any movement, however, nothing in the rules allow you to gain extra movement.

you have a maximum movement allowed, and that is measured before you start your move. if any part of your vehicle is beyond its maximum move you have violated that vehicles movement rules in some way shape or form.



and here you have it, there is no penalty for pivoting, but there is no benefit either. Please show me in the rules where it says you can pivot before the start of your move.


Tank shock is a separate case where it specifically allows you to pivot before starting your move. This is because tank shock requires a specific distance moved to be declared before the move itself is made. You must pivot and declare before moving so that you run the risk of missing a key model, or accidentally running over the meltagun-guy who can DoG.

Actually your examples are exactly opposite of what the rules say. You pivot from the centre not the side or corner. Then you measure from the unit and move. Instantly giving you 2-3 extra inches of movement at the expense of exposing your side armor.

**edit**

oops sorry 2 is correct

in 1 you pivot then measure from the point
2 just a standard move
3 is correct you are just measuring from the middle of the unit to the front.

Technically I guess you could do this with calv and bike bases too as you can freely rotate it anytime during the movement phase.

@demogerg Your diagram simply doesnt work. To start with, vehicles pivot around their center point. Next, your second picture illustrates how NOT to pivot. What if that vehicle in your second diagrm then drove backwards? its already pivoted correctly according to your rules, so it should be able to drive either forward or backwards from that point........


We measure movement from the hull, at the moment we are moving the vehicle. Trying to pick some starter position to measure from breaks down as soon as we look at moevement that is not in a straight line.

Picture a cluttered table, units terrain etc scattered about. A vehicle is going to move in a curve around and through some objects to the right. It pivots slightly to the right and moves 3". It then pivots and moves 4". It then pivots har and moves 3" more, then pivots and moves 2". Wouldnt most people measure from the front of the vehicle just before it moves each time?

Yet the suggestions here are to measure from the original footprint of the model.


Take a land raider model, mark its position on the table. Pivot it a bit to its right, say 20-30 degrees. Notice that the fron of the vehicle is now behind the point where the edge of the right track was at the start. Following the normal rules we would measure from the current frobt of the LR....following the ideas some are expressing here we would need to start measuring from out where the corner of the LR was originally. So the LR could be shoved forward almost an inch before we would start measuring any movement for it.....



Sliggoth

Demogerg's red dots are not pivots but points to measure from and to

Norade wrote:

Can you quote a rule that says no part may move further than the part you measured from in the rules.

The diagram on pg 12! The only thing this diagram covers is that the model (any part of it) should not be placed past the point measured up to. This diagram does not say where on a vehicle you should measure from. The only rule I can find on where to measure from on a vehicle, is that because vehicles don't have bases you should measure from the hull

You can argue that the diagram shows measuring front to front just as well as I can argue that the diagram shows measuring from the hull in the direction of intended travel.

So my tank is on the southern deployment line facing east.

I want to move north.

RAW I must measure BEFORE I move. RAW Pivoting on the spot only counts as not moving when the pivot is done alone (ie without any other movement action). As I intend to move then my pivot counts as movement and I must measure first

So I measure 12" from my tanks hull in the direction of intended movement. I measure from the point on my model that face's the direction I intend to move (my tanks left hand side)

I then begin my move by pivoting to face north, then move up to the measured point.

Because of this no point of my tank is further then 12" away from the deployment line.

That as far as I am concerned is RAW. So option A would be cheating no extra distance can be obtained in this way because you must measure before moving.

But then.........

Because there are no rules that say you must measure from the pivot point, or that when changing direction you must measure before the pivot the following becomes possible.

Measure your Planck length in the direction your facing (east in my example) and move it, then pivot then measure the maximum distance allowed by the speed your moving at - Planck length, and move that.

Of course at the scale of table top gaming a Planck length becomes irrelevant, so you end up with paradox. A is impossible RAW, but something that looks exactly like A becomes possible. So screw it you might as well just play A, I have changed my mind again.

Bang, you were right at first, the reason why A is not possible is because you measure the entire path before you move.

IE, you do not measure, move, pivot, remeasure, move etc.

what you do is measure, then move+pivot as you need. So in this situation you would measure 1 Planck to the side and 11.99999999999999999999999999~ inches forward, mark that spot, then move the 1 planck, pivot 90 degrees, and move the remaining distance previously measured.

Demogerg wrote:Bang, you were right at first, the reason why A is not possible is because you measure the entire path before you move.

IE, you do not measure, move, pivot, remeasure, move etc.

what you do is measure, then move+pivot as you need. So in this situation you would measure 1 Planck to the side and 11.99999999999999999999999999~ inches forward, mark that spot, then move the 1 planck, pivot 90 degrees, and move the remaining distance previously measured.

I was aware and had considered this, as far as I am aware I was the first person who bought up the whole pivoting is movement and so you must measure first argument back on page 5 and have held an internal monologue with myself for a few days now about how pivoting mid move effects this.

I personal think A is filthy and cheating and I wouldn't do it myself (or the thing that looks like it)

Its just the rules for measuring movement are very vague. All they say on the subject is that you can change your mind about where your moving after you have measured. They don't say you have to measure the the whole movement path in one go, they dont even say that you HAVE to measure the path at all. Personally I think they should and it seems like common sense to do it that way but unfortunately they don't.

The "no pivot" side really makes no sense. By your logic, pivoting would actually be moving at combat speed because the front of the tank moves.

The rules have worked the option A way (or also option B, which is the same thing) for a long time. The only way to change it would be to make all measurements from the center point of the vehicle (sorry Demogerg, your method is incorrect and way too inconsistent to be supported under any rule set).

thebetter1: Your side makes no sense logically, how can a vehicle move faster by starting perpendicular to its direction of travel?

And no, my logic goes by RAW, pivoting ALONE does not count as movement, if you pivot but make no other moves then you count as not moving. the rules may or may not have worked as option A in 3rd and 4th edtions, but here in 5th, they work how logically they should, vehicles can move their maximum distance and thats it, no magical free inches for bending the rules.

and measuring from the center point would be option A all over again. I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of the movement rules.

and my "way" is not incorrect, its very consistant, and its completely supported by this ruleset. Your "way" is completely wrong, the rules do not say you can gain movement from turning, so you cant. Gwar!, dont try and interrupt with more perceved distance moved vs actual distance moved, that argument is flawed because you measure before you begin your move, and the pivot is done during the move, not before measuring.

Here's my final attempt to illuminate the issue under "discussion."




1. Example A shows a rhino moving straight forward 12". Everyone seems to agree that this is OK.

2. Example B is the exact same situation as example A except that the vehicle pivoted 90 degrees at the end of its move. It has magically "lost" an inch of movement. I think most people accept this one as well.

3. Example C is similar to example B except the vehicle slid to regain the lost inch. This violates RAW, but some seem to think this works because no part of the vehicle is more than 12" from the start position. Unless it pivots again...

4. Example D is the same as A. The rhino moved 12" and maintains facing. I see people moving vehicle sideways like this in order to speed up play when there is no intervening terrain that needs to be maneuvered around. By strict RAW you can't actually slide sideways, but by pivoting once at the start of the move and again at the end you achieve the same thing.

5. Example E. This is the same as D except the vehicle maintains its facing from moving. It stays rotated at the end of its move and "gained" an inch. E is functionally the same as D. The vehicle in D pivots twice. In E it only pivots once. If D works for you E must as well as they are the same. This one is the crux of the issue because it generates the perception of gained distance.

Arschbombe wrote:This thread is amazing. I didn't realize so many flatearthers played 40k.

^ This.

The fact that someone can say, with a straight face, "Sure, pivoting doesn't reduce your movement. But if you pivot then you can't move/measure as far!" just blows my mind.

@Arschbombe -Great diagrams!
I voted 'A' because each one of your movement diagrams is a legal move.
Good work on illustrating the various moves.

A. True, obviously.
B. True, as per pg. 12. You measured from your start point, and the ensuing pivots were part of your move. You didn't lose any move due to the fact that if you were facing forward you would still be on the front line.
C. False. To reach such a point, after you measured, the front of your vehicle would have had to end up MORE than 12" away, then pivoted back. Again, slacker and demo have it. Measure your move from your current position, then any ensuing pivots are part of that move. A pivot alone is not a move as stated by the rules. A pivot followed by forward or backward movement is movement.
D. False for the same reason C is. The vehicle should end in the same position as either A or B.
E. False for the same reason C is, but actually showing it.

Movement sequence:
1. Choose a movement path.
2. Measure it.
3. Move the vehicle, using any pivots desired at any point, as long as the vehicle is always moving either forwards, or backwards. No omni-directional wheels here. The move may end with a pivot as well, however you would end up behind the maximum move line as you arrived there moments before with the front of your vehicle.

Summary:
1. Demo's chart shows why option A is wrong (PLEASE note the red dots aren't pivot points, but points of reference for measurement.)
2. Pivoting isn't movement. Pivoting followed by forward or rearward mvoement IS.

Arschbombe wrote:Here's my final attempt to illuminate the issue under "discussion."




1. Example A shows a rhino moving straight forward 12". Everyone seems to agree that this is OK.

2. Example B is the exact same situation as example A except that the vehicle pivoted 90 degrees at the end of its move. It has magically "lost" an inch of movement. I think most people accept this one as well.

3. Example C is similar to example B except the vehicle slid to regain the lost inch. This violates RAW, but some seem to think this works because no part of the vehicle is more than 12" from the start position. Unless it pivots again...

4. Example D is the same as A. The rhino moved 12" and maintains facing. I see people moving vehicle sideways like this in order to speed up play when there is no intervening terrain that needs to be maneuvered around. By strict RAW you can't actually slide sideways, but by pivoting once at the start of the move and again at the end you achieve the same thing.

5. Example E. This is the same as D except the vehicle maintains its facing from moving. It stays rotated at the end of its move and "gained" an inch. E is functionally the same as D. The vehicle in D pivots twice. In E it only pivots once. If D works for you E must as well as they are the same. This one is the crux of the issue because it generates the perception of gained distance.

I think there's a gray area in the rules here. Deconstructing it:

#1 - "Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model."

Simple enough to understand.

#2 - "Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round."

Also simple enough to understand, and also leading to some interesting conclusions - for example, if you've got two vehicles that are touch each other front to back, neither can turn until they've moved forward enough to be able to turn without touching each other.

#3 - "Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."

Here's where the issue rests, I think. Turning doesn't reduce the move. However, it doesn't say that it can increase the move, either. It doesn't say how to measure the "maximum move" either. We aren't told where to measure the move from or when to measure it. The issue is IMNSHO, quite conclusively a gray area not addressed by the rules.

#4 - "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however,
immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

Not really applicable to this situation.

#5 - "Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

In conjunction with #2, leads to that interesting conclusion I mentioned.

The only other thing in the rules that applies is in the ramming section...and GW drew the diagram to make it useless in figuring out this situation (since the original position was done so that it was exactly the same distance from the target as the turned distance).

My conclusion: RAW doesn't help here, since the answer is gray. Default to the "give the action taker the least advantage."

FYI - this issue will be addressed in the next INAT, and I can't remember what answer we came up with. Still waiting for Yak to finalize the copy, so I can't remember if I was in the majority or not.

Consider the following:

1) Moving staright ahead 12"...and then pivotiing slightly to try and turn your front armor straight at an enemy. If this is only a slight turn, the front corner of the vehicle will now be further forward then 12". So the pivot isnt allowed under this interpretation of the rules? But pivots are always allowed specfically by the rules since pivoting isnt movement.

2) Pivot a rectangular vehicle slightly. Its front is now behind the point where its right corner was just a moment ago. Does this mean that the vehicle can move 12.5" straight ahead?

3) Expand on that idea. Pivot a necron monolith 45 degrees. The front end is now about 2" behind where the corner was.....how far can the monolith move and where are you measuring its movement from?

4) Move a BA rhino in a curve around an obstacle to get to the other side of a piece of terrain. It has to pivot 4-6 times during its movement. Somehow we are supposed to measure this movement all from its starting postion?


This idea of measuring from a starting position looks fine as long as only a 90 degree turn and then straight movement is considered. For other pivots and nonlinear movement this idea begins to create ridiculous situations.



Sliggoth