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 think is very illegal. Like the previous poster said, skimmers and flyers only. Ive seen guys do that with tanks but they clearly are stated that they must PIVOT on SPOT and then move. If they pivot into a wall or something then its a dangerous terrain test.

They cant just simply move sideways to avoid it.

Whether vehicles can move sideways is ambiguous in the rules. By default the basic infantry movement rules apply to all other unit types, except where those unit types tell you they work differently. Infantry can move sideways or in any direction. The vehicle rules tell us that vehicles can combine forward and backward movement, which implies that maybe they can't move sideways, but they don't come out and say that explicitly. I've seen it played both ways, though most commonly as not allowing sideways.

I agree with Mannahnin.

Though not stated outright, it is heavily implied that vehicles can only move backwards and forwards.

This has the added bonus of negating the "infinite movement"-trick that the No-crowd uses as a scare tactic.

Which is negated already by the requirement to pivot around the centre.

The very beginning of the rules for vehicles states that vehicles follow the other rules for units, except where the vehicle rules change things (very bad paraphrase on my part but my brb isnt here at the moment). This is what gives strength to the idea that the later wording on vehicles moving forward and backwards places a limitation on how vehicles may move.



Sliggoth

Except where they *specify* otherwise. Being told you can combine forwards and back movement doesnt alter that you are initially given permission to move in any idrection (infantry), and does not specifically state otherwise

Right, thats one of the readings of how those two rules apply.

The other is that since the vehicle rules specify that vehicles can move forward and/ or backwards, then thats how they can move.




Either seems to be a valid interpretation given the minimal information in the brb. However, allowing vehicles to be moved in any direction regardless of orientation does create some strange possible situtations then in tank shock/ rams. Tank shocks do have slightly different rules yet for movement...but if vehicles can be moved in any direction regardless of orientation then we do have a problem. Since pivots can be taken at any time during movement, there is then no reason that a tank shocking vehicle cannot pivot during a tank shock--- under this reading of the rules.

There are convoluted ways to argue that tank shocking vehicles cannot pivot, altho the simple answer to the tank shock problem is to simply follow the idea that the vehicle rule telling us that vehicles can move forward and backward is indeed a limitation imposed on vehicles.


Sliggoth

man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

I don't see why people get so hung up on moving sideways. As long as you are not going through other models, what is the difference between:

a. pivoting model to face "travel" direction
b. moving model said amount of distance
c. pivoting back to original facing

vs.

a. move model said amount of distance

As for the rest, I am just of the opinion now that if you consider gaining extra movement off of pivoting, you just don't have a good grasp of geometry. I would put it on par with people who say the probability of rolling 5 dice and getting all 1's is greater than rolling a 1 on the same die 5 times in a row.

totentanzen wrote:man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

then dont deploy within 26" of the enemy (or 32" with the 12" charge....)

foolishmortal wrote:

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.

And thank you for your interest. Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

totentanzen wrote:man my brother used to use this with his old dark eldar army. He was able to get an assault on first turn because of it with fully upgraded wytches....it was crazy and in my opinion broken

then dont deploy within 26" of the enemy (or 32" with the 12" charge....)

Ok i was a youngin back then and thought it was always best to cram everything to the front line.... i didn't really think much back then ha

Just to get this clear in my head is this the situation we are saying?

Distance A and Distance B are the same but in the top example the vehicle starts facing perpendicular to its axis of movement, measures its move from the side of the hull moves sideways for distance A then pivots the front around and ends up slightly over the line.

B simply drives forward measuring the distance from the front of the hull?

Your beginning and end situations are correct for A and B. For A, instead of moving sideways, you
1) pivot 90 (pivot on center of vehicle)
2) travel forward full move

edit : the question at hand is whether or not A has broken any rules. Read the post for rules citations and tell us what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

No problem. 9 times out of 10 I either enjoy people's snarkiness or just smile and move on. That tenth time, my own snarkiness reacts to set up some sort of snarkiness reverberation field and I end up saying something quite funny or something that I regret. Or both.

foolishmortal wrote:Your beginning and end situations are correct for A and B. For A, instead of moving sideways, you
1) pivot 90 (pivot on center of vehicle)
2) travel forward full move

edit : the question at hand is whether or not A has broken any rules. Read the post for rules citations and tell us what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:Sorry about the snarkiness and not quoting the most recent incarnation of this one.

No problem. 9 times out of 10 I either enjoy people's snarkiness or just smile and move on. That tenth time, my own snarkiness reacts to set up some sort of snarkiness reverberation field and I end up saying something quite funny or something that I regret. Or both.

Yeh I have read the posts mate, it just seemed there was a bit of confusion as to what actually was being done to get the extra movement I think it is the A case.

The way you say A is I think the correct and legal way, i.e. you must point in the direction of travel, A as I have drawn it is I think "not cricket" as it requires the vehicle to move sideways and gains you a small bit of extra distance travelled.

The point is it doesnt matter what you do; if you are sideways, and pivot 90 degrees, you gain displacement in one direction whether you do the pivot at the beginning or end.

Yeh I am seeing that, it's why I asked as I couldn't see how you were really gaining anything.

I suppose if you deploy sideways it could be seen as a bit cheesey without being actually illegal.

I feel it important to note that it states you "turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point". The wording clearly indicates you will never actually be moving the model and turning it at the same time. Instead you stop so you can "pivot on the spot" and then resume moving in the desired facing. Each time you do this though the relative positions of the vehicles sides by which you are measuring the vehicles movement will all change in relation to their points of origin so to get an accurate measure of the total movement every move in a different facing should be measured separately and totaled.

"You can pivot any number of times while moving" (is the rough quote) - you dont stop moving, pivot, resume moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"You can pivot any number of times while moving" (is the rough quote) - you dont stop moving, pivot, resume moving.

Yes and it says you do so by "pivoting on the spot". This indicates the player must halt the models movement to change it's facing.

The words your looking for are
"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model"
The very next sentance says
"Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than ‘wheeling’ round"

A spot being a single point to change the models facing from which the player may then resume measuring out the models movement. They may do this as my times as they like.

If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement.

"If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement."


LOL if you want to get silly you can do this you are just pivoting an infinite amount of times over an infinite amount of "spots" as your moving.

Magpie wrote:"If a player turns the model while moving it across the battle field at the same time then they are not "pivoting on the spot" they are pivoting over a line which is against the RAW and does not allow for a proper measurement of movement."


LOL if you want to get silly you can do this you are just pivoting an infinite amount of times over an infinite amount of "spots" as your moving.

Yes, you could do that so long as you measure and tally the total move between each 'spot' you're legit. Of course getting that opponent to play with you again might be hard after you took an hour to move one model. Especially if your moving in a straight line where you could just move the model in the original facing to where you want it to be and then turn for your final facing for the same end effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as moving sideways I don't thingk it's possible to drift a Land Raider but the rules don't say you can't so I'd let it slide.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

That doesn't tell you it's intended. There are two possibilities outside of it being intended, both of which appear to me to be plausible. One, they were unaware of the specific rule issue by means of oversight or lack of specific complaints. Two, they are aware of the issue but could not craft a rule with language that specifically barred this exploit without affecting the language in some other undesirable way. In either case, the rule could be unintended.

rigeld2 wrote:

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 is correct. I expressed that poorly.

On page 12 of the rulebook, you get a diagram that looks something like this



The accompanying description is something to this effect:

The top picture is an incorrect way to move your models. The bottom picture is the correct way to move your models. When moving your model, do not place the model on the far side of the tape measure (as in the top picture). Place your model such that the far side touches the end of the tape measure (bottom picture). While this is not a significant difference for small base models, when using a large base model such as a Rhino, "it might almost double the move."

My interpretation of this rule is as follows. First, notice the interest from GW in controlling movement distances. They recognize that adding the length of a base is a significant addition to the listed movement distance. Second, the actual diagram itself illustrates a translation movement. While I don't think this limits your ability to negotiate impassable terrain and negotiate it accordingly, I think it is intended to illustrate that the maximum distance you are intended to cover is represented by the max distance allowed in a movement as measured by a translated model, end to end, both ends being identical.

However, page 11 in the BRB says that you are allowed to turn your models in any direction during the actual move. This means that you can turn your model while negotiating the actual movement. The same section also says that models can be turned at any time during the shooting phase. It also says, however, that moving your models during the movement phase does not affect "the distance they are able to cover," e.g. as measured by translation of the model, end-to-end, as previously established. This means that you can turn as you like during the actual move, but for purposes of determining the total move distance, the model must be placed the total move distance as measured end-to-end from a translation movement, as per the diagram. No turning shenanigans can affect your total move distance.

Interpreted in the preceding fashion, the rules now establish that you can turn sideways before the start of the turn, ending it also facing sideways. In the subsequent shooting phase, you could turn the model to face lengthwise. Technically this means that you have covered a greater distance, however, if you think about it, not only is this legal in RAW, but it isn't even a greater distance covered than if you had simply translated the model across the same distance while facing lengthwise, since the distance covered by the end of the turn in the shooting phase would be exactly the same as the distance between the models end to end facing lengthwise. This is consistent with the rules as intended revealed on page 12, because the author clearly states that the difference between measuring ends on a base, even when it is a trivial amount, affects the distance measured and has to be controlled to prevent abuse when moving models with large bases. The same principle applies here. The only thing we are prohibiting here is the ability to measure from the end of a base different from the farthest end at the start of the motion, which is not specifically allowed anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magpie wrote:Just to get this clear in my head is this the situation we are saying?

Distance A and Distance B are the same but in the top example the vehicle starts facing perpendicular to its axis of movement, measures its move from the side of the hull moves sideways for distance A then pivots the front around and ends up slightly over the line.

B simply drives forward measuring the distance from the front of the hull?

That diagram is inaccurate because the bottom example does not begin at the same position as the top example. Rather than measuring from the center pivot point to determine whether the models were at the same distance, you just put them on the same starting point. If you pivot the top example and then translate the same move, you would get the same distance covered as in the top example.

e.g. it should look more like this

TedNugent wrote:That doesn't tell you it's intended. There are two possibilities outside of it being intended, both of which appear to me to be plausible. One, they were unaware of the specific rule issue by means of oversight or lack of specific complaints. Two, they are aware of the issue but could not craft a rule with language that specifically barred this exploit without affecting the language in some other undesirable way. In either case, the rule could be unintended.

Fourteen years of Grand Tournaments, Games Days, etc. Makes the chance of number one being true so minute it doesn't even bear consideration.

Number two also doesn't stand up. If they know it is in the game and it was not fixed, then it is intentionally in the game. Its not like they're looking for a cure for cancer.

Why is it ignored that you must turn by "pivoting on the spot about their centre-point" according to the RAW? As in you turn, move a bit, turn, move a bit turn, etc. as many times as you like. You measure each move and keep the total under your max movement.

TedNugent wrote:My interpretation of this rule is as follows. First, notice the interest from GW in controlling movement distances. They recognize that adding the length of a base is a significant addition to the listed movement distance. Second, the actual diagram itself illustrates a translation movement. While I don't think this limits your ability to negotiate impassable terrain and negotiate it accordingly, I think it is intended to illustrate that the maximum distance you are intended to cover is represented by the max distance allowed in a movement as measured by a translated model, end to end, both ends being identical.

You're still confusing movement with displacement. You should stop doing that. Once you do, you realize that we are 100% in agreement that you cannot move more than your allowed movement. You'd also understand why the pivot trick works and why longer vehicles gain more distance.

TedNugent wrote:[That diagram is inaccurate because the bottom example does not begin at the same position as the top example. Rather than measuring from the center pivot point to determine whether the models were at the same distance, you just put them on the same starting point. If you pivot the top example and then translate the same move, you would get the same distance covered as in the top example.

yes it SHOULD look like your example but what I was asking is it the A case where the vehicle moves sideways, measuring it's distance from side of hull start to side of hull end then turns to face front, thus gaining a bit.

I wasn't suggesting what you should do it , rather asking if CASE A is how people move to cheat the extra distance.

Seems funny to me that you would allow a tracked vehicle to move sideways, but maybe not so for a skimmer.

Magpie wrote:yes it SHOULD look like your example but what I was asking is it the A case where the vehicle moves sideways, measuring it's distance from side of hull start to side of hull end then turns to face front, thus gaining a bit.

I wasn't suggesting what you should do it , rather asking if CASE A is how people move to cheat the extra distance.

Seems funny to me that you would allow a tracked vehicle to move sideways, but maybe not so for a skimmer.

It's not "cheating" the extra distance. It's a different displacement.

And please, for the love of the Emperor, stop trying to apply real world physics to 40k rules. It does not work out in your favor.

Point is tho' is the example case A I drew they way the additional displacement or what ever is gained?

Magpie wrote:Point is tho' is the example case A I drew they way the additional displacement or what ever is gained?

It's one way. Or, you pivot before moving, then move. Same end result with less "sideways" movement.