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 voted B, but i dont recall ever getting onto people about measuring their movement. I generally just start measuring at a feature(sometimes a dozer blade or the turret) on the vehicle and move from there.

If it came down to it i would probably argue against option A simple because the vehicles isn't making "a hard right", it is literally pivoting on the spot and still traveling and impressive distance considering it was pointing the wrong direction to begin with. Try this in your own car next time your in the wal-mart parking lot, just rev a little and kick that 90 degree turn with no forward movement.

This kind of movement is wholly unrealistic and while i know some think its a game and logic shouldnt be taken into account, I still believe the rules that are written are done so they resemble how things actually could/should happen.

First, I will point this out. Even if RAW say this is possible, from a purely logical, realistic standpoint it doesn't make sense as a vehicle performing a turn before moving doesn't move farther than if it just gunned it off the line. (Though it would be funny to see someone in NASCAR try this. )

Sliggoth wrote: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

First of all, the corner of a vehicle gaining an inch or so on a final pivot is fine. IMO, we've finally distilled the subjective view of the situation down. If you measure from your initial point, move forward 12", then pivot, there's no problem. It's when you pivot first, take that new position as your starting position, and then measure that we see a problem.

You do bring up a good point though. The practicality of following this rule on complex movements becomes difficult to measure. But isn't that true of regular movement as well? Repeated measurements, pivoting, and movement will throw human error into how far you move. But, measuring multiple times during the vehicles movement is certainly no more complicated than doing the measuring beforehand before you have to start reaching your tape measure around your vehicle and the obstalce. So I'd say it's a moot point, even if we did throw practicality into this argument.

tanks on tracks can pivot on the spot - one side goes forwards the other goes in reverse and the tank is doing 360's without moving any where.

i decide to spin my Chimera on the spot 6 times - how far has it moved??

0

Pvt. Jet wrote:

First of all, the corner of a vehicle gaining an inch or so on a final pivot is fine. IMO, we've finally distilled the subjective view of the situation down. If you measure from your initial point, move forward 12", then pivot, there's no problem. It's when you pivot first, take that new position as your starting position, and then measure that we see a problem.

Except the position of the pro-B party cannot accept this, because it leads to exactly the same situation.

You start sidewise against the deployment line, move 12", then pivot. Your nose is probably 14-15" away from where you started. It's exactly as if you had pivoted first.

No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

whitedragon wrote:

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

So nobody wants to respond to my deconstruction of the rules?

Centurian99 wrote:
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.

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.

Well yeah if there wasn't a grey area this thread wouldn't have ran to 9 pages. I look forward to see what you decided in your INAT out of interest what is your opinion on how it should be played?

Gwar! wrote:The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

Bangbangboom wrote:And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

As pointed out, all I have to do is move a planck length in the direction I am facing, and then pivot, so that argument doesn't hold any water.

Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

whitedragon wrote:Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

Measuring from the front gets you in the same exact position. This is basic geometry.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

Measuring from the front gets you in the same exact position. This is basic geometry.

Basic Euclidean geometry! Get it right silly! But yeah, measuring from center or from front doesn't change anything.

whitedragon wrote:

Norade wrote:

Demogerg wrote:No, its not, as long as you measure before you make that first pivot. Hence why my diagrams illustrate measuring points and not pivot points with red dots.

I'm still going to play measuring center hull to center hull and satisfy all rules requirements as listed in the book. As far as my measuring, and thus the rules, are concerned my vehicle still only moved 12" no mater where the front, sides, or any other part beyond the center ends up.

Measuring center to center goes against the diagram on page 12. The rulebook clearly shows measuring front to front.

The diagram shows one thing, and the rules say simply 'hull'. We know that diagrams for 40k aren't always correct so we use both, in this case front to front was simply an example.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:And some people seem to feel they can start their movement with a pivot and then measure the distance they are going to travel.

As pointed out, all I have to do is move a planck length in the direction I am facing, and then pivot, so that argument doesn't hold any water.

Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

The vehicle doesn't lose anything it just seems it did that argument works both ways so is invalid.

I have supported both views as you can read yourself, the fact is until GW clarify whether you can measure > move > pivot > measure > move > pivot ...... or you must measure the whole path in one go we will never know.

The whole I can't be wrong because I have played it this way for 3 editions and GW have had 3 editions to tell me I am wrong so I must be right argument doesn't hold up.

It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A (which is the RaW), is not RaW.

You can, of course, House Rule to your hearts content, but it won't be the RaW.

And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A (which is the RaW), is not RaW.

You can, of course, House Rule to your hearts content, but it won't be the RaW.

And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

I think that is the best we're going to get here and the closest we'll come to an agreement would have to be based around it.

Gwar! wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:It has to be a house rule because RAW can be played both ways depending on how you measure, any chance you can accept that?

No, not really, because the RaW can't be played both ways. It is played one way, and that is Option A. RaW stands for Rules as Written, not Rules as I think they are Written.

The RaW says Pivoting does not reduce move. Therefore, any "interpretation" that causes the vehicle to move less than Option A, is not RaW.

So can you tell me where in the rule book it tells you how to measure the movement path of a vehicle, or any model for that mater. Because I don't think it has one and as both measuring systems produce separate results and both have valid arguments you have to have a house rule.

But I can see your not a man to change your mind so I feel I am probably wasting my time.

Bangbangboom wrote:So can you tell me where in the rule book it tells you how to measure the movement path of a vehicle, or any model for that mater.

Yes, page 12. That shows you how to measure movement. The rules also say you can rotate or pivot at any point during your move and that to do so does not reduce your move. You therefore measure 6" forward, rotate, then measure 6" forward again.

But I can see your not a man to change your mind so I feel I am probably wasting my time.

Not at all. I can, and do, change my mind.

You just have to actually show that what you are talking about is correct. So far, not a single one of your arguments have persuaded me otherwise, mainly because none of them follow the RaW.

Gwar! wrote:
And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Jesus you edit your posts loads after posting.

But the loss isn't real, you just perceive that way.

Bangbangboom wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
And the argument is not invalid valid (woops double negative there). The RaW say the Pivot does not reduce move. This is written and indisputable. The RaW do NOT say it can increase move, so it cannot. Therefore, any perceived gain HAS to be imaginary, as it cannot actually gain anything from Pivoting, the "gain" is how far the vehicle is meant to move anyway. Any loss on the other hand, IS real, since the rules say that it cannot reduce the move, and by saying that pivoting causes anything except Option A is to say Pivoting reduces the move.

Jesus you edit your posts loads after posting.

But the loss isn't real, you just perceive that way.

It doesn't work that way though, any loss is real, any gain can't be real as the rules say that you are not supposed to lose any movement. They also say you may pivot as much as you like while moving. Thus anything over 12" is pivot and not actually movement. Where as anything under is a loss and you must move to correct it if you're going for full movement.

Bangbangboom wrote:
Well yeah if there wasn't a grey area this thread wouldn't have ran to 9 pages. I look forward to see what you decided in your INAT out of interest what is your opinion on how it should be played?

Out of respect to the rest of the committee, I'll let the INAT speak for itself when we release it.

Gwar! wrote:The rulebook also says that Pivoting does not reduce a vehicles move, but for some reason THAT rule doesn't matter to some people.

As I said, the difficulty comes because the rulebook doesn't tell you when to measure, which is what makes RAW unable to resolve the question.

Gwar! wrote:
Pivoting doesn't say it can increase the vehicles move, so it can't.

It DOES say however that it does NOT decrease it.

Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

Think of it this way. If you take a Land Raider and pivot it on the spot 90 degrees, how far has it moved? 0'' (counts as stationary as well). Nobody openly disputes this.

Now, move the Land Raider forward 1 inch. How far has it moved? The pivot crowd says 1 inch. The no pivot crowd says somewhere around 2 inches. Somewhere between the pivot and the forward movement people are arguing that an extra inch is added to the total distance traveled.

There is also the issue about moving sideways. The no pivot crowd makes their entire case based on the assumption that it is illegal to move sideways. However, the rules for moving vehicles inherit from those for moving infantry, and infantry are able to move sideways. Vehicles have no restriction against moving sideways, only reaffirmed permission to move forwards and backwards (note that it lacks a clause allowing "pivot movement" too). If the rules do not inherit in this way, the case is even more moot because the diagram on page 12 must not apply.

And the wonderful thing about the diagram on page 12 is that you can use it to argue for the ability to move forward seven inches and pivot to the right, resulting in only having moved 5.5". (Measuring from the center of the front of the rhino to the center of the front of the rhino.)

Centurian99 wrote:That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

What else are we meant to use? Bat-signals and Pudding? (Genuinely confused).

Gwar! wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:That's a logical fallacy, GWAR. You're using the rule to prove the rule.

What else are we meant to use? Bat-signals and Pudding? (Genuinely confused).

Hmm...how to explain this. OK, try this. Here's the rule.

"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."

Horribly written rule, but that's what we've got to go with. Replacing it with symbology, we get:

"X" does not reduce the vehicle's "Y." This means that a vehicle may combine "A" and "B" "Y" in the same turn providing that it does not exceed its maximum "Y."

You wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

You're saying that because increasing Y isn't allowed by the rules, any apparent increase in Y is not really an increase in Y, or else it would break the rule. That's a logical fallacy, because it uses the rule to prove itself. Also known as "begging the question."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It's pretty clear that every vehicle has a maximum move. We know that pivoting does not reduce this maximum distance. We also know that we cannot exceed this distance. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to argue differently.

The only question is when do you measure Y? After or before pivoting? As far as I can tell, there's no RAW way to resolve this issue. The RAW doesn't say, and none of the diagrams help either.

Basically, there's two possible answers, each of which has its flaws.
A) You measure from the starting position of the vehicle.
B) You measure post-pivot, but before moving.

By the way...you used the word "subjective" earlier. Neither subjective or objective really applies here, because it all depends on when you calculate the maximum move of the vehicle.

And not directed to you...but whoever was trying to argue that vehicles can move sideways, the rules pretty clearly allow them to move forwards or backwards, but mention nothing about moving sideways. (Walkers, of course, excepted).

Centurian99 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Therefore, this perceived increase in distance cannot be an actual increase. As I said, it is entirely a subjective matter. The Vehicle doesn't gain anything, it just seems it did.

You're saying that because increasing Y isn't allowed by the rules, any apparent increase in Y is not really an increase in Y, or else it would break the rule. That's a logical fallacy, because it uses the rule to prove itself. Also known as "begging the question."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It's pretty clear that every vehicle has a maximum move. We know that pivoting does not reduce this maximum distance. We also know that we cannot exceed this distance. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to argue differently.

The only question is when do you measure Y? After or before pivoting? As far as I can tell, there's no RAW way to resolve this issue. The RAW doesn't say, and none of the diagrams help either.

Basically, there's two possible answers, each of which has its flaws.
A) You measure from the starting position of the vehicle.
B) You measure post-pivot, but before moving.

By the way...you used the word "subjective" earlier. Neither subjective or objective really applies here, because it all depends on when you calculate the maximum move of the vehicle.

And not directed to you...but whoever was trying to argue that vehicles can move sideways, the rules pretty clearly allow them to move forwards or backwards, but mention nothing about moving sideways. (Walkers, of course, excepted).

The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Norade wrote:
The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never found a rule allowing that, and I'd be interested if it exists.

Centurian99 wrote:

Norade wrote:
The thing is no matter when you measure the rules allow you to measure center to center so everything is null anyway as the point to measured from never moved more than x". The diagram shows one way of measuring, but the rules simply say hull so how do you argue against that?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never found a rule allowing that, and I'd be interested if it exists.

"As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull )ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners, and other decorative elements."

Thus you can measure from anywhere on the hull to anywhere on the hull provided the same points are used in both the beginning and the end of the measuring step.