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.

But does turning the raider count as 0" movement towards whatever your direction of travel is?

where are the rules for Wyche Cult? My codex 2nd printing does not have it (unles WC only has elites as wyches)

Posted By Halfpast_Yellow on 10/23/2006 6:21 AM
But does turning the raider count as 0" movement towards whatever your direction of travel is?

Yes.  When I get home I'll have to break out the rulebook and quote it I suppose.

For those of you that sayt hat 12 inches should always be 12 inches, think of this. If you were facing a rhino-rush marine army and he pulled up and turned his rhinos sideways, would you then let the mairne player scoot his rhino an extra inch forwards because of the inch he lost by turning it? I don't think so.

The rules state that you turn about on a point, which is perfectly legal and what is suppose to happen.

Posted By cuda1179 on 10/23/2006 9:28 AM

For those of you that sayt hat 12 inches should always be 12 inches, think of this. If you were facing a rhino-rush marine army and he pulled up and turned his rhinos sideways, would you then let the mairne player scoot his rhino an extra inch forwards because of the inch he lost by turning it? I don't think so.

The rules state that you turn about on a point, which is perfectly legal and what is suppose to happen.

Thar is another bad example. If by pivoting at the end your troops end up in effect moving a bit less of their full legal move because of a tactic why should you be able to move and extra inch. you chosen tactic result in less move movemet to gain a better tactical position. However, why should you be able to gain in effect more than the legal move?

Do you have any idea just how stupid it looks to set a LR purposefully on a table top to have it moving sideways? Everyone knows that the only reason you would do this is only to get an advantage. Funny thing was, talking to others about this issue, it was the shop "rules lawyer" (the one who takes as many advantages from the rules whilst trying to restrict his opponent - that no-one really likes playing against) and one other who thought this was an acceptable tactic. Maybe this is the difference between tournement play and friendly game play? Maybe it is accepptable for a tournement but not something you pull against a friend?

Anyway, like I say, don't play any more, and everytime I think about playing again I just pop into this forum to remind myself why I stopped in the first place.

 

Rules Lawyer (n)

The guy who just caught me cheating.

When you end up with some part of the vehicle more than 12" from where you're measurement started, you've just moved it more than 12". No amount of cheat attempts can make this fact different.
As I said earlier, this whole moving the raider sideways thing is about as silly as the guy who told me his storm shield armed terminaters were hopping sideways in order to get the frontal protection as they ran across lines of fire.
I'll just say this, if you want to try a cheap trick like that, be my guest, you won't find any takers in this area or many others for that kind of game.

'Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about thier center-point, rather than 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move'

(BGB 61)

'As you move models in a unit they can turn by any amount, without any penalty'

(BGB 16)

I think this proves it easily. So I suggest you stop your lies about it being cheating.

So heres a question.

Whats the difference in pivoting before you move, then moving, as opposed to moving then pivoting? Or pivoting before and after the move? or pivoting every inche you move?

Nothing. Because its a pivot. Youre still moving 12" (in the case of assaulting out of the rraider). Now if its a "wheeling" maneuver, then its not legal, but a pivot is. I know this can be abused a couple inches, but they rules say it cannot exceed its max move. Gw should errata this rule stating that the vehicle frontage must point in the direction of its movement before it moves, or something similar.

Here is the rule in case anyone cares, which I suppose they do since this topic has strayed and lasted 4 pages.

Page 61 of the rulebook, third paragraph.

"Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot of their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicles move, but once the movement phase is over they can only turn as described in the shooting phase, to bring weapons to bear if they have not actually moved in the movement phase. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed it maximum move."

No its illegal and here is why. You start at one area sideways. Thats fine, you get to pivot unlimited, that is perfectly fine as well. What you can't do is have a part of the vehicle end up beyond 12" from its start (unless in this example you want the vehicle to move quickly and then not deploy, which isn't the issue so lets carry on) and then claim you only moved 12".

Even if you were to move entirely from side to side IE:
B-----------------------F (imagine this is a raider
|
|
|
|
|
B-----------------------F (end of 12" movement)

This is perfectly fine. However to then do this maneuver:
B
|
|
|
|(12" mark here)
|
F

This is illegitimate, your vehicle moved beyond 12" at this point. You can claim your pivot allowed you to go beyond the 12" barrier while at the same time not technically having moved because you pivoted. But plain and simple a part of your vehicle ended up ahead of 12". If you tried to deploy I'd tell you to move your vehicle back to the 12" limit. I don't deny your ability to pivot limitlessly. Where you are wrong is very simple, the rules for pivoting state that Pivoting does not reduce movement. Thats absolutely true. But that ruled DOES NOT give you brevity to end your vehicle outside of 12".

Simply attempting what you stated above skyth is a rules corruption, no where does it say you can pivot AND end up outside of 12" because of a pivot. Additionally, if you where to pull this on me and you didn't move your vehicle back to 12" Id stop playing you and say I don't play with cheaters.

ATI, how did you feel about the rhino turning sideways that I pointed out a few posts ago? Would you agree that the space marine player should be allowed to scoot his rhino ahead an extra inch?

If you wouldn't allow it, then your logic is flawed. Or do you only allow your opponents to do things that are the least disadvantangous to you?

Posted By cuda1179 on 10/23/2006 8:50 PM

ATI, how did you feel about the rhino turning sideways that I pointed out a few posts ago? Would you agree that the space marine player should be allowed to scoot his rhino ahead an extra inch?

If you wouldn't allow it, then your logic is flawed. Or do you only allow your opponents to do things that are the least disadvantangous to you?

As I said earlier that is a bad example that adds nothing to the debate. Through placement of your vehicle for a tactical reason you end up with a cost of an inch or so. The is nothing stopping you moving the full 12 inch's and coming out the back and sides.

How the heck you try and use this example of taking less as a way to justify taking in effect an extra three or four inch's more than the legal move is beyond me.

And no, it isn't about only allowing least disadvantageous - it is about not allow people to cheat an gain a couple of inch's worth of movement they are not entitled to.

And to paraphrase your last sentence, do you only play against people you can get away with cheating against.

As has all ready been stated, with back-up by the rules, it is not cheating.

 

What I am trying to clarify is that many in this topic have stated that 12 inches should always eqaul 12 inches, the turning should not have anything to do with it. But then they contradict themselves with the marine issue. You can't have it both ways.

Your argument could just as easily be stated by a marine player . He coud say, " the rules state that my rhino can move 12 inches. So the ending point of my vehicle should always be 12 inches away from it's starting point no matter how I turned." how is that any different?

Or, better yet, answer this question:

Hypothetically,  a raider chooses to remain stationary during it's movement faze, but rotates on it's base so that if can fire in the correct direction in the shooting faze. the warriors on board then disembark. Would you force the raider to move backward two inches even though it didn't actually move?

Cuda, what does that have to do with this example? Pivoting doesn't remove movement, but at the same time Cuda where does it say in the rules that pivoting adds to movement? (hint: Its not in the rules)

I wouldn't demand a 2" move back because of a pivot, what I am saying is simply this, anytime a vehicle ends up being more than 12" from its original starting location it counts as moving more than 12" that is as plain text as a ruling can get. If this one is up for grabs, we are all in a load of trouble. Pivoting or otherwise. Pivoting simply states that pivoting does not take away from movement, there is no rule saying that you can use pivot to add to your total movement. If your argument is that the pivot didn't add to the movement.

More properly the rule that controls here is simply this, if you move more than 12" you can't disembark. Now, measure on a line, did your vehicle end up at 12" if so, then you may disembark all you want. If you vehicle ended up further than 12" then you moved more than 12".

Cuda, quite honestly I have no idea how your rhino argument applies to this situation. But rest assured I don't make rules interpretations to benefit myself only. *sarcasm time* Its just I happen to feel I'm right more often than not so the rules tend to go my direction anyways *end sarcasm*

Thats not my intention, if you could clarify your rhino example for me, I'll try and giveyou a better response.

Posted By cuda1179 on 10/23/2006 9:25 PM

Or, better yet, answer this question:

Hypothetically,  a raider chooses to remain stationary during it's movement faze, but rotates on it's base so that if can fire in the correct direction in the shooting faze. the warriors on board then disembark. Would you force the raider to move backward two inches even though it didn't actually move?

now you are just being obtuse.

I will bow out of this argument in testement to your outstanding ability to come out with examples of such convoluted logical thinking you have just crushing my will to continue breathing and contemplate the pointlessness of continuing.

Well, speeking from a purely mathematical standpoint, if you are at the EXACT center of an object, no matter the shape, and turn it, its average distance moved is ZERO. therefor, move 12 inches and rotate. 12 plus ZERO equalls 12.

Plus it is supported by the rules. In the diagram it shows how to turn a vehicle. It says that it can be done at any point in a movement. So, I move twelve inches, then I can turn.

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY what is FORBIDDEN by the rulebook, which in effect is turning about.

What I pointed out was a situation that you completely said was illegal.  a movement (which was zero in that case) followed by a turn that got the vehicle closer to the enemy. That is in no way being obtuse.

Posted By cuda1179 on 10/23/2006 10:01 PM
What I pointed out was a situation that you completely said was illegal.  a movement (which was zero in that case) followed by a turn that got the vehicle closer to the enemy. That is in no way being obtuse.

Well, if it isn't being obtuse it must be being stupid (how about that for bad logic).

If the vehicle moved zero, and pivoted and the troops disembark have the troops inside it moved in effect more than 12 inchs? I hope we can at least agree that the answer to that is no

How in gods name can that in away way apply to the situation being discussed of in effect ending up with you troops moving 14/15 inchs from their starting point (before disembarking rules increase that) when they should be only able to move 12.

The examples you give in no way relate to the problem you are arguing, hence the "being obtuse" comment.

Because pivoting around the center is 0 movement.

But keep up the lie that it's cheating. You know if a lie told often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth.

And just FYI...I don't play Dark Eldar and I would be happy to let someone use this maneuver against me with thier Dark Eldar. After all, it's what the rules say to do. No corruption or cheating involved.

In essence, 12" from point A to point B equals 14" for you.

I'm going to go and put my infantry and jump pack models on large rectangular bases now so when I finish moving them, I'll just turn them to face a different direction and gain and extra inch so I can reach my opponent's models in assault. Facing doesn't matter and putting models on larger bases are just fine, and no one said they had to be circular bases.

Soon, my 6" assault moves will equal 7".

That, what Sarigar just pointed out, is the reason why the strictest of interpretations must be taken for movements of any kind. That is why you simply look at the table for what you can and can't do in the BGB. If you end up having your vehicle beyond the 12" line you count as having moved beyond 12". Simple as that.

Regardless of pivots being 0 movement, which I can concede. But what you don't address Cuda and Skyth is this very plain interpretation of the rules. You are either inside our outside of 12". One allows disembark, the other doesn't for DE raiders.

Posted By Sarigar on 10/24/2006 3:58 AM
In essence, 12" from point A to point B equals 14" for you.

I'm going to go and put my infantry and jump pack models on large rectangular bases now so when I finish moving them, I'll just turn them to face a different direction and gain and extra inch so I can reach my opponent's models in assault. Facing doesn't matter and putting models on larger bases are just fine, and no one said they had to be circular bases.

Soon, my 6" assault moves will equal 7".

Mounting models on larger and/or abnormally shaped bases is perfectly legal. (See Yakface's sig).  I do find using modeling just to gain an advantage distasteful.  There is a difference, though, with an established model (Like a Raider or Rhino)

And 12" of movement can get part of a raider farther than 12", yes.  However, the raider only actually moved 12" as pivots do not count towards movement, so models inside can disembark and then assault.

 

Sktyh, Yakface's sig is being sarcastic. Yakface from what I have been able to discern is completely against using modeling to your advantage and he is commenting on people's willingness to use modeling to be disingenuous in a game.

You can argue the raide only moved12" but if the vehicle actually ends up beyond 12" its past 12". This isn't newtonian physics, its not quantum physics, in this world, measuring items starts from A to B. If that line is beyond 12" then you moved more than 12". No amount of bad math interpretations can get past that. Essentially you are pulling what I call, a Johnson Maneuver.

Less than an inch can amount to the difference between victory and defeat.

- Greenie

@ATI
No, you're wrong. Yak's sig is, by the RAW, a factual statement put there so he doesn't have to keep repeating himself.

The center of the vehicle is all that is concerned for movement. It has only moved 12 inches. That is the point A and Point B. Remember, vehicle models are two dimensional movement wise. As I have all ready pointed out in a previous post any irregular object rotated around its center has a net movement of ZERO. That is MATH. LEARN IT. So even though a model may translocate (technical term to differ from other kinds of movement) 12 inches that is allowed by the rules the rotation of said vehicle does not gain it any additional net movement. Hopefully higher-level math and the english language are able to be grasped here.

But, putting assault marines on rectagular bases would NOT help you unfortuneately, as they follow the rules for moving infantry. The infantry rules have a nice illustration which shows a radius from the original base position that you may move in. That is lacking from the vehicle movement rules.

I'll admit that this rule can be abused, and it would be easily taken care of if all models, infantry or vehicle, were on round bases.

Basically what you're arguing is that a Land Raider can't move, turn, and shoot.

If you move a land raider 6" forward, and then turn it 180 degrees to fire at an annoying scout pack that showed up behind it, you can't actually fire because parts of the land raider, being 6" long, actually moved 12".

Any vehicle can't move a full move and then turn, as part of the vehicle moved more than the center to center distance.

The rules are crystal clear on this. I quoted them. You can turn with no penalty. Not being able to drop troops or fire would be a penalty. The purpose of this forum is to find out what the rules actually say. There are other forums (Like warseer) for those who don't care what the rules actually say.

I think skyth is correct in his logic, but we need to step back and think about this. This scenario only works when the raider starts sideways to the target it is assaulting. You could not make a forward movement towards the opponent and make use of any extra pivot movement if you don't have a turn at the START.

Also, take note that the rules don't make allowance for any kind of sideways movement. They specifically mention moving forward and back, and pivoting around the center point. These rules are actually quite clear and got rid of the skidding stops that a lot of rhino rushes made use of.

Also note that this can work against the DE player. If his raider is pointed at the squad he wants to assault, he moves 12" forward, and then pivots 90 degrees at the end of the movement to bring the side towards the enemy target, he will have effectively lost a couple inches of movement.

Thank you Ebon. You have said exactly what I have been trying to say. I appollogise to everyone on both sides of the argument for not being more elliquent.