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.

Nice selective quote, classic Gwar.

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).

Sorry to just jump in here, but Gwar is right. Pivoting is disallowed by vehicles that are immobilized. It has nothing to do with how they interact in close combat. It may not make sense to us in the real world, but GW does this kind of thing all the time.

I don't feel there is a need for discussion. House rule it if you want, but it's in the rulebook in black and white.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another thing, glad to see you're back Gwar!, YMDC wasn't the same without you. I for one appreciated your strict RAW interpretations.

I'm going to go with gwar on this one, but the rule of walkers pivoting during the shooting phase gave me some doubt. I thought it might override the "may not even pivot" since it specifies walkers pivoting in the shooting phase and being the only vehichles that can do movements of more than just guns during the shooting phase, but i'm going to go with they're stationary since it doesn't specifically say they can pivot while immobilized.
edit: grammer

Umm, wildstyle was the first one in this thread to give the correct answer, give him some credit.

Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

Halsfield wrote:Umm, wildstyle was the first one in this thread to give the correct answer, give him some credit.

Yes we know, I even said so myself


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:Nice selective quote, classic Gwar.

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).

Now now play nice, I didn't quote anything, I just copied what was already in the thread. In any case, it does not say "however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot in the movement phase only and no other phases in which a vehicle might possibly pivot" it just says "however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot".

Gwar! wrote:Yes we know, I even said so myself

I know you know, because I read the whole thread. The two people who posted above me didnt know however so I informed them.

Trust me Halsfield, it pays to say Gwar! is right...just look at his sig, a piece of immortality right there.

Halsfield wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yes we know, I even said so myself

I know you know, because I read the whole thread. The two people who posted above me didnt know however so I informed them.

I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar. Also i the first thing he said was wildstyle was right its makes more sense to agree than needlessly repeat whatever he says. Also, wildstyle thanks for giving me the right answer immediately.

jab4962 wrote:Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

QFT - the act of pivoting, involves moving the entire vehicle to face another, new direction. As it involves the movement of the entire vehicle, it requires operational tracks/feet & legs. The Front of the Vehicle is now in an entirely new direction (I used to face north, I now face south). Pivoting, as quoted many times above is not allowed if you are immobilsed, as the tracks feet or legs are non-functional.

The act of either rotating a turret, moving a sponson or twisting at the waist (for walkers) is still available for Immobilsed vehicles (again, quoted above). This movement is represented by the arc of fire rule (whether it is 45 or 180 is a question for another time). In this event, you are able to utilise your entire arc of fire, but when shot at, your facing (and therefore your front/rear armour) is unchanged from the point in time you became immobilised.

Therefore, in my opinion on the reading of the rules (however fully allowing for a difference of interpretation should you chose to disagree) - It is my view that the answer to the question is "No. Immobilised walkers may not pivot'".

jab4962 wrote:Walkers can't pivot on their feet, but an older rule that hasn't been proven wrong in the new rulebook says that walkers have a 180 degree turning arc along the hip joint. If you prefer not to play with that rule, then you're stuck with the 45 degree arc of the weapon.

You cannot use previous versions of the rules to justify anything. That way lies madness. "I'm going to use some 4th edition rules in this game, kthx!" No.

So, with that out of the way...

Page 57 covers movement only.

Page 72 says that pivoting during shooting is not movement, thus rendering page 57 irrelevant, ANYWAYS.

Page 72 says to change the facing of the Walker towards the target when shooting, and that a walker's guns have a 45' arc of fire.

Thus, an immobilized walker cannot move or change facing during movement, but it CAN change facing during shooting.

Silly, but there you have it.

But page 57 also states that in the movement phase pivoting does not count as movement (but immobilizd vehicles still can't pivot).

Pivoting is pivoting regardless of which phase it takes place in.

The effects of "Immobilised' also prohibit it:

BGB p.61 wrote:An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place

Since you can't turn the walker when firing ("When firing a walker’s weapons, pivot the walker on the spot"), you are limited to the 45 degree arcs of its weapons in the direction it was facing when immobilised. Torso twisting is not part of this edition, except for the implication for assaulting.

The confusion here is obviously stemming from two completely different types of "pivoting".

1. There is pivoting where the entire vehicle or the entire walker (base included) pivots on the spot.

2. There is also for some walkers (dreadnaughts) the ability to pivot the top half of their body.

The rules are quite clear about the first type of pivoting. You can't do it while immobilised.

The second type of pivoting isn't clear at all. So many different walkers, so many different versions of the same walker. For example I have an old metal space wolves dreadnaught that rotates on top of its legs. But then I have a AoBR dreadnaught that doesn't.

In regards to this second form of pivoting I believe people are interpreting the FAQ answer about "if it looks like it can move that way then it can" as allowing the dreadnaught that is immobilised to rotate its top body half while keeping its legs and base still.

There are no rules for this kind of thing in the rulebook. And the faq suggests to us to just interpret it as it looks for each individual model. Obviously this doesn't answer the question yes or no. But I just wanted to highlight that there are two different types of pivoting.

NeoMaul wrote:The confusion here is obviously stemming from two completely different types of "pivoting".

1. There is pivoting where the entire vehicle or the entire walker (base included) pivots on the spot.

2. There is also for some walkers (dreadnaughts) the ability to pivot the top half of their body.

The rules are quite clear about the first type of pivoting. You can't do it while immobilised.

To me it is pretty clear what the big book says about pivoting as a vehicle. I also think basing rule intentions based on what models(especially older ones) can do is a bad way to go about things. I also don't agree that there are "types" of pivoting. There is one rule for vehicles, one type of pivoting. The only difference is that pivoting of this type does not count as movement for walkers. I believe the way the current rules are written (as wildstyle said earlier) it is not allowed because an immolized vehicle cannot pivot(note it doesnt even say walker, it says vehicle, meaning that the type of walker is unimportant).

iamthecougar wrote:

I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar.

I really hope you are joking...

Halsfield wrote:

iamthecougar wrote:I posted this thread, i actually read my own threads thanks, its just more familiar to go with gwar.

I really hope you are joking...

-Points to Sig-

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Daytona wrote:But I could be wrong, just my 2 cents worth.

Mods, Please don't ban me:

You are wrong, Page 57 says so.

No offense, but its not 100% clear that you can simply say someone is wrong. I agree that I dont think they should be able to rotate. However, the other side has an argument, especially with the "always hits front armour" in CC. Why not simply run around the back and smash it from behind if its stuck facing one way?

As willydstyle said, they are two totally independent rules that do not interact in any way. It is 100% clear. Immobilised walkers may not pivot. That means they may not pivot at any time.

But of course you are entitled to whatever opinion you like, even if I disagree with it. I try to make my rulings and comments based upon a strict reading of the RaW.

You cant simply dismiss other people's arguments as opinions when they have a few rules on their side, especially when the rules for your argument isnt clear either.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/251302.page - A topic where a lot of people play it the other way because of the rule on page 72:

"When shooting with a walker, pivot...".

When you combine this with only hitting front armour in CC, and the walker models themselves, I can see where theyre coming from, especially when I dont think the way I play it is clear either.

Again, its not clear. Maybe to you where you think its one way or the other, but that doesnt really matter does it?

Respectfully, you can say "wrong" when the page cited is a specific on point rule point. Not everything requires detailed 7 pages of inference with no one actually coming to a conclusion. I know, its rare but there are always the exceptions that prove the rule. This appears to be one (don't have page in front of me).

Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

Well, does the BRB define what a vehicle is anywhere? I don't have it with me at this time.

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

They are a subset of vehicles. Are you seriously going to argue otherwise?

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

No, Walkers are not Infantry, but they most certainly are vehicles.

In fact, the very first line of the Walker rules, Page 72:

Walkers are a very unusual type of vehicle.

I’m afraid an objective review of the relevant rules data points, in conjunction with the standardized rules of logical analysis lead one to the statistical certainty that "A Walker is a Vehicle and thus follows all rules for vehicles except where otherwise stated" is the correct assumption. Tippy to and I’m off

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

To borrow a phrase:

lolwut?

They are Vehicle (Walkers) as listed in the codex.

Also under "types of vehicles" BGB p.65

EDIT: Ack! Ninja'd x2

Dopn't forget the smiley face Gwar to keep everything light

Frazzled wrote:Dopn't forget the smiley face Gwar to keep everything light

There's one at the bottom of my sig, it should be good enough!

the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

Demogerg wrote:the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

He iz copying da 'umiez!

Why is this thread still going on? Question asked:question answered. With a specific page reference and a very specific rule (IE immobilized vehicles cannot pivot). But then people start bringing up the fact that some models can pivot at the waist (despite the rules telling you how vehicles pivot) or walkers are not vehicles, etc. Srsly? Is this just because Gwar said someone was wrong? (Which, incidently, they were.)

jmurph wrote:Is this just because Gwar said someone was wrong? (Which, incidently, they were.)

As much as I would love to think it isn't, it happens far too frequently for it to be anything but

Walkers can pivot at the waist, but that's represented in their firing arcs, not an actual ability to pivot the model.

Demogerg wrote:the one at the bottom of your sig looks like he is peering over a wall and sticking out an appendage that orks dont come "equipped" with... if you know what I mean.

Doesn't even appear on my screen. The last line I see is only half visible and cuts off halfway through SsevenN's quoted line