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 don't know... I think I always did it that way, too, but now that I think about it, with something like a battlewagon I don't think that's legal.

If you measure from the front, and then place it facing sideways at the maximum distance, you're getting extra movement out of it, right?

If you did this correctly (say, measuring front to front to the maximum distance), the pivot at the end of the move would take away from your movement distance, since you pivot about the center... correct?

Otherwise, you could even go so far as to measure from the front of the vehicle, place the side of the vehicle at the furthest point, then pivot it back to face forward again. That would get you another several inches with a battlewagon! So that part must not be legal... right? Because you're not pivoting it around its center...

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) I could go either way on that...

Edit: It seems like the solution to all of those shenanigans is just to measure from the center of the vehicle, and let it pivot freely around that point. In that case, the above circumstance would move it farther than a center-point to center-point move with free pivot would, and so the above circumstance must be illeagal.

With anything that isn't square it isn't legal. Maybe I'm crazy, but this seems obvious to me.

The vehicle movement rules imply that the way you're supposed to move vehicles is pivot in the direction you want to go, move, pivot some more, move, until you've reached your destination.

However, they don't say it explicitly. They just say that you can pivot around center as many times as you want while moving, and the only other movement rules say measure from the hull. So sideways movement is fine, etc.

This doesn't mean that you can measure from one part of the hull to a different part. Imagine your vehicle was shaped like a pencil. It would be pretty obvious that you got a lot of extra movement measuring front-> side. It would also be obvious that you didn't actually pivot around the center.

You're right, an easy solution to the shenanigans is to measure from center. The other solution is to not allow people to pivot their vehicles until they're stopped (so they move X inches front-front or side-side or whatever, then pivot).

RiTides wrote:Otherwise, you could even go so far as to measure from the front of the vehicle, place the side of the vehicle at the furthest point, then pivot it back to face forward again.

Cept vehicles move either forward or reverse not sideways.

HoverBoy wrote:

RiTides wrote:Otherwise, you could even go so far as to measure from the front of the vehicle, place the side of the vehicle at the furthest point, then pivot it back to face forward again.

Cept vehicles move either forward or reverse not sideways.

Do you want to quote a page reference for that? I'm not seeing anything.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Do you want to quote a page reference for that? I'm not seeing anything.

I would also like to note that treaded vehicles are amazingly adept at drifting in the 41st millennium. Those terminators come launching out the front of that Landraider Lightning Claws first

Multi-Track Drifting?

Anyways, I'd measure the distance from the back corner when sideways (facing the enemy) to the same corner when it turns and moves.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Do you want to quote a page reference for that? I'm not seeing anything.

I would also like to note that treaded vehicles are amazingly adept at drifting in the 41st millennium. Those terminators come launching out the front of that Landraider Lightning Claws first

Page 57 where it says that during their move vehicles can turn freely and combine that with the forward reverse movement, with no refference to sideways movement and no other rules for moving vehicles it really means vehicles move either forward or backwards.

It's completely legal. It's not a trick. It's not dishonest. GW could have changed the rules 4 times since I've been playing in 1999 to stop it. I would stop short of trying to call people doing this 'cheaters.' Everything in the rules supports it. It's not a loophole.

There are ways to stop it, but it would slow the game considerably. Would people prefer carrying around a protractor and each 90' pivot takes 1 or 2 inches of movement or something else equally ridiculous?

The only other way to stop it is making all tanks squares and/or removing long vehicles from the game. They would have to 'model' the problem out of existence. Obviously it isn't an issue.

When I play Orks or Raiders, or even other Eldar. I just assume they'll deploy sideways if possible and pivot on turn one and take that into account during my deployment. Just like how I take into account other considerations like lanes of fire from support units or anything else.

Zain60 wrote:
There are ways to stop it, but it would slow the game considerably. Would people prefer carrying around a protractor and each 90' pivot takes 1 or 2 inches of movement or something else equally ridiculous?

Once upon a time it did. (1st ed)

Glad to see the back of that rule.

Which version your group allows may vary, however. For instance, my regular opponents and I use version A, but that doesn't mean version B is not allowable. We just made the choice to stick with A.

If GW wanted to stop it, all they would have to say is "no point of your model may end farther than its allowed movement distance, including pivoting on the spot." But they haven't for several editions, and that's that.

Hmm pg 57 states that you can move forward or backward as many times as you want. In your diagram B I'm not sure how you would get to that result moving legally. You would move forward rear to rear or (front to front) for distance, then pivot. If you pivoted before hand you wouldn't be moving forward from the vehicle's perspective anymore.

Actually that's a good way to run it in friendly games, but still rules say to pivot freely then measure from the hull.
Thus- you can gain extra movement.


Measuring your starting distance from the facing in the direction you're moving is how it is achieved. As in, you never need to physically pivot on the spot. You measure from the hull in it's current position, then move the vehicle, ending movement in any position, with the hull edge at the distance you moved.

But it's not RAW and thus it can be used to an advantage...
As Orks though, I have to expose side armor to take advantage of this... whereas the LandRaider has the same AV all around and can spin like a top if it wants.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Zain60 wrote:
There are ways to stop it, but it would slow the game considerably. Would people prefer carrying around a protractor and each 90' pivot takes 1 or 2 inches of movement or something else equally ridiculous?

Once upon a time it did. (1st ed)

Glad to see the back of that rule.

There you have it. If once there was a rule and now there isn't. I think we can all assume the rulebook authors in 2nd edition and later for taking that little gem out =p

Most players I encounter simply ignore pivoting completely until said vehicle has reached the end of it's movement for the phase. It's a shortcut, and assumes that 'pivoting at any point during your move' also includes the end of it. I have never really seen an alternative argued to the point of considering it, as you can simply pivot during the move to compensate for any odd-looking finishing positions.

synchronicity wrote:

That's an excellent diagram!

Version A shows a move measured from the same point of the model at the start/end. Version B does not.

This is different than the issue being discussed on page 1- that was discussing starting your move facing sideways (such as from deployment), pivoting, and then moving (thereby legally gaining a bit of extra distance simply from spinning your model, which is a rectangle, not a square). This is different- this is measuring from a different point on the model from the start/end of the move. You might as well measure from the front to the back if you're doing this! In this case, only Diagram A is legal, I think.

Again, most people solve this by measuring your move from the same point of the model, which Diagram B fails to do.

If Diagram B were legal, people could do this trick every movement phase, rather than just in deployment, and it would make for some ugly, awkward movements (Flipping the Battlewagon to its side to move it 12" out, then pivoting it back straight again, every time you move, for example).

However, whether you pivot at the beginning or the end of the movement, you still get the same distance extension. I see your point about not pivoting while you move the 12", but I think that is allowed, the rule being you can pivot at any point during movement.

EDIT: Actually, I take it back. I do see your point.

I have a question now, about the pivitoing thing

Say you have a long narrow model (IE Battlewagon, and you set up up pararalel to the table edge


______ - Table Edge
BBBBB - battlewagon


When you pivot on the center, won't the back half of the model be off the table?

Typically it is played as yes, you can move. If you forced people to pivot first, you couldn't move. So to avoid this, sideways movement is fine, so long as you're measuring from and to the same point on the hull. It isn't ok to just randomly chose to rotate it while you move it and pick another point on the hull to measure to.

Were this a ram or tank shock move, you would not be able to pivot and then move as you'd be off the table

synchronicity wrote:
EDIT: Actually, I take it back. I do see your point.

I'd just finished writing a sizable post trying to figure out what you were doing to make B work...

Gorkamorka wrote:

synchronicity wrote:
EDIT: Actually, I take it back. I do see your point.

I'd just finished writing a sizable post trying to figure out what you were doing to make B work...

Such is the torment of the RaW junky

Fearspect wrote:Well, it does seem absolutely correct and easier worded that movement is always done from the centre of the model, if that is where pivots are done from.

It would be fine as a house rule, but it's not what the rules say to do. Vehicles pivot on their centre point, but you measure from the hull.


Personally, I would rather see the rules allow vehicles a slightly increased movement distance, but measure movement from the front of the vehicle including the distance it moves while pivoting, as is done for wheeling units in WHFB.

But as it stands, the 'extra movement by pivoting' trick is how the rules currently work.