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.

What sound does a thread make when people post comments irrelevant to the discussion? Nails on a chalkboard.

Nos: The last time I read through all the movement rules, including for infantry, I wasn't satisfied that they were clear enough. They're not quite specific enough on how to move to satisfy the demands of what we would be willing to call "RAW".

The most we get from pg 11 is:
Infantry can move 6"
You can't move through other models
Stay 1" away from enemy models
Move the speed of the slowest model
Facing really doesn't matter much for infantry
You can't move if you're in close combat

pg 12 gives us Coherency, and the diagram about not getting extra movement from the width of the base.

Can we move sideways? Do we have to face the direction we move? Do I have to keep my model's feet on the table or can I pick it up? There are no answers for those thigns, mainly because they don't matter for most infantry, because of the circular bases. They do matter, though, for vehicles and oval bases, but aren't cleared up anywhere else.

Simply, there are problems with the movement rules. Most of the time, players are capable of filling in the gaps with simple assumptions, and it usually works fine. But sometimes those assumptions have long-ranging consequences which conflict with other players. Noboby's "broken" any rules, because the rules were incomplete, but we still have conflicts. This is why you have to realize that *any* set of movement rules is RAI, as they are too incomplete to be followed strictly by RAW.

I'm not going to argue against moving vehicles sideways because that's a valid conclusion, depending on your assumptions about movement. However, just realize that other people might have differet (equally valid) assumptions that contradict yours. Ultimately, consistency within each game or location or tournament is what's most important, along with the realization that *nobody* is completely right here.

Sorry, dude, but the people saying both are perfectly legal are completely right.

We frankly don't know what RAI was when they wrote it or what was going through their mind when brainstorming these rules. All we have to work with is their published books and FAQ, both of which don't say either is the right way.

Hell, I could choose to roll my rhino like a log to get it where is needs to go as long as I don't break the other rules like passing through or getting too close to other models and terrain. I probably won't do that because it will damage my models but it is not disallowed either.

At the end of the day, it only matters how far you moved, not how you decided to execute the movement.

-cgmckenzie

People have to realize that the rules are not meant to make the game completely realistic, merely a representation of the battlefield. Snap shots if you will. Every conceivable situation is impossible to plan for. Take a breath everyone and enjoy the game. If you pivot, move, then pivot to desired direction, or move (in a sideways manner) then pivot to desired direction, the end result is marginally any different if at all, in anybody's favor. And the end result is, you guessed it, a vehicle in the same spot facing the same direction. As long as the model can meet the requirements established in moving, don't go through other models and can fit through etc, why make something more complicated. While were at it, lets all dim the lights for the first turn of Dawn of War night fighting.

You seem to be losing sight of the idea of a permissive ruleset. We can only do what the BRB tells us we can do, not just what it doesn't say we can't.

For anything you do, you have to be able to answer the question: "Where does it say you can do that?" If you can't answer that, then you can't do it. That's why there's so much focus on RAW. With RAW, you don't need any interpretation, because it's spelled out for you. It doesn't matter if you think they intended something else, because it's already clear in black and white.

Movement is not sufficiently clear to have RAW. All we're given is a somewhat complete framework. We need to fill that framework with our own RAI. Luckily, most people's interpretations of RAI in this case are either the same or close enough to not cause problems. The Land Raider situation is a case where problems can happen.

The book only tells you how far to move, and yet there are situation where it does indeed matter how you execute movement. This discussion is an example where it matters, as well as the discussions about gaining extra "movement" with oblong vehicles. The "displacement is all that counts" view contradicts the "pivot and move" view, but neither are wrong by RAW (since RAW sucks). Therefore it's important that you stick to whatever interpretation of movement you've decided so you and your opponent can have a consistent ruleset and a good game.

"It doesn't tell me not to." is not a valid argument when it comes to the rules. Ever.

slxiii wrote:This is something I ran into when playing my Tau against an SM friend. I flew my Piranha flat out and parked it 1" away from the front of his land raider. Since he couldn't pivot without moving closer than 1" to my model, he couldn't pivot. If he tried to ram, It would only inflict a s5 hit, which i could ignore on a 3+(being a skimmer). If he shot at me, I would have the 4+ from flat out. No matter what, it seems like this literally stops a land raider in it's tracks.

The question: Did I miss something? Or was this correct according to the rules?

To answer your question, yes, this is a cool tactic and I'll be stealing it for my games shortly. But your friend obviously could reverse and pivot and then move forward. If your friendly game or even a competitve game brings this up, then just refer to the INAT.

RB.57A.01 – Q: Can (non-walker) vehicles move in any direction or only in forward and reverse?
A: Vehicles may only utilize forward and reverse movement (and so must pivot in order to change directions). If the front of the vehicle cannot be easily determined, make sure you declare which is the front when deploying the model [clarification].

RB.57A.02 – Q: Can vehicles be deployed „sideways‟ at the start of the game and when first moved be pivoted in order to „gain‟ a few extra inches of movement?
A: Yes they can. However, it is important to be consistent throughout the game and always pivot vehicles only on their center axis (so this „bonus distance‟ is only really gained once, in the first turn of the game) [clarification].

Movement is more than sufficiently clear:

1)move model in desired orientation if orientation follows other rules like not intersecting other units or getting too close to enemies
2)You have a tiered set of move limits with different outcomes from each(cruising vs combat speed for instance)
3)pass over X terrain, take X terrain test.

There is nowhere in the rules that says the model moves like a tank as we know them today. The problem here is that some people are over thinking the very simple set of instructions for movement: measure then move. You can pivot as you see fit(from the center), turning your various armor values and guns towards different things, but how you get to that final position really doesn't matter.

The measuring follows the path of the vehicle(distance traveled*). If at any point on that path your vehicle interacts with other models or terrain in your chosen orientation, do appropriate action.

Most people drive them like tanks cause that is more fun, but it isn't the only 'right' way to do things. The INAT is just like any other tourney and doesn't change the rules or FAQ outside of it.

-cgmckenzie

ps-I am just playing devils advocate here. I don't like to do the LRBT shuffle(go guard!) mainly cause I like the fun produced from moving it like a tank. But hey, if you want to do it, I have no problem cause it's legal.

*not to start a distance vs displacement argument, just there to reinforce the point of the path traveled counts for distance, not straight-line measuring from start to end.

To make this kind of attack, first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it and declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move. The vehicle must move at least at combat speed. Note that because pivoting on the spot does not count as moving, this is not enough for a tank shock.

Once the vehicle has been 'aimed' and the speed declared, move the vehicle straight forward until it comes into contact with an enemy unit or it reaches the distance declared - no other changes of direction are allowed during a tank shock. If no enemy unit is reached, just move the vehicle straight ahead for the distance declared and no special attack takes place.

So it is required to pivot to move forward for a Tank Shock/Ram but not for normal movement!?

I totally understand the K.I.S.S. arguement, but when someone tells me that their tank doesn't have to move like a tank and that the pivoting was just to reposition to fire without moving, I can't say I agree.

I do agree that if this is a big deal for you to do well in a game then you need to address this before setting up the game.

cgmckenzie wrote:Movement is more than sufficiently clear:

1)move model in desired orientation if orientation follows other rules like not intersecting other units or getting too close to enemies

Where does it tell you that you can move in any orientation? It only states that you can turn and face any direction without it affecting the distance they can cover, not that they can move backwards and sideways (pg 11). Moving in any desired orientation is an interpretation. (not necessarily an incorrect one, but it is still an inferrence instead of RAW)

2)You have a tiered set of move limits with different outcomes from each(cruising vs combat speed for instance)
3)pass over X terrain, take X terrain test.

There is nowhere in the rules that says the model moves like a tank as we know them today.

That's the problem, there is nowhere in the rules that states exactly how the model moves at all. That's why people fill in the gaps with assumptions.

The problem here is that some people are over thinking the very simple set of instructions for movement: measure then move. You can pivot as you see fit, turning your various armor values and guns towards different things, but how you get to that final position really doesn't matter.

Yes, it does matter. The very fact that there are so many questions about it and ways to abuse different intepretations is evidence of that.

The measuring follows the path of the vehicle(distance traveled*). If at any point on that path your vehicle interacts with other models or terrain in your chosen orientation, do appropriate action.

Most people drive them like tanks cause that is more fun,

Or they think it's the right way to do it, based on how they've read the rules.

but it isn't the only 'right' way to do things.

Again, this is the problem. My right way "A" and your right way "B" are both equally valid as far as what's written in the BRB is concerned. However, we still have to decide on which way to play our game, we can't waffle back and forth between A and B or we won't know what's going on. If we're playing by "A" and I therefore think that putting a vehicle in front of your Land Raider will cause you problems, but then you decalre that "B" is the way to go and move sideways, don't you see how that can cause problems?

The INAT is just like any other tourney and doesn't change the rules or FAQ outside of it.

I like the INAT, and it's a great source for people to turn to for guidance. However, like cgm says, not everybody uses it. If your opponents or TOs agree to it, then life is simple! For the rest of the time, that's what these forums are for.

Wouldn't backing up not cost you any movement?

We all know I can't move my vehicle 6" left, then 6" right and say it moved 12". I have to be more than 6" from my starting point to qualify for speedy need-6's-to-hit-me movement.

So obviously, back-tracking doesn't "count". If I can't count as moving 12" by back-tracking, I won't "count" that 1" backwards I had to drive to get more than 1" away from the piranha and allow me to pivot - which also doesn't count as movement. So I back up, I pivot, I move forward to a point that's 12" away from where I started [measuring around the piranha of course]. The backing up doesn't count [see previous precedent], the pivot doesn't count [specifically mentioned in the rules] and all that matters is that I end my movement within the maximum allowed for my vehicle.

This is why you are allowed to do the sideways shuffle - because all that matters, in the end, is that you end 12" or whatever away from where you started.

Spellbound wrote:Wouldn't backing up not cost you any movement?

We all know I can't move my vehicle 6" left, then 6" right and say it moved 12". I have to be more than 6" from my starting point to qualify for speedy need-6's-to-hit-me movement.

So obviously, back-tracking doesn't "count". If I can't count as moving 12" by back-tracking, I won't "count" that 1" backwards I had to drive to get more than 1" away from the piranha and allow me to pivot - which also doesn't count as movement. So I back up, I pivot, I move forward to a point that's 12" away from where I started [measuring around the piranha of course]. The backing up doesn't count [see previous precedent], the pivot doesn't count [specifically mentioned in the rules] and all that matters is that I end my movement within the maximum allowed for my vehicle.

This is why you are allowed to do the sideways shuffle - because all that matters, in the end, is that you end 12" or whatever away from where you started.

You're confusing movement with the rules for skimmers getting a cover save. For a skimmer or a bike to get a cover save, they have to have a total displacement over 12" (18" for bikes), but moving forward and back do indeed "take up" movement in regular terms.

Spellbound wrote:Wouldn't backing up not cost you any movement?

We all know I can't move my vehicle 6" left, then 6" right and say it moved 12". I have to be more than 6" from my starting point to qualify for speedy need-6's-to-hit-me movement.

So obviously, back-tracking doesn't "count". If I can't count as moving 12" by back-tracking, I won't "count" that 1" backwards I had to drive to get more than 1" away from the piranha and allow me to pivot - which also doesn't count as movement. So I back up, I pivot, I move forward to a point that's 12" away from where I started [measuring around the piranha of course]. The backing up doesn't count [see previous precedent], the pivot doesn't count [specifically mentioned in the rules] and all that matters is that I end my movement within the maximum allowed for my vehicle.

This is why you are allowed to do the sideways shuffle - because all that matters, in the end, is that you end 12" or whatever away from where you started.

What!? Seriously? Are we going to have to define 'move'? If the tank was moved then you start adding the inches it moved. The displacement determines the Assault result required to hit.

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their center-point, rather than 'wheeling' round. 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. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so-a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot). Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.

If you want to change directions, (i.e. go somewhere other than straight forward or backwards) then you have to pivot. How did this simple tank movement directions get so convoluted? Hope this helps.

The sideways shuffle still has to follow the linear path you measure out before. If displacement was the only thing that mattered, I could go scooting around the board, drop guys off and end up 6 inches away. And yes, Chimeras scoot.

The major problem I think you are having is thinking that the shuffle is mutually exclusive from 'standard' tank drive. If I use the shuffle at one point, I don't have to keep using it for the rest of the game just as if you move your squad in one particular formation you don't have to maintain the same formation throughout the game. It's a rough analogy, sorry.

-cgmckenzie

edit:wow, that took far longer than it should have to post. Like 2 people posted since I started this!

ElCheezus wrote:
1)That's the problem, there is nowhere in the rules that states exactly how the model moves at all. That's why people fill in the gaps with assumptions.
.

So since movement is not clearly stated we are left to fill in the gaps on movement? OK, whose assumptions do we use? If we accept that movement is not defined, and the rules are only permissive, then we are not allowed to move vehicles. Since after all it does not tell you to move the vehicle like a tank, but it does not tell you not to move the vehicle like a tank.

We technically cannot move any models through Cheezus' interpretation. We have no clear definition on how any models move(excepting for tanks tank shocking/ramming) therefore no model(aside from the above exceptions) may ever move.

Therefore we either assume that all models may move in any direction(as the rules do tell us we are allowed to move models); and tank shocking/Ramming is the only place where a clear Specification of forward movement is required.

-or-

We never move any models excepting tank shocking/ramming as those are the only places where a direction of movement is allowed/defined.

Kommissar Kel wrote:We technically cannot move any models through Cheezus' interpretation. We have no clear definition on how any models move(excepting for tanks tank shocking/ramming) therefore no model(aside from the above exceptions) may ever move.

Therefore we either assume that all models may move in any direction(as the rules do tell us we are allowed to move models); and tank shocking/Ramming is the only place where a clear Specification of forward movement is required.

-or-

We never move any models excepting tank shocking/ramming as those are the only places where a direction of movement is allowed/defined.

Where is it that it defines what is forward?

Right, and obviously we have to decide one or the other in order to actually play the game. I'm not saying we should stick to RAW, because we can't. We wouldn't be able to move at all that way, and that's ridiculous. I'm saying that when we *do* fill in those gaps, we have to be consistent in our definitions on how to move: we can't change our interpretations willy-nilly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:We technically cannot move any models through Cheezus' interpretation.

Either you have no idea what I'm actually trying to say, or you're being sarcastic. Neither of those options is productive.

In ramming, it says the 'rammer' always uses its front armor. It also says that it is resolved from the point of impact. So, the front armor is the point of impact.

That isn't to say the tank driver didn't do some cray Dukes of Hazzard 180 at the last minute to slam the front armor into the rammed vehicle.

-cgmckenzie

So to be consistent flyers can move in any direction and "tanks" have move differently? Yeah, that's consistent.

BTW what is so inconsistent with doing the shuffle?

you are trying to say that since the rules are permissive we must have explicit permission to move a model in any given direction.

I am saying that no movement rule define a permitted direction of movement therefore your assertion that permission is required to move a vehicle sideways is flawed(as no model is given permission to move in any specific direction, only to move).

Ah yes, the rest of my point: We are given permission to move, that permission is not actually restricted to any direction, therefore all models may move in any direction(as, once again, permission to move has been granted).

I will say, once again, that both vehicle movement rules, and the rules of "Turning and Facing" in the normal model rules both imply that forward movement(movement along a model's direct LOS) is the only movement that should be made; but the rules are so unclear about this(even the rules that discuss the free turns do not come right out and state that forward is the default/required movement direction) that it is left to a fair amount of interpretation. Even using the statement in the vehicle movement rules about forward and backward movement as an "example of Clear definition" is flawed as that is generally taken out of context of the sentence it contains(Backward movement itself would still be denied via context, as the rules are talking about free turns and the net overall movement results after moving has been completed).

Kommissar Kel wrote:you are trying to say that since the rules are permissive we must have explicit permission to move a model in any given direction.

I am saying that no movement rule define a permitted direction of movement therefore your assertion that permission is required to move a vehicle sideways is flawed(as no model is given permission to move in any specific direction, only to move).

+1

Kommissar Kel wrote:you are trying to say that since the rules are permissive we must have explicit permission to move a model in any given direction.

I am saying that no movement rule define a permitted direction of movement therefore your assertion that permission is required to move a vehicle sideways is flawed(as no model is given permission to move in any specific direction, only to move).

Yes, we need permission to move the vehicle in any direction, including forward. This is *exactly* my point. We don't have that in the BRB. That's why I keep saying that movement rules are broken, and we *can't* follow RAW on them. That still doesn't mean we can do "anything it doesn't prohibit." We need to define our own RAI in order to play, but that still means having a definite interpretation of what was intended. We must supply what is effectively a house rule that allows us to move. Basically, we patch the rules.

My whole point is that we have to be consistent in our own rules. If you want to move sideways, fine, move sideways. But realize that it means you have a ceratin houserule patch that allows you to, and you have to play by it the whole game.

Basically, if you decide that your vehicles move like tanks, then you can pull off the pivoting trick that can let you gain a couple inches. However, it also means your Land Raider has to move backwards before it can pivot when the Tau are right in front of it.

If you want to be able to move abstractly, including sideways, and bascially choose your facing, that's cool too. That way you can move your Land Raider sideways without problem. But it also means that the reasoning behind the pivot trick doesn't work anymore.

You can't have it both ways. You can have it either way you want, but not both in the same game. That's *all* I'm trying to say.

Then you should never move any models, as none of them have any permission to ever move in any given direction(again excepting Tankshock/Ram).

They don't tell you how to roll the dice, something which is incredibly vital in this game. If I choose to hand roll, do I have to do it that way the whole game? Or can I put them in a cup a few times if I want? Or maybe roll them all individually? Or in a dice tower? In a box? With a fox!?

Could you, would you make me roll exactly the same way you do because it doesn't specify how to do it?

-Dr. Seuss

We're obviously having two different conversations here. I'll just leave you guys and try and get some work done, like I ought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:They don't tell you how to roll the dice, something which is incredibly vital in this game. If I choose to hand roll, do I have to do it that way the whole game? Or can I put them in a cup a few times if I want? Or maybe roll them all individually? Or in a dice tower? In a box? With a fox!?

Could you, would you make me roll exactly the same way you do because it doesn't specify how to do it?

-Dr. Seuss

Sorry, I can't let innane things like this lie.

Does rolling dice from your hand vs from a cup make a difference in the game? No. Therefore it doesn't matter how you do it.

However, do you take results of the die that fall of the table, or do you reroll them? It's important to do this consistently, or you're the TFG when you reroll the 1's that fell off the table, but not the 6's. So yes, consistency is important when it comes to how you handle your dice as long as there's a material difference.

Similarly, there's a material difference in how you choose to play movement rules. Not a big one, but this thread is an example of when it matters that you stick to your method. If your method of movement is "track based," you can't suddenly decide you can move sideways. That would make you TFG.

El Cheezus: if you are told you can move, and are not restricted in any way, then you can move in any direction. You move in any direction, and simply check - did you move? Yes? Then you have complied with the only requirement

The BRB does not need to define Forwards; English does. Same as the BRB does not define "the", "a" or other wprds - you use English where needed

nosferatu1001 wrote:El Cheezus: if you are told you can move, and are not restricted in any way, then you can move in any direction. You move in any direction, and simply check - did you move? Yes? Then you have complied with the only requirement

The BRB does not need to define Forwards; English does. Same as the BRB does not define "the", "a" or other wprds - you use English where needed

Aren't you the person that thinks an unit disembarking, while an IC stays embarked, is required to be outside of 2" from the transport hull or else it is still joined? I think I'll pass on your rules interpretations for now.

*Edit* While there might be a slight implication of a personal attack, it was not intended. Regardless, I appologize if anyone feels otherwise.

JBW wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:El Cheezus: if you are told you can move, and are not restricted in any way, then you can move in any direction. You move in any direction, and simply check - did you move? Yes? Then you have complied with the only requirement

The BRB does not need to define Forwards; English does. Same as the BRB does not define "the", "a" or other wprds - you use English where needed

Aren't you the person that thinks an unit disembarking, while an IC stays embarked, is required to be outside of 2" from the transport hull or else it is still joined? I think I'll pass on your rules interpretations for now.

Considering that is technically how those rules work(although she also said absolutely no-one plays it that way)...

Personal attacks are generally not very well received in YMDC. Also; pointing out RAW-holes, while simultaneously referring to the fact that the RAP is not done that way does not make someone bad at interpreting the rules.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

JBW wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:El Cheezus: if you are told you can move, and are not restricted in any way, then you can move in any direction. You move in any direction, and simply check - did you move? Yes? Then you have complied with the only requirement

The BRB does not need to define Forwards; English does. Same as the BRB does not define "the", "a" or other wprds - you use English where needed

Aren't you the person that thinks an unit disembarking, while an IC stays embarked, is required to be outside of 2" from the transport hull or else it is still joined? I think I'll pass on your rules interpretations for now.

Considering that is technically how those rules work(although she also said absolutely no-one plays it that way)...

Personal attacks are generally not very well received in YMDC. Also; pointing out RAW-holes, while simultaneously referring to the fact that the RAP is not done that way does not make someone bad at interpreting the rules.

Not sure how any of what JBW said was a personal attack.

double post

jbunny wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

JBW wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:El Cheezus: if you are told you can move, and are not restricted in any way, then you can move in any direction. You move in any direction, and simply check - did you move? Yes? Then you have complied with the only requirement

The BRB does not need to define Forwards; English does. Same as the BRB does not define "the", "a" or other wprds - you use English where needed

Aren't you the person that thinks an unit disembarking, while an IC stays embarked, is required to be outside of 2" from the transport hull or else it is still joined? I think I'll pass on your rules interpretations for now.

Considering that is technically how those rules work(although she also said absolutely no-one plays it that way)...

Personal attacks are generally not very well received in YMDC. Also; pointing out RAW-holes, while simultaneously referring to the fact that the RAP is not done that way does not make someone bad at interpreting the rules.

Not sure how any of what JBW said was a personal attack.

The essence of the statement was: "I disagree with your interpretation on another thread, therefore you must not know what you are talking about" Had JBW left out the entirety of the other thread discussion, and/or contributed his view in any way to this discussion; then the post would have been more valid.