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.

No, we are told the models can pivot "Without affecting the distance they are able to cover" meaning we can still only move 6 Inches.

If you have a part of your base that has moved more than 6 inches, that rule has been broken.

Fact: pivoting does not affect your movement, yet according to DR it does

Conclusion: DRs method breaks this rule OR movement /= displacement.

Conclusion: how far you move /= how far your model has displaced (trivial)

Movement and displacement are functionally the same as far as the game is concerned, since we are not dealing with volume.

Pivoting can be done "Without affecting the distance they are able to cover"

so pivoting can not let you gain any inches as you move, just like it can not make you lose any inches as you move, you move up to 6 inches, but no more.

And I've shown how I havent moved more than 6", yet you claim I have.

They are not functionally the same. See the last thread on vehicles and movement where this is proven.

I think nos is in the right here, but, even if you disagree with his assessment of the movement phase, you're told very explicitly that you can pivot in the shooting phase.

The net effect is basically the same- you gain some distance for shooting and assaulting.

kartofelkopf wrote:I think nos is in the right here, but, even if you disagree with his assessment of the movement phase, you're told very explicitly that you can pivot in the shooting phase.

The net effect is basically the same- you gain some distance for shooting and assaulting.

Actually the rule in the shooting phase allows you to turn your models to face the target you're shooting at. I don't think you're given a free pass to turn models anyway you want in the shooting phase.


But again, please stop arguing about what the rules say...that is not the point of this thread. And if you can't see how the rule about turning does not affect the distance a model can move can be interpreted in two different ways then you need to take a step back and realize that there isn't always one interpretation of language that is 'correct'.

yakface wrote:
Actually the rule in the shooting phase allows you to turn your models to face the target you're shooting at. I don't think you're given a free pass to turn models anyway you want in the shooting phase.

I put the full text in my first post- yes, you're not given a free pass to turn, but what other purpose are you eeking out the extra distance for? Either shooting or assaulting (Shrike + Bikes, eg), and that can be achieved with a Shooting phase pivot towards the intended unit.

Not sure if the last bit was directed towards me, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument for displacement/movement and base type. Not arguing for one interpretation or the other- just pointing out that it's actually a moot point in most cases.

kartofelkopf wrote:
I put the full text in my first post- yes, you're not given a free pass to turn, but what other purpose are you eeking out the extra distance for? Either shooting or assaulting (Shrike + Bikes, eg), and that can be achieved with a Shooting phase pivot towards the intended unit.

Not sure if the last bit was directed towards me, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument for displacement/movement and base type. Not arguing for one interpretation or the other- just pointing out that it's actually a moot point in most cases.

But it isn't moot at all. While I believe all current models that GW produces that are mounted on non-round bases are designed to be placed so that they 'face' towards the pointy end of the base, there's no reason in the future models won't be produced where the 'face' of the model is on the long side of the oval (for example).

In that case, pivoting to face the shooting target would cause you to 'lose' distance with your assault move (depending on your interpretation of the rules, of course).

Not to mention the rules only allow you to pivot to face your target in the shooting phase. What about if a unit isn't shooting...either it is going to run or it doesn't want to shoot and kill the only models in assault range (for example)? The rules only seem to give you permission to rotate your model to face a target of your shooting, so if you're not shooting, I don't see any reason you'd be able to rotate in the shooting phase.

yakface wrote:
But it isn't moot at all. While I believe all current models that GW produces that are mounted on non-round bases are designed to be placed so that they 'face' towards the pointy end of the base, there's no reason in the future models won't be produced where the 'face' of the model is on the long side of the oval (for example).

In that case, pivoting to face the shooting target would cause you to 'lose' distance with your assault move (depending on your interpretation of the rules, of course).

Not to mention the rules only allow you to pivot to face your target in the shooting phase. What about if a unit isn't shooting...either it is going to run or it doesn't want to shoot and kill the only models in assault range (for example)? The rules only seem to give you permission to rotate your model to face a target of your shooting, so if you're not shooting, I don't see any reason you'd be able to rotate in the shooting phase.

In the future, I guess there might be some concern, but as it stands, the only models that would need to worry themselves with running and pivoting for distance are bike/oval bases with Fleet (otherwise, they can't assault anyways, so the extra distance doesn't matter [maybe trying to get to an objective in the last turn, but by that point, the minor distance gain is probably not a decider]).

As for shooting, started a separate thread to discuss how that could be mitigated here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/384468.page#3097640

Sadly i have to vote option B. I would prefer it if it were option A, but option B is how i read the rules, and how my FLGS play it.

yakface wrote:
But it isn't moot at all. While I believe all current models that GW produces that are mounted on non-round bases are designed to be placed so that they 'face' towards the pointy end of the base, there's no reason in the future models won't be produced where the 'face' of the model is on the long side of the oval (for example).

Just so you know, the Dreadknights pictured on the GW website have it facing the Long edge of the Oval not the more rounded edge.



I play A. I play that you measure your movement from the center of a model (vehicle, bike or whatever). The center of the Model can move 6" and then end facing any direction I want. This causes the least confusion.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - I've measured from the middle. No change to how far I've moved, and no amount of pivoting changes this measurement.

Displacement /= movement, A is not the correct way

Displacement and movement are the same thing.

If you end your move with your base more than 6 inches away from where you started, as per P.12, you are moving more than 6 inches and breaking the rules. Measuring from the front spot, rotating 180 and measuring from that same spot leads to the situation on P.12 where it says NO!

In the case of pivoting you are adding length to the distance moved, which by the rules, is a No!

Option A is the correct way to do it.

Yes, but the back of the base would then have moved LESS than 6" from the base before, thereby meaning you have not completely made your movement. So, by pivoting, I am also LOSING distance.

I fail to see why people get so bent out of shape over this. The 1" or so displacement is fixed the entire game. It is not like you can gain an additional 1" of movement every turn. If it helps you conceptualize, just imagine the model is on a really big circle.

Sure you can. Move then pivot the model for extra distance. Next turn pivot so the short end of the oval is even with where the rounded edge is, move then pivot again. Do that every turn and you will end up with a greater distance.

For those stating it isn't that big a deal or game breaking to get the extra distance, if it isn't that big a deal or game breaking then why are you wanting to do it?

Because the rules let you do so, possibly?

B.

Saying B adds move distance is as true as saying A reduces it. Neither is actually allowed to happen.

If I am the only one with the odd shaped models I play A.
Otherwise I ask which way my opponent plays--assuming it is someone new.

People I play with say B.

Does that mean I should vote C?

I still haven't been shown a page from this rulebook that allows your model on an oval base to end its movement farther than it's actual allowed distance.

Because youre mixing up displacement with movement, thats why

The two arent equal terms.

If A and B are equidistant from a target in front of them prior to movement, then after movement, B is closer to the target having moved MORE than six inches. Distance is measured to the base of the model not the center.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Sure you can. Move then pivot the model for extra distance. Next turn pivot so the short end of the oval is even with where the rounded edge is, move then pivot again. Do that every turn and you will end up with a greater distance.

For those stating it isn't that big a deal or game breaking to get the extra distance, if it isn't that big a deal or game breaking then why are you wanting to do it?

I don't want to do it, I just won't get bent out of shape if it's done to me.

However, what you are advocating above is cheating to gain distance. If I pivot 90 degrees and "gain" 1 inch of movement, that is all I am going to gain. If I pivot back 90" the other way, I "lose" that 1 inch I gained previously. The net result is zero. You can move and pivot all you want every turn. The CENTER of the model is never going to travel more than 6" per turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:If A and B are equidistant from a target in front of them prior to movement, then after movement, B is closer to the target having moved MORE than six inches. Distance is measured to the base of the model not the center.

Here is the problem:

If I have a model that is a rectangle (or oval) and I pivot it, there is going to be edges that "move" from where they were, even though I have only pivoted and technically not moved. There are two ways to pivot:
a. You pivot around the center, this causes "gains" and "losses" on the model edges, that in the end have a net distance of zero. (i.e. pivot 180 degrees and everything is back to where it started).
b. You pivot (assume counter clockwise 90 degrees) and put the "front" of the model's base where the "left" edge was. But, if you do this, the "back" of the model will now be twice as far back from where the "right" edge was. Now, the model has "MOVED" even further backwards than in example a. An example would be a piece of paper on a desk edge. The long end (11.5") is flush with the table. This means the far long end is 8" into the desk. If I pivot as you suggest, the back end would end up 11.5" into the desk. Now, lets move 6" forward from the desk edge. The leading (front) edge has moved 6" while the trailing (back) edge has only moved 2.5". So, I measure from back of the model to the back of the model, I have not moved the full distance. I am measuring by your definition of base edge to base edge (i.e. from the back, not the front) and your argument falls apart.

The only true way to move is from center to center.

What happens if I pivot away from your model (using your method) and then decide to move backwards?

We had a guy try and get a TO to rule option A into a tournament resently, the TO docked him sportsmanship points for being a WAAC rules lawyer.

considering option B grants bonus distance towards the enemy greater than the models movement of 6" thats kind of an odd ruling.

And? It also takes them furhter away from something else.

Exactly the same as vehicles pivoting. Legal since 1998....and definitely RAI (from speaking with some of the studio they are more than aware of this, and accept it as a consequence of the simplicity of the rules)

"Vehicles may turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. However vehicles turn on the spot by their center point rather than wheeling around" "Turning does not reduce a vehicles move.." p.57 BRB

under turning and facing:

"As you move models they may turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover" p.11 BRB

So vehicles and non vehicles do not turn the same way. The example listed in the original post would be of a model moving by pivoting at its center, which RAW is not how non vehicles move. Non-Vehicles move by wheeling on the spot to turn rather than pivoting on their center. This is a non effect for round based models but for oval shaped models would require you to take the front of the model and wheel it until it is facing the target you are firing at or direction are moving, which has the effect of making you face your target or direction without affecting the distance they are able to cover as per the BRB.

turning a model at its center at the end or beginning of a move to gain distance beyond the 6" a model is able to move towards an enemy model is affecting the distance they are able to cover and breaks the RAW on p.11


im pretty sure info from a red shirt or "hey I know this guy at the studio who says it cool" isnt really valid.

No, they do not wheel. They turn. Which for a round base is around the centre, still.

no.

there is nothing RAW showing them turn about the center or saying to turn about the center for non vehicle models, in fact all the movement diagrams show them moving from their front facing to their front facing, and any change in facing has been done during the movement. There is not a single mention of infantry moving by measuring from their center or being able to pivot or face by turning their center. The act of moving from the edge of a round base to the same edge while turning is wheeling. Put a model down on the table and move it as per the BRB under movement section infantry and try it. Infantry wheel about their base, hence why under vehicles it says they move as infantry, however they turn on the spot by pivoting at their center point rather than wheeling around.

as per p.57 of the BRB only vehicles turn by pivoting about their center.

As blaktoof stated, there is no pivoting in non-vehicle movement, only turning. Distance to/from a non-vehicle model is measured to the base EDGE not center. See page 12 for the proper way to measure movement and unit coherency measurement (notice, edge to edge not center to center) and page 17 for measuring shooting range (again, examples point out edge to edge), assaulting defaults to normal movement rules.

As pointed out numerous, model B has moved more than six inches (measured from base edge to base edge) as detailed in the example on page 12.

Can someone please correct me if I am wrong? As I understand it, there is nothing in the brb that says a model has to move in the direction it is facing. So then, the question becomes how does a non-vehicle model pivot?

If my model is facing this direction:

X
X
X

and I move it 6" forward and then "wheel" so it is like this:

XXX

The back of the model has now moved well over 6".

There is no rule saying they have to move in the direction they are facing. Just like there is no rule saying they can move in any direction.

The only movement diagram presented in the BRB shows the front facing being used for movement to the front facing at the end of the move.

so there is a clear rules picture showing you move from a front facing to a front facing in the book, along with a picture showing that going more than 6" if you are allowed to move 6" = NO!

And again, my point is that no matter how you pivot an oblong object, there is going to be displacement. It can either be pivoting from the center which would keep it even or you can wheel the model, in which case the back of the model is now displaced even further.

So, would you have a problem if I took an oblong model that was pointed at one of your units and moved it six inches forward (towards that unit). Once there, I pivoted the model 90 degrees so that the now side edge was where the original front edge was?

Something like this:
Y
X
X <------ YXXXZ
X
Z
|---6"----|

Because if you allow this, you are now allowing me to cheat and bend the rules to gain distance. I understand the display doesn't convey, but now points Y and Z of the model have moved well over 6".

I'm not sure why this debate is even happening really. The measuring rules are pretty clear.

Look at the diagram on page 12 of the BRB. You measure the distance moved from the edge of the base to the edge of the base.

This means you measure from the edge of the base before you move, out 6". That is where the edge of your base ENDS when you finish your movement. During your movement you're free to rotate the miniature as much as you want... but you can't rotate it such that the edge of the base crosses that 6" line from your base when you started.

If you don't measure in this way, you're moving more than 6"... full stop. That's simply cheating.

An oval base model will have an OVAL SHAPED 6" radius zone from its edges that defines where it can move. NOT a 6" radius CIRCLE SHAPE from the center of the model, to which you are allowed to move the center of the model, and then rotate the model so that part of it is outside the 6" radius circle.