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.

God this is beardy.

POTMS - gets rid of shooting disadvantage for moving flat out
Shrouding - makes cover save for moving flat out 3+.

This is why RAW is stupid, as I pointed out a long time ago in a thread about Wolf-Tail talismans.

For the record, if I get this tried on me, I'm packing up my minis and leaving - it's not good, competitive tactics. It's taking advantage of a loophole in the rules.

It's beardy but legal. Btw if anyone tries this on you then tell them actually move their vehicle in the circle and see how well they can do that to end up at the exact same location. After a couple time of attempting to move the vehicle in a perfect circle or making a giant circle with their ruler they will get rather annoyed.

As the player in question: I did displace my models slightly. Until my opponent, who acted honorably even though he did not like my move, asked the TO for a ruling, I had never considered that it could go any other way.

Once he asked for a ruling, I waited to move those models until the TO ruled. Had the TO ruled differently, I would have acted in accordance with that ruling without complaint.

I can't say that I enjoyed the game, because my rolls were much lower than I like them to be, and my opponent's army was fairly well designed to take advantage of my weaknesses. I will, however, say that I found my opponent to be a challenging player who made me think hard at every turn.

BlueDagger wrote:It's beardy but legal. Btw if anyone tries this on you then tell them actually move their vehicle in the circle and see how well they can do that to end up at the exact same location. After a couple time of attempting to move the vehicle in a perfect circle or making a giant circle with their ruler they will get rather annoyed.

FTW!

That's actually a good point... you're supposed to move the vehicle to represent it's movement. I can see it very difficult to do that to represent "flying in circles" to take advantage this loophole.

Further discussion... how do you respond when someone tries this?

Oppenent: he actually displaces the Stormraven 4" to get good LOS for his PoM to take a shot, but says it's "flying in a circle" moving more than 18" to get the flatout coversave...
You say: "You must move the StormRaven greater than 18" to get coversave..."
Oppoent says: "It's flying is circles more than 18""... and he animates the theoretical flight path with his hands, without messuring..
You say: "But, you have to measure for your movement"...
Oppenent says: "I can fly in any shape circle to reach at least 18" movement, thus I get cover"...
You're thinkning: ... how do I respond to this?!?

Can't you simply say, I did see you move/measure more than 18"??

Best thing to do is to just move on and not cause friction between you and your opponent. It may be cheese, but the best thing to do is move and and try to have fun.

That is actually a common misconception. You must merely move over 12" to count as flat out. Turboboost is the only one with the 18" limitation.

Just simply tell him "I completely believe that you are moving in a circle, however if you want to play RAW then please do it correctly. Could you please physically move your model the entire path of that movement, making sure to measure carefully and always moving in a forward direction with the front of your tank?"

Not even beardy.

Totally Legal.

I measure 7 Inches sideways, and 6 inches back with my stormravens all the time after they drop their load.

I actually measure and move my model the 7 inches, and then back 6 inches, so there are no complaints.

I have not run into any issues with doing this.

whembly wrote:
Can't you simply say, I did see you move/measure more than 18"??

No, because it doesn't actually say anywhere that you have to measure your movement (IIRC). All it says is that you can't move further than your maximum movement.

Tiderian I was fine with the TO’s ruling. As a new strategy it caught me a bit off guard. The list I took in particular does not deal with SRs well and not getting a farseer on the table till turn 4 and some tactical errors did not make dealing with this interpretation any easier. In hindsight there are counters to this that were available that I did not consider. First and foremost that moving flat out does not =6 to hit in CC. The thought making you circle around the table for every move is funny, but only if you go Swooooooosh, dakkadakkadakka……

BlueDagger wrote:That is actually a common misconception. You must merely move over 12" to count as flat out. Turboboost is the only one with the 18" limitation.

Just simply tell him "I completely believe that you are moving in a circle, however if you want to play RAW then please do it correctly. Could you please physically move your model the entire path of that movement, making sure to measure carefully and always moving in a forward direction with the front of your tank?"

I knew that... but, my fingers didn't...

Heh... I'll try that if someone does that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

whembly wrote:
Can't you simply say, I did see you move/measure more than 18"??

No, because it doesn't actually say anywhere that you have to measure your movement (IIRC). All it says is that you can't move further than your maximum movement.

Then, how do I know that you actually moved more than 12?? (not the 18" since thats for turbo-boosting... fingers didn't know )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Not even beardy.

Totally Legal.

I measure 7 Inches sideways, and 6 inches back with my stormravens all the time after they drop their load.

I actually measure and move my model the 7 inches, and then back 6 inches, so there are no complaints.

I have not run into any issues with doing this.

I agree it's legal... but still beardy. It isn't like GK needs any more help!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icon720 wrote:Tiderian I was fine with the TO’s ruling. As a new strategy it caught me a bit off guard. The list I took in particular does not deal with SRs well and not getting a farseer on the table till turn 4 and some tactical errors did not make dealing with this interpretation any easier. In hindsight there are counters to this that were available that I did not consider. First and foremost that moving flat out does not =6 to hit in CC. The thought making you circle around the table for every move is funny, but only if you go Swooooooosh, dakkadakkadakka……

Heh... if my opponent actually goes "Swoooooosh... DAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKA"!!

I'll throw my hands up in the air... then fist bump my opponent and move on..

whembly wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

whembly wrote:
Can't you simply say, I did see you move/measure more than 18"??

No, because it doesn't actually say anywhere that you have to measure your movement (IIRC). All it says is that you can't move further than your maximum movement.

Then, how do I know that you actually moved more than 12?? (not the 18" since thats for turbo-boosting... fingers didn't know )

Because I say that I moved the unit in a perfect circle with a circumference that is >12".

whembly wrote:I agree it's legal... but still beardy. It isn't like GK needs any more help!

I disagree that it is beardy.

Following the rules is a good thing.

It does look like a legal move and I wouldn't argue.

Just make yourself a large circle template thats got an 18" circumference or roughly a diameter of 5.729" and if your opponent asks you to move your model then use the template.

DeathReaper wrote:

whembly wrote:I agree it's legal... but still beardy. It isn't like GK needs any more help!

I disagree that it is beardy.

Following the rules is a good thing.

Not always; see the thread where there are plenty of examples of RAW being completely wrong / slowed / self contradictory.

Sometimes the rules are just dumb. Fortunately we can houserule them, if required. Which I will do for this.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

whembly wrote:I agree it's legal... but still beardy. It isn't like GK needs any more help!

I disagree that it is beardy.

Following the rules is a good thing.

Not always; see the thread where there are plenty of examples of RAW being completely wrong / slowed / self contradictory.

Sometimes the rules are just dumb. Fortunately we can houserule them, if required. Which I will do for this.

Houserule it all you want. but know they are house rules.

here we have an odd situation where if you shoot at it, it gets a cover save for moving flat out, but if you assault it, it has only moved at most 1 inch. But those are the rules.

yakface wrote:

Note: when assessing how far a vehicle has moved,
only take into account the actual distance covered from
its original position. Moving backwards and forwards or
driving around in circles does not help!

If you tried to apply that principle in all cases, then you would have to allow a vehicle that moved flat-out around a big piece of impassible terrain (for example) to not count as having moved flat-out if its end position wasn't actually more than 12" away from its starting position, which is obviously ludicrous.

The rule about a vehicle counting as having moved as far as it actually moved ONLY applies to determining what is needed to hit the vehicle in CC.

I feel like I might be crazy, but I don't think the note in the BRB refers to displacement. It says actual distance covered from its original position. The term "actual distance" does not necessarily mean displacement. If I drive my tank around a wall, that path I took to move 12" is still "actual distance" that I am required to cover in order to reach that location.

I think the note specifically refers to situations where you have literally moved in a circle, and/or claimed a longer distance than is actually required to get to your endpoint.

Reconciling that, I feel that it's totally fair to assume this is a global rule, rather than just assault, for the same reasons that Jidmah reckons, on page 1.

When assessing how far a vehicle has moved. No limitations given.

How far did the stormraven move when turbo-boosting a perfect circle with periphery of 24"? Combat speed.

Otherwise please quote another rule how you assess how far a vehicle has moved.

Krall wrote:

I feel like I might be crazy, but I don't think the note in the BRB refers to displacement. It says actual distance covered from its original position. The term "actual distance" does not necessarily mean displacement. If I drive my tank around a wall, that path I took to move 12" is still "actual distance" that I am required to cover in order to reach that location.

I think the note specifically refers to situations where you have literally moved in a circle, and/or claimed a longer distance than is actually required to get to your endpoint.

Reconciling that, I feel that it's totally fair to assume this is a global rule, rather than just assault, for the same reasons that Jidmah reckons, on page 1.

That is an undefendable position. The 'note' on page 63 refers to 'the actual distance covered from its original position' and then mentions 'Moving backwards and forwards or driving around in circles does not help' as examples of what they're talking about.

The only possible explanation is that they are referring to physical displacement of the model vs. its starting position...that's what 'the actual distance covered from its original position' means. If somehow they aren't talking about physical displacement then how exactly do you quantify this?

Say I move a vehicle 6" straight forward and then 3" straight back...how far does the vehicle count as having moved for the purposes of hitting it in close combat? If the answer is 3" (because the model has only been physically displaced 3" from its starting position) then how is this any different from a situation where a vehicle moves 18" around an impassable object, but only ends up physically displaced less than 6" from its starting point (as was illustrated in the text diagram in my post above)? What about if I drive a vehicle around in a circle but its around an impassable circular piece of terrain? What about if I drive a vehicle around in a circle but end up just an inch away from its starting position, etc, etc, etc?

You cannot have it both ways. The rules for determining 'to hit' a vehicle are dependent upon physical displacement of the model as opposed to how far it actually moved (along its movement path), whereas all the other situations in the game (how many weapons it can shoot, whether it can disembark troops, etc) are dependent upon how far the vehicle moved along its path as opposed to its actual physical displacement. This is the way it has to be or the game breaks down! Vehicles have to be held accountable for how far they actually moved (along a path), and that rule has to apply in all situations except where specifically noted otherwise. Yes, this creates some seemingly bizarre inconsistent situations, but that is how the rules need to be to work.

yakface wrote:

Krall wrote:

I feel like I might be crazy, but I don't think the note in the BRB refers to displacement. It says actual distance covered from its original position. The term "actual distance" does not necessarily mean displacement. If I drive my tank around a wall, that path I took to move 12" is still "actual distance" that I am required to cover in order to reach that location.

I think the note specifically refers to situations where you have literally moved in a circle, and/or claimed a longer distance than is actually required to get to your endpoint.

Reconciling that, I feel that it's totally fair to assume this is a global rule, rather than just assault, for the same reasons that Jidmah reckons, on page 1.

That is an undefendable position. The 'note' on page 63 refers to 'the actual distance covered from its original position' and then mentions 'Moving backwards and forwards or driving around in circles does not help' as examples of what they're talking about.

The only possible explanation is that they are referring to physical displacement of the model vs. its starting position...that's what 'the actual distance covered from its original position' means. If somehow they aren't talking about physical displacement then how exactly do you quantify this?

Say I move a vehicle 6" straight forward and then 3" straight back...how far does the vehicle count as having moved for the purposes of hitting it in close combat? If the answer is 3" (because the model has only been physically displaced 3" from its starting position) then how is this any different from a situation where a vehicle moves 18" around an impassable object, but only ends up physically displaced less than 6" from its starting point (as was illustrated in the text diagram in my post above)? What about if I drive a vehicle around in a circle but its around an impassable circular piece of terrain? What about if I drive a vehicle around in a circle but end up just an inch away from its starting position, etc, etc, etc?

You cannot have it both ways. The rules for determining 'to hit' a vehicle are dependent upon physical displacement of the model as opposed to how far it actually moved (along its movement path), whereas all the other situations in the game (how many weapons it can shoot, whether it can disembark troops, etc) are dependent upon how far the vehicle moved along its path as opposed to its actual physical displacement. This is the way it has to be or the game breaks down! Vehicles have to be held accountable for how far they actually moved (along a path), and that rule has to apply in all situations except where specifically noted otherwise. Yes, this creates some seemingly bizarre inconsistent situations, but that is how the rules need to be to work.

The concept I'm trying to get across is that I interpreted "actual distance" to mean the "minimum distance required to arrive at the given location".

If the player is moving a skimmer, this will always mean a straight line.

If a player is trying to move a tank 4" forward, then 3" back, they have really moved 1". If they move 4" forward along a wall, then turn at the corner of the wall and proceed 3" at a 90 degree angle, their "actual distance" is 7". A skimmer making this same move would travel 5" (Pythagorean Theorem).

This seems to jive well with the 'Moving backwards and forwards or driving around in circles does not help' bit.

Some examples with the possible interpretations:

Always use raw Displacement as Actual Distance: Problems with moving around walls. Specifically, a 12" move counts as a 4" move, allowing you to move like a skimmer for all intents and purposes.

Displacement only counts for assaults: Problems with swooping in circles for a free cover save that wouldn't work if the vehicle was a jetbike turbo boosting. Personally, I feel like the intent was to make these rules at least slightly consistent. (Then again it's GW so...)

Always use Minimum Distance Required as Actual Distance:

Tanks moving around walls make sense, skimmers make sense, nobody gets cover saves without moving, and cover saves match up with rolls to hit in assaults. I don't see a problem with this interpretation. No oddities jump out at me, and no rules are broken.