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.

You don't move sideways. You deploy sideways, on your turn you pivot in the direction you want to go, move forward, pivot the direction you want to deploy, deploy 1.99999 inches away from the vehicle.

Your understanding of the rules is correct, but your understanding of how the rules are applied in this situation is incorrect.

I guess I stand both correct and incorrect in my previous post. You see the way I was reading some of the posts was that the suggestion was moving the vehicle sideways then pivoting at the end of the move to gain the extra few inches.

To expand on the implication that is being presented here then. This same tactic can easily be applied to a vehicle like a Land Raider which side to side is about 5inches (not including sponsons 6inches with sponsons) while front to back is 7inches. It doesn't seem game breaking to most people and by a literal viewing of the rules as they are written it isn't because when you pivot a vehicle you pivot from dead center and as long as dead center doesn't move the vehicle isn't counted as moving. Personally not a tactic I wouldn't use (except maybe in a tournament) because to me it is cheating your opponent but it is legal.

It may not seem game breaking (which has nothing to do with being against the rules) and it probably rarely is. But saying it's perfectly legit and trying to hide behind "pivots shouldn't/don't cost movement!" is shady. It's not against the rules, but I'd count sportsmanship down if I was able to in a tourney and it was used against me.

Pivoting shouldn't cost movement. Pivoting should also not give you free distance. With the way 40k rules are right now, it does. An easy fix (maybe in 6th?) would be to measure movement from the center of the vehicle, but that's a debate for another forum.

opps went to correct a spelling error and accidentally quoted myself. Anyways to make this not a wasted post, I agree it is shady and needs to be addressed in either an FAQ or the next edition.

rigeld2 wrote:Pivoting shouldn't cost movement. Pivoting should also not give you free distance. With the way 40k rules are right now, it does.

That's not just the way the rules are right now... it's how the rules have been for 3 editions and nearly 15 years.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Pivoting shouldn't cost movement. Pivoting should also not give you free distance. With the way 40k rules are right now, it does.

That's not just the way the rules are right now... it's how the rules have been for 3 editions and nearly 15 years.

True, but that doesn't make it a good rule.
Many other ganes that feature vehicles and Mech's a pivots count.
It is much more "realistic"

The following is not "YMDC" but an editorial

I think that Pivoting should cost movement.
And, if I read the Dreadfleet reports, it seems that in Dreadfleet it does slow your movement.

It can be very simple to do: As the more you are pivoting the more complex/work it takes.

Pivot 0-45 degrees, costs 1"
Pivoy 45-90 degrees cost 2"
Pivot 90-135 degres cost 4"
Pivot 135-180 degrees cost 6"

And while you cannot move "sideways" in 40K.. unless you are stuck in close to other units/terrain, you can pivot 90deg to right, move 6" pivot 90 deg left, and you just moved sideways 6". Seems a silly restriction, considering the you can pivot as much as you want a turn, rule.

I mean you could sit and spin moving 1" every 540 degrees and do it 6 times, end up in the exact same spot/location/direction, and can still shoot, but you have "moved" so its harder to hit you in CC... yeah you try shooting after spinning around 10 times..

Rules I think would be better for Vehicles..
Movement distance for CC to hit rolls should be based upon displacement of Center of Mass of the Vehicle.
Movement distance for Flatout/Turbo cover saves based upon displacement.
Pivot/Turning should use up movement as above.
Embarked units should be relentless, same as Bikes.
When Moving <=6" models embarked should have Relentless.
When moving 6-12" models embarked have relentless but are at -1 to hit.
moving 12"+ cannot shoot, as you are holding on for dear life


just my two spent casings...

Rigeld - the game has been that way since 1998. To mark people down because theyre using a rule that the studio knows about and endorses as a result of their desire to simplify the vehicle movement rules from the terrrrribly slow 2nd ed rules is bad sportsmanship on your part - you should know about this possible occurrence when playing in tournaments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rigeld - the game has been that way since 1998. To mark people down because theyre using a rule that the studio knows about and endorses as a result of their desire to simplify the vehicle movement rules from the terrrrribly slow 2nd ed rules is bad sportsmanship on your part - you should know about this possible occurrence when playing in tournaments.

I do know about this possible occurrence. I also know it's been this way for a long time.

And you're probably right - doing so would be bad sportsmanship. I might not actually do it, but it would tick me off to no end.

It shouldnt tick you off - its like wound allocation with nobs. You shouldnt mark someone down for using a rule to their advantage.

Wound allocations makes sense. Pivoting adding movement does not.

How does wound allocation make any more sense than pivoting adding DISPLACEMENT, not MOVEMENT?

Remember - the two terms are NOT identical in 40k terms.

Landrain wrote:True, but that doesn't make it a good rule.

If good rules are your litmus test, then I suggest you look at other game systems.

While 40k is playable, it is just chuck full of bad/poorly written rules.

Landrain, 2nd edition did have rules in existence regarding turns costing movement, and IIRC so did Rouge Trader (1st) but when they released 3rd and later they felt that, that particular rule interfered with the fun of the game so they tossed it out the window. Also I believed they felt it was more realistic to drop it. Consider this, in a tank such as an Abrams you can sit there and spin on the spot, while you moving of sorts your not gaining speed or ground and you are only limited to the amount of spinning by your fuel consumption, now if that same take was equipped with a fission or fusion engine you would still be limited by fuel but your fuel source would last so long that it doesn't matter.

As to some of the suggested changes, there are some comments I would like to make regarding them.

Movement distance for CC to hit rolls should be based upon displacement of Center of Mass of the Vehicle.
Movement distance for Flatout/Turbo cover saves based upon displacement.

These two statements I completely agree with and in fact this is how I play the game, at least on my end, if the vehicle is to be counted as moving then it's center point is not at the starting position for that turn.

Pivot/Turning should use up movement as above.

I don't agree with this because you would then be adding unnecessary math to the game, while the rules as they exist can be used in a manner some can consider broken and this issue does need to be addressed going back to pivoting using up movement subtracts from the fun as you must now keep track of yet more math.

Embarked units should be relentless, same as Bikes.

I disagree, an embarked unit should not gain relentless just because they are on a transport. Be allowed to use weapons as long as the transport is yes but gain relentless no. If the models already have relentless though I can see letting them fire regardless as long as the vehicle is able to.

When Moving <=6" models embarked should have Relentless.

Again don't feel that they should get relentless maybe an upgrade to the vehicles that allow Heavy Weapons to fire at this speed but no to relentless

When moving 6-12" models embarked have relentless but are at -1 to hit.

Again don't feel that they should get relentless maybe allow models armed with assault weapons, pistols, and rapid fire being allowed to fire as if moving but that's it

moving 12"+ cannot shoot, as you are holding on for dear life

Can't disagree to this one, unless of course the vehicle in question is allowed to fire at these speeds. if the vehicle can I see no reason why the troops cant under the same stipulation of 6-12".

Can anything being held in a Land Raider move and assault out of it in the same turn it move 12" because it has assault ramp?

Billagio wrote:Can anything being held in a Land Raider move and assault out of it in the same turn it move 12" because it has assault ramp?

Anything that can normally be put in a Land Raider may utilize the Assault Ramp rule... you can't of course assault an Attack Bike out of one or some such thing...

Food for thought an example would you allow this:


Vehicle for this case lets say a rhino. Starts sideways.
Vehicle pivots 90 degree's to its left and moves up 12".
At the end of its movement it pivots again 90 degree's to stay sideways with its side hull at the FURTHEST POINT where the FRONT of the vehicle ended up after the 12" movement.

You might say yes but if you do then why did one pivot happen differently then the other?

The second pivot is illegal. You have to pivot around the center - that won't bring the side to where the front used to be.

Who thinks it would be a good idea to intoduce a turning template in 6th? Like the Dreadfleet one. Doesn't cost movement, and you can make as many turns as you like.

UltraPrime wrote:Who thinks it would be a good idea to intoduce a turning template in 6th? Like the Dreadfleet one. Doesn't cost movement, and you can make as many turns as you like.

Sure, I've still got mine from 2nd..........................

UltraPrime wrote:Who thinks it would be a good idea to intoduce a turning template in 6th? Like the Dreadfleet one. Doesn't cost movement, and you can make as many turns as you like.

To play devils advocate. How is it illegal the vehicle did not exceed its maximum movement it dont end over 12" away from its starting point.

Except it does.

Draw 2 lines 12" apart. Put a vehicle behind one, facing the other, and move it 12" forward. You'll still be behind the second line.

Put the vehicle back, except with it's side on the first line. Pivot to face the second line and move 12". You'll be over the second line.

Yep. All pivots have to be on the center of the model, per the 40k rules since 3rd edition.

Aipoch wrote:So would that mean a raider, being open topped, can move it's full 12", have the unit inside disembark 2" to the front, run in their shooting phase (lets say they get a 6), and then assault 6", giving the unit inside a potential 26" assault range?

Actually its 27", because the base of the model needs only be 2" from the vehicle, and the base is 1" wide (and in theory thus 1" closer to the enemy you want to assault).
Even more if you can get a larger base model in it (like how orks can with Warbosses or Big Meks).

The only alternative would be to treat pivoting the same as in WFB. So if you pivot to the left, you would cound the movement from the starting point of the right corner to the end point, and then only move whatever distance you have left. Although it would make the game more complicated IMHO.

I think the current rules make sense for tank movements as well as skimmers. Anything with tracks would pivot on the spot and not actualy physically move in any specific direction. But having different rules for track and wheel vehicles would be stupid.

I think I ran across the old vehicle cards from 2nd edition the other day. Play a few games with those rules and you will not mind the current rules one bit.

rigeld2 wrote:Except it does.

Draw 2 lines 12" apart. Put a vehicle behind one, facing the other, and move it 12" forward. You'll still be behind the second line.

Put the vehicle back, except with it's side on the first line. Pivot to face the second line and move 12". You'll be over the second line.

And? You're still conflating displacement ans movement. In 40k the two trrms are very different

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except it does.

Draw 2 lines 12" apart. Put a vehicle behind one, facing the other, and move it 12" forward. You'll still be behind the second line.

Put the vehicle back, except with it's side on the first line. Pivot to face the second line and move 12". You'll be over the second line.

And? You're still conflating displacement ans movement. In 40k the two trrms are very different

Context. I was responding to:

How is it illegal the vehicle did not exceed its maximum movement it dont end over 12" away from its starting point.

It absolutely does end up farther than 12" from it's starting point.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except it does.

Draw 2 lines 12" apart. Put a vehicle behind one, facing the other, and move it 12" forward. You'll still be behind the second line.

Put the vehicle back, except with it's side on the first line. Pivot to face the second line and move 12". You'll be over the second line.

And? You're still conflating displacement ans movement. In 40k the two trrms are very different

Context. I was responding to:

How is it illegal the vehicle did not exceed its maximum movement it dont end over 12" away from its starting point.

It absolutely does end up farther than 12" from it's starting point.

Actually, it doesn't.

It pivots in place. AFTER it pivots you measure 12 inches from the front of the vehicle and make your move. Pivoting is one action, moving the actual distance is another. The vehicle does not end up further than 12 inches away once it starts and finishes a forward motion.

The starting point is behind the line. It ends it's movement phase farther than 12" from it's starting point, as evidenced by the fact that it will cross a line 12" away from it's starting line.

lol, i love playing the cards here.

Your right and wrong.

Once said vehicle pivots its front point is where the front of the vehicle is, it can then move 12". What people do is move it 12" and then place it sideways. An illegal move because it would have to go past 12" to pivot on its center and end up 12" away at the conclusion of its movement. You have to look at the rules and see what it says about this. Once the vehicle is in place it is less then 12" from its start point. Its the means of getting to that point that comes into question because vehicles cant move sideways.

Tomb King wrote:lol, i love playing the cards here.

Your right and wrong.

Once said vehicle pivots its front point is where the front of the vehicle is, it can then move 12". What people do is move it 12" and then place it sideways. An illegal move because it would have to go past 12" to pivot on its center and end up 12" away at the conclusion of its movement. You have to look at the rules and see what it says about this. Once the vehicle is in place it is less then 12" from its start point. Its the means of getting to that point that comes into question because vehicles cant move sideways.

I'm not sure why you say I'm wrong. If you start sideways on/before a line, pivoting and moving forward will have you across a line 12" away. Turning sideways after moving is counter-productive, because you will be behind the 12" line. It's only the first move that gains displacement. (just for you nos)

As I've said, repeatedly, it's within the rules. I dislike the rule - a lot, especially because it's applied hypocritically in cases I've seen (It's fine for vehicles, but absolutely impossible for something like a Trygon to pull off according to some people - not on the boards, in person).