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 can see that this is within the rules, and GW obviously don't care to change it, but I still don't like it. Smells of chedder.

 insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:
Well... it is usually okay to mover farther, if you take two turns to do it.

The thing is, they have both moved 6 inches. The only difference is that one pivoted on the same turn as it moved... and the rules tell us that pivoting isn't supposed to reduce the vehicle's movement distance.

If a vehicle can move 6 inches in a direction it was already facing, then it should be able to move 6" in a different direction after pivoting.

Similarly, if you are 8" away from something, you should not be able to move 6", and now be 1" away.

Then don't do it, if you don't like it. Just don't stop others from following studio sanctioned rules....

coredump wrote:
Similarly, if you are 8" away from something, you should not be able to move 6", and now be 1" away.

In a system that allows your unit that is 8" away to suddenly become 7" away without moving, I don't see why not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then don't do it, if you don't like it. Just don't stop others from following studio sanctioned rules....

I have already said I don't do it, and I have already said I don't stop others from doing it. Or is it you want me to stop voicing my opinion and to stop replying when others address me...??

 insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:
Similarly, if you are 8" away from something, you should not be able to move 6", and now be 1" away.

In a system that allows your unit that is 8" away suddenly become 7" away without moving, I don't see went not.

yeah, I realize the game, being a game, isn't perfect. And I don't really mind when this just 'happens' during a game, I think the part that bugs me is that people can take advantage of this 'quirk' by deploying sideways; and that they can get across the board 'faster' by deploying sideways....



And like I said previously... This is almost always a very minor issue. If I got to start changing 40K rules, there are plenty in line before this one. But I still don't like this one.

As for the purpose of the thread:
Dominions with Melta-guns in a Rhino:

With pivot they can fire from outflanking up to 25" into the board (19" for 2D6)
Without, the melta only reaches 24" in (18" for 2D6)

When you need that 2D6 to get the Knight, i suppose the 1" might be all you need due to base size =P

Yeah, deployment can do it, but entering from the board edge is a different matter.
Somehow I don't think side shimmying vehicles is going to take off, as that does screem not intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ofcourse, its not only vehicles that can gain movement by doing this. Any model mounted on an oval base can (Knights, some Nid MC's).

Move strait on, turn facing at end, gain a inch for your charge. Yay.

Edit; though on a quick flick through if the distance is measured before facings or pivots maybe niether in the movement phase can gain you any distace, as the end point for the movement distance has already been determined... Will reserve that until I get home and read through properly.

"as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn"

Is how the RaW write it, but basically: It doesn't say which way you are facing, so why can you not "Start" the reserves movement sideways?

Also, Knights and Trigons have their oval poiting sideway, so you'd actually loose distance =D

 BlackTalos wrote:
"as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn"

Is how the RaW write it, but basically: It doesn't say which way you are facing, so why can you not "Start" the reserves movement sideways?

Also, Knights and Trigons have their oval poiting sideway, so you'd actually loose distance =D

If you put them on the base that way.
In addition, facing for a MC has no bearing on... anything.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn"

Is how the RaW write it, but basically: It doesn't say which way you are facing, so why can you not "Start" the reserves movement sideways?

Also, Knights and Trigons have their oval poiting sideway, so you'd actually loose distance =D

If you put them on the base that way.
In addition, facing for a MC has no bearing on... anything.

True, but it would on the Knight for AV facing. Is the "pictures" on the box supplied not the direction you need to mount them? ("Mount as supplied")

Are the pictures rules?

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, that approach gives you an inconsistency in movement distance based on when the vehicle moves.

Example 1: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees, and move 6".

Example 2: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees. Next turn I move 6".

By your way of doing it, the rhino in example 2 has moved completely legally, while the rhino in example 1 has moved too far. But they have both moved the exact same distance.

That way lies madness.



{Multiple edits because I apparently can't type this morning... :( }

Seconded.

As long as the vehicle's center does not end up more then 6" away, everything is good. This is the way it works in real life, and in the rules. The problem is that with the rules there is no penalty for pivoting.

rigeld2 wrote:
Are the pictures rules?

88% of responding Dakkanauts felt that pictures are NOT rules.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no rule that specifically limits vehicles to moving forwards and backwards, no.

Moving your vehicles sideways won't earn you any friends, though.

WHO CARES ABOUT FRIENDS? THIS IS WARHAMMER 40,000, THE GRIMDARKEST OF ALL TABLETOP MANBARBIE GAMES.

Please keep on the topic.

Thanks...

Why is it that no one ever seems to note the maximum distance allowed?

A vehicle has a maximum distance that it is allowed to move. That distance is measured from leading edge to leading edge of all moving models.

If the leading edge of a vehicle is beyond the maximum allowable distance at the end of its move, it has made an illegal move. You don't begin measuring your movement after you have pivoted, you begin the measurement from the starting position. This is the crux of argument.

And to someone earlier....no, legality doesn't impart sportsmanship or a sense of fair play and exploitation of rule wording does indicate a lack of either.

 Idolator wrote:
Why is it that no one ever seems to note the maximum distance allowed?

A vehicle has a maximum distance that it is allowed to move. That distance is measured from leading edge to leading edge of all moving models.

If the leading edge of a vehicle is beyond the maximum allowable distance at the end of its move, it has made an illegal move. You don't begin measuring your movement after you have pivoted, you begin the measurement from the starting position. This is the crux of argument.

And to someone earlier....no, legality doesn't impart sportsmanship or a sense of fair play and exploitation of rule wording does indicate a lack of either.

That rule (and most of the movement rules) assume a model on a circular base. Now we obviously have a lot of models which are not on circular bases. How do the rules handle that?

Page 10 BRB wrote:As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned on the spot to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover

By the RAW a monstrous creature on an oval base is allowed to turn and then move, gaining possibly 2" (I can't remember the exact size of the base). I don't think that is intended (rules were written for perfectly circular bases), but it is definitely allowed.

BRB page 71 wrote:Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move) just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving,

Similarly, it is quite allowed for a vehicle to pivot and then move.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'leading edge'. Perhaps you mean that 'no part of the vehicle may end up more than 6" away from where it started? That could work, though it would reduce the manoeuvrability of vehicles (not necessarily a bad thing), but it isn't what the rules say regarding pivoting...

It may be just me, but I have always thought that the maximum distance that can be moved meant that it was the maximum distance that can be moved.

The rules for movement do use the models on a base as the example, but it's clear that the farthest point from the origination point is used to determine movement distance.

Even the rules for vehicle movement state that the pivot is designed to prevent a vehicle from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. To use it to actually GAIN extra movement is anathema to the rule in itself. Using a rule designed to prevent extra movement to gain extra movement due to poor design (or rules writers not knowing the product) is the epitome of a jerk move.

Except of course that isn't true when moving vehicles. You are told how to measure a move for vehicles, and displacement is not the same thing

Oddly after 16 years of the same rule. The rule that the studio agrees works exactly that way. This is the way the rule works, is not an exploit, and catches you out once.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except of course that isn't true when moving vehicles. You are told how to measure a move for vehicles, and displacement is not the same thing

Oddly after 16 years of the same rule. The rule that the studio agrees works exactly that way. This is the way the rule works, is not an exploit, and catches you out once.

Just saying, the rule explicitly states it's to prevent movement that goes beyond more than that allowed. While the use of the rule, or perhaps abuse of the rule, causes movement that goes beyond the maximum allowed distance.

16 years! That is an awfully long time to let contradictory wording ride. I doff my cap to such attention to detail from the rules writers.

But I'm sure that someone will point out that having a rule that directly subverts it's stated purpose is exactly how it's supposed to work.

Just saying that displacement is not the same thing as movement. And that the rule you reference has nothing to do with hoe vehicles measure their move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Just saying that displacement is not the same thing as movement. And that the rule you reference has nothing to do with hoe vehicles measure their move.

how do vehicles measure their moves?

Edit: where is "displacement" discussed?

I agree somewhat with idolator, vehicles don't measure their distance at a different time to other models - they measure from a different part but none of the vehicle rules object to the fact you measure before you start moving. You can't pivot before then, ergo to maximum distance the front of the hull can go up to has already been determined. It can be brought forward then RAW a pivot wont bring you further. The vehicle rules for movement only changes from normal models is it is measured from hull, rather than the base, and lists different movment distances and the effects they have. The maximum movement distances as described in the movement section should still apply.

I looked over the rules but decided would be too much drama to post before

So you agree that pivoting reduces movement then?

That's the outcome of the stance from you two. And as we know that isn't possible....

Pivoting on the table or deployment line to gain distance makes sense, and i don't see it as an exploit because the penalty is you're leaving your side armor exposed. But I don't see how pivoting on the table edge from outflank would work. This involves pivoting a model on a spot that doesn't exist. How can imaginary space outside the table be used? All vehicles come on the table edge from whatever angle they want, but you measure from the first part of the hull that comes into the playing field, not from the imaginary side hull off the table pre-pivot.

 deviantduck wrote:
Pivoting on the table or deployment line to gain distance makes sense, and i don't see it as an exploit because the penalty is you're leaving your side armor exposed. But I don't see how pivoting on the table edge from outflank would work. This involves pivoting a model on a spot that doesn't exist. How can imaginary space outside the table be used? All vehicles come on the table edge from whatever angle they want, but you measure from the first part of the hull that comes into the playing field, not from the imaginary side hull off the table pre-pivot.

The vehicle starts parallel to the board, strafes sideways 6" on to the board, then pivots at the end of its move, for the same net effect.. There is nothing saying that vehicles must move 'forwards'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you agree that pivoting reduces movement then?

That's the outcome of the stance from you two. And as we know that isn't possible....

Other than the deployment possible getting the assault ramp of a vehicle closer on Turn 1 movement, I don't see much advantage to this. If you follow the rules, the Center of the vehicle will have moved a maximum of 6" regardless of pivot, even skimming the land raider sideways.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you agree that pivoting reduces movement then?

That's the outcome of the stance from you two. And as we know that isn't possible....

No, I do not agree.

It's not the outcome of my stance.

Yes is is possible, due to many factors.

I answered your questions. Please answer mine. Here, I'll restate them.

How do vehicles measure their move?

Where is "displacement" discussed?

Anyone can answer this if they want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you agree that pivoting reduces movement then?

That's the outcome of the stance from you two. And as we know that isn't possible....

Other than the deployment possible getting the assault ramp of a vehicle closer on Turn 1 movement, I don't see much advantage to this. If you follow the rules, the Center of the vehicle will have moved a maximum of 6" regardless of pivot, even skimming the land raider sideways.

The rules for movement do not take the center of a model into consideration when judging distance moved. If you can point me to this in the rule book I would appreciate it. Movement is judged by the furthest point of a model from it's starting point.

As for this being 'studio sanctioned', I guess in some ways. From the way Nos explained it in another thread it seemd like this is a known issue for the studio, but with no easy fix they decide leaving it alone is an easier solution.

Still sounds honorable enough to not try it for 'extra' movement, within the 'studio sanctioned' rules or not. After all, 'studio sanctioned' rules they refuse to fix despite it being a known issue also means Wraith units cannot fire ranged weapons.

Trasvi wrote:
There is nothing saying that vehicles must move 'forwards'.

Except for Zooming Flyers, but that is a moot point in this discussion.