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.

kaotkbliss wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
That's why with things like tanks, I measure from the center of the model.
No matter how you turn it, the center is still the center and in the same place. So as long as at the end of your move, the new center is 10" or less, you are good.

Nope, in some circumstances you are now cheating because you are moving further than permitted.

Measuring from center or front 10" in a straight line is still 10" as long as you measure center to center or front to front and not front to center or center to front.
If your tank is 6" long then yes, the front will stick out 3" past 10" at the end of the move, but you started at -3" when you measured.

And it's not just moving when I measure from center, it's also shooting so pivoting doesn't add anything because the center is still in the exact same spot. It's the way I learned to do tanks since 2nd


*edit*
If anything, it puts me at the disadvantage since all my measuring is starting at -3" which means for all my opponents measuring for charging or shooting, the hull is 3" closer to him/her.

.

You can get the same 3” advantage by turning your tank the other way. If you charge with your tank, you measure from the centre, but you couldn’t possibly put the centre where the charge ends up, your tank will be on top of a bunch of models, it doesn’t work.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
And how do you measure to the center for assaulting? Or disembarking? or a bunch of other things. It simply doesn't work.

Agreed it's weird method but that's what he seems to be doing for his measurements. He's basically shooting himself to foot here(unless he somehow wants enemy to reach to vehicle but not himself from vehicle) to avoid having to measure from point that moves furthest.

Ix_Tab wrote:
Unless there is a gap which you must pivot to fit through there is no requirement to do so in your example. It may seem weird but the LR can keep its' facing and slide sideways.

I agree with this, if there are no obstacles you need to move around, you could always either move sideways or pivot the landraider back into the same direction as where it was pointing at at the start of the movement and it would satisfy the distance limitation.

Malachon wrote:

Ix_Tab wrote:
Unless there is a gap which you must pivot to fit through there is no requirement to do so in your example. It may seem weird but the LR can keep its' facing and slide sideways.

I agree with this, if there are no obstacles you need to move around, you could always either move sideways or pivot the landraider back into the same direction as where it was pointing at at the start of the movement and it would satisfy the distance limitation.

Just need to keep in mind sometimes you have to turn models around to fit into area. At which point we get back to just measure from point that moves most.

Besides I always position models into what would make sense. Front where you are moving. I value esthetics and logic too much.

Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Land raider starts like this:

XXX

Then it moves and rotates and ends like this:

X
X
X

End result. If you measured from point closest to enemy(straight ahead, up in above) and then after moving full distance you rotate 90 degrees toward enemy your front is CLOSER to enemy after rotation. So you basically gain movement. On extreme case it would theoretically have vehicle where simply by rotating vehicle would be in enemy deployment zone...

Which is why in above case you would have to measure from the point that moves furthest from the initial position _after_ rotation.

If you move, then rotate then you are gaining/losing distance. You could say it evens out but you can bet this will be exploited.

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Land raider starts like this:

XXX

Then it moves and rotates and ends like this:

X
X
X

End result. If you measured from point closest to enemy(straight ahead, up in above) and then after moving full distance you rotate 90 degrees toward enemy your front is CLOSER to enemy after rotation. So you basically gain movement. On extreme case it would theoretically have vehicle where simply by rotating vehicle would be in enemy deployment zone...

Which is why in above case you would have to measure from the point that moves furthest from the initial position _after_ rotation.

If you move, then rotate then you are gaining/losing distance. You could say it evens out but you can bet this will be exploited.

sorry, that's just not right. Other game systems have similar rules and have no issue...it must be a 40K player thing. I measure from hull...10", I then pick up model and place at 10" making sure no part of the model goes beyond that point, regardless of which way I turn it....it's really childsplay.

 bullyboy wrote:
sorry, that's just not right. Other game systems have similar rules and have no issue...it must be a 40K player thing. I measure from hull...10", I then pick up model and place at 10" making sure no part of the model goes beyond that point, regardless of which way I turn it....it's really childsplay.

Well yes gee that's pretty much how it's supposed to be done. Measure so that no part moves further.

However common misconceptions are measure from center of model or just one part(say closest to enemy), move and THEN rotate. That's not how rules say to do it but that's how many people do it and this results in leap.

As it is that's how your post hints at doing...

You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

You don't specify WHERE you measure from or that you ensure no part of model goes that far, ie pulling model backward after rotation if it would be over that line. If you just measure, move and then rotate freely then that's different to measure, move, rotate and adjust position to account rotation.

 bullyboy wrote:

sorry, that's just not right. Other game systems have similar rules and have no issue...it must be a 40K player thing. I measure from hull...10", I then pick up model and place at 10" making sure no part of the model goes beyond that point, regardless of which way I turn it....it's really childsplay.

That's the theory, but some people here have noticed the practice is to rotate after the facing part of the hull is already moved X" - this gives you a couple more inches forward for free (whatever the distance from the hullspot you chose to the tip of this model).

M.

Where in the rules does it tell you to rotate? That's just bad habit carry-over from prior editions.

 bullyboy wrote:
Where in the rules does it tell you to rotate? That's just bad habit carry-over from prior editions.

Where does it say you can't turn model on the spot center spot staying same? Models aren't locked in same direction forever. You can spin around freely as long as no point ends further than movement allows. However many measure distance first, then move, then spin model around.

Rotation went away in 2nd edition and is irrelevant here

It's only really an issue for players who aren't conscientious of the maximum distance allowed. I like the method bullyboy described. Alternatively, make all pivots before and after movement in a backward rather than forward direction to avoided exceeding the movement distance.

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Exactly this. I never understand why this issue comes up after every new edition.

If you are moving forward, you measure the distance from your forward most point of the vehicle. No part of the vehicle can move past this point, no mater how you pivot.
8th makes this even easier by not having faces.

So in the OP's example, you measure the front of the LR to the point you wish it to be. PLACE A MARKER ON THIS POINT if it's too hard for you to keep track of this distance.
When you move the LR, you can pivot it in any way you like, so long as no part of the LR goes farther then the point you marked.
It does not matter if the @$$ end of the LR moved more because you were not measuring the @$$ end, just the outer most part in relation to where the LR was moving.

 Galef wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Exactly this. I never understand why this issue comes up after every new edition.

If you are moving forward, you measure the distance from your forward most point of the vehicle. No part of the vehicle can move past this point, no mater how you pivot.
8th makes this even easier by not having faces.

So in the OP's example, you measure the front of the LR to the point you wish it to be. PLACE A MARKER ON THIS POINT if it's too hard for you to keep track of this distance.
When you move the LR, you can pivot it in any way you like, so long as no part of the LR goes farther then the point you marked.
It does not matter if the @$$ end of the LR moved more because you were not measuring the @$$ end, just the outer most part in relation to where the LR was moving.

Let's say you measure from the mid-front of a vehicle that is 4" wide x 6" long. We measure 10" (let's say this is max movement) from that mid point (which is on the 4" side, that's what I'm calling the front). If you pivot it in any way you like as long as no part goes further than the point you marked, let's say you put the middle of the 6" side on that marker. The middle of that side just moved ~13-1/8". That's more than 3" of extra movement for the point on that side. This is not valid. No part may move more than 10".

If you pivot during a sideways move to point the front towards the movement, the front moves over a foot.

Pivoting 90 degrees is basically moving on a hypotenuse, so we know it's more than a straight movement.

I did the above math in autocad, assuming the 4x6 size and measuring lines out from that.

What you need to do is not measure from the part that's already facing the way you want to move, but measure from the part that's *going to end up* facing the way you're moving. Otherwise you're taking extra movement

Jacksmiles wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Exactly this. I never understand why this issue comes up after every new edition.

If you are moving forward, you measure the distance from your forward most point of the vehicle. No part of the vehicle can move past this point, no mater how you pivot.
8th makes this even easier by not having faces.

So in the OP's example, you measure the front of the LR to the point you wish it to be. PLACE A MARKER ON THIS POINT if it's too hard for you to keep track of this distance.
When you move the LR, you can pivot it in any way you like, so long as no part of the LR goes farther then the point you marked.
It does not matter if the @$$ end of the LR moved more because you were not measuring the @$$ end, just the outer most part in relation to where the LR was moving.

Let's say you measure from the mid-front of a vehicle that is 4" wide x 6" long. We measure 10" (let's say this is max movement) from that mid point (which is on the 4" side, that's what I'm calling the front). If you pivot it in any way you like as long as no part goes further than the point you marked, let's say you put the middle of the 6" side on that marker. The middle of that side just moved ~13-1/8". That's more than 3" of extra movement for the point on that side. This is not valid. No part may move more than 10".

If you pivot during a sideways move to point the front towards the movement, the front moves over a foot.

Pivoting 90 degrees is basically moving on a hypotenuse, so we know it's more than a straight movement.

I did the above math in autocad, assuming the 4x6 size and measuring lines out from that.

What you need to do is not measure from the part that's already facing the way you want to move, but measure from the part that's *going to end up* facing the way you're moving. Otherwise you're taking extra movement

Um, no. You measure from the outermost part to the point you will end up. Those are the only 2 points that matter RAW. It is impossible to move any part of the vehicle more that the point you measures to by pivoting.

Think of it this way. If you intend to move a Rhino 12" straight forward, you measure from the very front of it. Place a dice at 12". Now you can move the Rhino up to that dice, pivoting in any way you want.
It would not matter if you flipped it 180 degrees so that the Rear of the Rhino went up to that dice. The rear may have technically moved more than 12", but as long as NO PART of the Rhino moved past your initial measurement point of 12" it's legit.

Now if you are trying to move back more distance, that is slightly different, but the physics are the same:
Start by measuring from the rear of the Rhino to the point you want to move. Place a dice or marker (or mentally in your head) at the point where the Rhino can move 12" back.
If you then turn the Rhino 90 degrees so that the Front is now farther that 12" from where it was, so be it. As long as no part of the Rhino moves farther than the point to where you measured, this is perfectly legal.

-

 Galef wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Don't see any issue since facings aren't a thing anymore. You measure your move distance, pick up your vehicle and move it up to that max distance, rotating it however you feel fit. Simple.

Exactly this. I never understand why this issue comes up after every new edition.

If you are moving forward, you measure the distance from your forward most point of the vehicle. No part of the vehicle can move past this point, no mater how you pivot.
8th makes this even easier by not having faces.

So in the OP's example, you measure the front of the LR to the point you wish it to be. PLACE A MARKER ON THIS POINT if it's too hard for you to keep track of this distance.
When you move the LR, you can pivot it in any way you like, so long as no part of the LR goes farther then the point you marked.
It does not matter if the @$$ end of the LR moved more because you were not measuring the @$$ end, just the outer most part in relation to where the LR was moving.

Let's say you measure from the mid-front of a vehicle that is 4" wide x 6" long. We measure 10" (let's say this is max movement) from that mid point (which is on the 4" side, that's what I'm calling the front). If you pivot it in any way you like as long as no part goes further than the point you marked, let's say you put the middle of the 6" side on that marker. The middle of that side just moved ~13-1/8". That's more than 3" of extra movement for the point on that side. This is not valid. No part may move more than 10".

If you pivot during a sideways move to point the front towards the movement, the front moves over a foot.

Pivoting 90 degrees is basically moving on a hypotenuse, so we know it's more than a straight movement.

I did the above math in autocad, assuming the 4x6 size and measuring lines out from that.

What you need to do is not measure from the part that's already facing the way you want to move, but measure from the part that's *going to end up* facing the way you're moving. Otherwise you're taking extra movement

Um, no. You measure from the outermost part to the point you will end up. Those are the only 2 points that matter RAW. It is impossible to move any part of the vehicle more that the point you measures to by pivoting.

Think of it this way. If you intend to move a Rhino 12" straight forward, you measure from the very front of it. Place a dice at 12". Now you can move the Rhino up to that dice, pivoting in any way you want.
It would not matter if you flipped it 180 degrees so that the Rear of the Rhino went up to that dice. The rear may have technically moved more than 12", but as long as NO PART of the Rhino moved past your initial measurement point of 12" it's legit.

Now if you are trying to move back more distance, that is slightly different, but the physics are the same:
Start by measuring from the rear of the Rhino to the point you want to move. Place a dice or marker (or mentally in your head) at the point where the Rhino can move 12" back.
If you then turn the Rhino 90 degrees so that the Front is now farther that 12" from where it was, so be it. As long as no part of the Rhino moves farther than the point to where you measured, this is perfectly legal.

-

It's geometry. If no part can move farther than the movement value, then you need to factor in where all parts start and where all parts end up. The easiest way to do that is to measure from the point on the model that is going to the point on the table you want it to end up. If you pivot and then move forward, the front has moved further than it's allowed.

At least, that's how I read the "No part of the base or hull can move farther than that" in regards to movement distance. I see better what you're saying though I disagree.

If you measure to a point 10" from the side, then move the front to that point, the front has moved more than 10"

Edit: Either way we're at least agreeing that you don't move sideways to the spot then pivot to face something in that direction

I just took another look at the rule and I think I get the confusion. The rules states this:
"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model's base (or hull) can move further than this..."

So while some are reading it as "no individual point of a model can move more than the M stat from where it was to where it will go", the rule itself does not say this at all.
It is basically saying that you can move the model AS A WHOLE a number of inches in the direction you want. Once moved, no part of the model can pass this point, meaning you cannot swing parts of the model forward once you've moved X".

To have to keep track of every point on a model to keep track of max movement is ludicrously against the spirit of the rule and placing value on words that aren't even in the rule.

To take the idea to the extreme, it would imply that even models on round bases could not be turned at any point in the game without potentially moving a part of their base farther than allowed or reducing their full movement to allow such a pivot. No one would agree to that, nor should they.
It would also imply that simply pivoting on the spot would count as moving, which it doesn't.

-

 Galef wrote:
I just took another look at the rule and I think I get the confusion. The rules states this:
"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model's base (or hull) can move further than this..."

So while some are reading it as "no individual point of a model can move more than the M stat from where it was to where it will go", the rule itself does not say this at all.
It is basically saying that you can move the model AS A WHOLE a number of inches in the direction you want. Once moved, no part of the model can pass this point, meaning you cannot swing parts of the model forward once you've moved X".

To have to keep track of every point on a model to keep track of max movement is ludicrously against the spirit of the rule and placing value on words that aren't even in the rule.

To take the idea to the extreme, it would imply that even models on round bases could not be turned at any point in the game without potentially moving a part of their base farther than allowed or reducing their full movement to allow such a pivot. No one would agree to that, nor should they.
It would also imply that simply pivoting on the spot would count as moving, which it doesn't.

-

Like them characters reaching forward with their power swords LOL

"No part of the model's base (or hull) can move further than this" is in reference to the movement characteristic. It can easily be taken either way, as both sides need to add meaning in their own interpretation of it. The rule doesn't say "no individual point of a model can move more than the M stat from where it was to where it will go" nor does it say "the point at the very end of the move characteristic distance is where you place any part of the model."

 Galef wrote:

To have to keep track of every point on a model to keep track of max movement is ludicrously against the spirit of the rule and placing value on words that aren't even in the rule.

I heavily disagree that it would be against the spirit of the rule even a tiny bit, and seems perfectly reasonable. And it actually does use words that are in the rule

Again, the way I've easily kept track of this is to measure only from the point that will end up where I'm moving the model. Nothing else really needs to be kept track of at that point, because the sides and rear are all moving less than the front (if measuring from front and wanting to pivot)

Jacksmiles wrote:
Again, the way I've easily kept track of this is to measure only from the point that will end up where I'm moving the model. Nothing else really needs to be kept track of at that point, because the sides and rear are all moving less than the front (if measuring from front and wanting to pivot)

See, now I am confused. This is exactly what I do and am suggesting to do. So why are we arguing again?
Oh, yeah, the internet.

-

 Galef wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Again, the way I've easily kept track of this is to measure only from the point that will end up where I'm moving the model. Nothing else really needs to be kept track of at that point, because the sides and rear are all moving less than the front (if measuring from front and wanting to pivot)

See, now I am confused. This is exactly what I do and am suggesting to do. So why are we arguing again?
Oh, yeah, the internet.

-

By "point," I meant point on the model, not point on the table. Unless you're *not* saying that you can measure 10" from the side and then place the front at that spot (because in that case the front moves further than 10" from it's current resting spot) - if that's the case, then yeah we agree.

If not, I'm just explaining how I read the rule and how it doesn't actually conflict with the wording in the movement rules - though now reading these responses I have a sliver of doubt. That's how I and the local area have been playing it because that's how we read it.

I just move my tanks like the old fantasy blocks. Fist turn measure the part that moves the most. then move the rest of the model for the remaining M value.

I think that's what most people suggest it's just hard to explain wiothout showing on a table.

I measure from the point of the model that is closest to where I will move it, then move it. I imagine an impassable wall at that point at which "no part" of the model can move father than.
So by my interpretation:
A) my model as moved X" equal to or less than the M stat and
B) no part of the model has moved passed that point.

-

This is from the 7th edition main rulebook FAQ, but I believe this is their intention in regards to moving in 8th edition as well:

Q: When I am using ‘long’ or ‘oval’ Cavalry/Bikes/Monstrous Creatures’ bases, am I allowed to pivot the base on the spot to gain additional movement like vehicles would?

A: When making a move, you have to take into account how far all parts of the model have moved. Or to put that another way, trying to come up with a way of making a move that allows a model to move ‘further’ than its maximum movement distance is illegal. It is not allowed for a model to move 6" towards or away from something, and end up more than 6" closer to or further away from it!

Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving.

A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase.