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.

To OP.
I suggest next time that you take a set of six sided dice with six on every side and another set with one on every side. There is nothing in the rules that state the dice numbering has to be sequenced from one through to six
Vim

It's important to remember that the rules are permissive. If the rules don't allow you to do something, you can't. In the first case presented here, the rules instruct you to deploy your units one at a time, which means you don't have permission to put any units on the table other than the one you intend to deploy. You can pre-measure to determine where other models will fit but at this point you're not allowed to put any models on the table that aren't being deployed at that moment.

Most tournaments have a set of rules to cover slow play or general playing etiquette and I think this scenario would fall under that category. It's something the rules cover tangentially but it's much easier to deal with through tournament guidelines than pure rules.

In non-tournament games I feel like the first 2 points are covered by the basic social contract of playing the game, so it's not strictly a YMDC issue. There are certain basic assumptions the rules make that would be tedious and frankly impossible to try to cover in the core rules. This includes things like "tanks don't move by laying them on their side". As much as YMDC tries to avoid invoking common sense I think this is one area where we have to acknowledge the conventions are implied rather than explicit.

As stupid as it sounds - do we even have permission to change the orientation of our models? Ie: Changing the facing of a vehicle from north to east for example. I couldn't see anything in my brief reading of the rules.

JakeSiren wrote:
As stupid as it sounds - do we even have permission to change the orientation of our models? Ie: Changing the facing of a vehicle from north to east for example. I couldn't see anything in my brief reading of the rules.

You can do it as part of your movement phase for free, if you really want to/need to because of terrain. But, other than that, face is no longer relevant.

You may wish to reread 'Moving' on page 177 of the main rulebook:

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.

This will affect how you turn long narrow models with the Necron Ghost Ark.

 Ghaz wrote:
You may wish to reread 'Moving' on page 177 of the main rulebook:

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.

This will affect how you turn long narrow models with the Necron Ghost Ark.

To get into specific terminology this allows the translation of a model, but not the rotation of one.

In any event, if you accept that these rules allow you to rotate the model then you must accept that it can be rotated in any direction, including onto its side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kdash wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
As stupid as it sounds - do we even have permission to change the orientation of our models? Ie: Changing the facing of a vehicle from north to east for example. I couldn't see anything in my brief reading of the rules.

You can do it as part of your movement phase for free, if you really want to/need to because of terrain. But, other than that, face is no longer relevant.

Do you have a page reference or rules quote to back up this statement? (Specifically talking about the free movement/orientation, not about the facing)

Why would he need a page reference? When moving your models you just move them, and face them anyway you want. Facing counts for nothing rules wise so its no issue.

I wouldn't allow you to place models upside down or on their side unless they had the fly keyword during their movement, but your free to turn them whichever way you want.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would he need a page reference? When moving your models you just move them, and face them anyway you want. Facing counts for nothing rules wise so its no issue.

I wouldn't allow you to place models upside down or on their side unless they had the fly keyword during their movement, but your free to turn them whichever way you want.

You made the claim that "You can do it as part of your movement phase for free" when referring to rotating your models. I don't see that in the rules, hence asking for a page reference.

Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would he need a page reference? When moving your models you just move them, and face them anyway you want. Facing counts for nothing rules wise so its no issue.

I wouldn't allow you to place models upside down or on their side unless they had the fly keyword during their movement, but your free to turn them whichever way you want.

No, that's a previous edition rule. The current rules are the exact opposite - no part of the model may end its move further away from where it started than your Movement value.

For a model with a round base it's immaterial, face however you like, movement cost would be the same. But oval-based and base-less units don't get free pivots and it does cost movement to change orientation. All units are treated equally unless their Datasheet says they're not. So if you decide to pivot you measure how far you've rotated (or rather how far away the point that moved the furthest ended up - you don't measure the arc, justv he resulting move), with the exception of Flyers with the Supersonic rule, or any other unit whose Datasheet allows a free pivot.

They is nothIng in the rules saying tanks can't do a wheely, but reeeeeally, does there need to be? Your social contract of playing a game, years of wargaming precedent, simply not being a douchebag... all these cover it ably. But if someone is adamant they can do a wheely because nothing in the rules forbids it, allow it, and make sure every part of that movement is measured, horizontal and vertical... they won't get as far as they think, and you can just (righteously) wink and saw "that's RAW, baby" just like they did when telling you they could get all Fast and Furious with a Stormhammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:
Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Hate to say it, but it's common sense that a tank drives on its tracks so they didn't put it in the rules.

Honestly, I can suspend disbelief over mind bullets and handwavium armour, but a Rhino driven by Brother Vin Diesel driving on its side is either so stupid I'd tell you where to go, or, depending on the game and spirit, I'd allow it as the coolest thing ever. But it probably falls into the first camp 9 times out of 10. If you need a rule to tell you a tank can't start driving on its side hatch or dozer blade then I give up... just play the game...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Hate to say it, but it's common sense that a tank drives on its tracks so they didn't put it in the rules.

Honestly, I can suspend disbelief over mind bullets and handwavium armour, but a Rhino driven by Brother Vin Diesel driving on its side is either so stupid I'd tell you where to go, or, depending on the game and spirit, I'd allow it as the coolest thing ever. But it probably falls into the first camp 9 times out of 10. If you need a rule to tell you a tank can't start driving on its side hatch or dozer blade then I give up... just play the game...

Your assumption is that common sense is universal in some way. I don't disagree on how it should be played, but we are on YMDC and I was pointing out what the rules actually say.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would he need a page reference? When moving your models you just move them, and face them anyway you want. Facing counts for nothing rules wise so its no issue.

I wouldn't allow you to place models upside down or on their side unless they had the fly keyword during their movement, but your free to turn them whichever way you want.

You made the claim that "You can do it as part of your movement phase for free" when referring to rotating your models. I don't see that in the rules, hence asking for a page reference.

Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Currently, the only thing that is in the rules, regarding movement, is that no part of the hull/model base may move more than the movement listed on the units datasheet. This only counts for the distance between the start point and the finish point (this is the actual “path” the model follows btw, not “as the crow flies” distance).

If a tank were to decide somewhere along the path it wanted to rotate 90 degrees, then turn back 90 degrees before continuing, that “pivot” is not counted within the move. So with 10” move, I could move 5”, do a 360 spin, and move another 5”. This has zero impact on the game as facings on vehicles are no longer relevant. The only thing you have to be aware of, is when you change the facing of your tank at the “finish” point, as you might find that, because of it, part of your tank might have “moved” 10.5” rather than 10”. As such, you’d have to move back 0.5” (for example).

Kdash wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would he need a page reference? When moving your models you just move them, and face them anyway you want. Facing counts for nothing rules wise so its no issue.

I wouldn't allow you to place models upside down or on their side unless they had the fly keyword during their movement, but your free to turn them whichever way you want.

You made the claim that "You can do it as part of your movement phase for free" when referring to rotating your models. I don't see that in the rules, hence asking for a page reference.

Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Currently, the only thing that is in the rules, regarding movement, is that no part of the hull/model base may move more than the movement listed on the units datasheet. This only counts for the distance between the start point and the finish point (this is the actual “path” the model follows btw, not “as the crow flies” distance).

If a tank were to decide somewhere along the path it wanted to rotate 90 degrees, then turn back 90 degrees before continuing, that “pivot” is not counted within the move. So with 10” move, I could move 5”, do a 360 spin, and move another 5”. This has zero impact on the game as facings on vehicles are no longer relevant. The only thing you have to be aware of, is when you change the facing of your tank at the “finish” point, as you might find that, because of it, part of your tank might have “moved” 10.5” rather than 10”. As such, you’d have to move back 0.5” (for example).

You seem confused, you present two opposing points as both being correct. Do we care about the total distance moved along the path or not? You initially say we do, but then your second paragraph says we don't when you say that the vehicle can do a 360 degree spin and continue to move the same distance as if it didn't. Surely you would note that parts of the model would have moved over 10" if you did this.

Also, facing does have an impact on certain models (many fliers come to mind).

Oh look...another inane "I'm more clever in my wording than you" non-argument on Dakka...colour me surprised.

Well, I aksed the judge of that tournament, and he said nobody came up with this question.

So firstly, OP should have contacted TO.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Hate to say it, but it's common sense that a tank drives on its tracks so they didn't put it in the rules.

Honestly, I can suspend disbelief over mind bullets and handwavium armour, but a Rhino driven by Brother Vin Diesel driving on its side is either so stupid I'd tell you where to go, or, depending on the game and spirit, I'd allow it as the coolest thing ever. But it probably falls into the first camp 9 times out of 10. If you need a rule to tell you a tank can't start driving on its side hatch or dozer blade then I give up... just play the game...

Your assumption is that common sense is universal in some way. I don't disagree on how it should be played, but we are on YMDC and I was pointing out what the rules actually say.

If your common sense doesn't extend to which way up a model goes I fear any game we play will be disappointing for everyone. Common sense also means something obvious to everyone, so yes... it does mean universal.

Also let's be honest, this isn't about a lack of common sense, it's attempting to gain some advantage by ignoring it. Ignoring something is not the same as being ignorant of it. And if you acknowledge and ignore it, then ehhh...

Why wouldn't a sideways Bane-chassis simply be counted as "modelling for advantage"?

Is it ridiculous? abso-fething-lutely. Does the rule prohibit "modelling for advantage?" I remember someone once told us that it was completely legal because there are no rules against modelling for advantage, and has been legal since however many editions ago...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Hate to say it, but it's common sense that a tank drives on its tracks so they didn't put it in the rules.

Honestly, I can suspend disbelief over mind bullets and handwavium armour, but a Rhino driven by Brother Vin Diesel driving on its side is either so stupid I'd tell you where to go, or, depending on the game and spirit, I'd allow it as the coolest thing ever. But it probably falls into the first camp 9 times out of 10. If you need a rule to tell you a tank can't start driving on its side hatch or dozer blade then I give up... just play the game...

Your assumption is that common sense is universal in some way. I don't disagree on how it should be played, but we are on YMDC and I was pointing out what the rules actually say.

If your common sense doesn't extend to which way up a model goes I fear any game we play will be disappointing for everyone. Common sense also means something obvious to everyone, so yes... it does mean universal.

Also let's be honest, this isn't about a lack of common sense, it's attempting to gain some advantage by ignoring it. Ignoring something is not the same as being ignorant of it. And if you acknowledge and ignore it, then ehhh...

Haha... yeah only if we had a nickel for every time this has happened... There are quite a few of us out here that would like to see the game burn and looks for any holes in the rule to exploit "it is permitted, because it is explicitly written, and there are no rules that prohibits it" argument.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Regarding rotation as far as I can tell the permissions that allow you to change front facing fron north to east are the same as changing your front facing from forwards to upwards. If you allow me to change the orientation of my vehicle then you can't deny me putting my rhino on its side - unless you can show me rules to the contrary.

Hate to say it, but it's common sense that a tank drives on its tracks so they didn't put it in the rules.

Honestly, I can suspend disbelief over mind bullets and handwavium armour, but a Rhino driven by Brother Vin Diesel driving on its side is either so stupid I'd tell you where to go, or, depending on the game and spirit, I'd allow it as the coolest thing ever. But it probably falls into the first camp 9 times out of 10. If you need a rule to tell you a tank can't start driving on its side hatch or dozer blade then I give up... just play the game...

Your assumption is that common sense is universal in some way. I don't disagree on how it should be played, but we are on YMDC and I was pointing out what the rules actually say.

If your common sense doesn't extend to which way up a model goes I fear any game we play will be disappointing for everyone. Common sense also means something obvious to everyone, so yes... it does mean universal.

Also let's be honest, this isn't about a lack of common sense, it's attempting to gain some advantage by ignoring it. Ignoring something is not the same as being ignorant of it. And if you acknowledge and ignore it, then ehhh...

Yes, I use the rules to my advantage. That's why I take my disgustingly resilient rolls, because they are permitted by the ruleset and grant me a benifit. You say this like it's a bad thing? It would be dishonest of me to not try my best against an opponent.

Regarding common sense, your list of items will then be incredibly small. Common sense are things that you learnt growing up and are considered social norms. Things that are considered common sense in one country may not be so in another.

Since your argument is no longer about the rules and you provided no rules based rebuttal I assume that you accept this is what the rules allow? Everything else is a social contract between you and your opponent as to what is acceptable.

*Edit*
I was also wondering, do you force opponents to turn their tank to move forwards as common sense dictates that they can't move sideways?

In my earlier post I literally stated there's nothing against it in the rules. Don't just react to one post in an evolving conversation and take it as someone's entire argument. You also stated above you don't disagree with me on HIWPI so it appears you're trying to argue just to argue? Defining differing takes on 'common sense' is futile and off topic.

To the last bit, no, as there's nothing in the rules to require it. You can abstract in your head that the tank turned and turned back if that's important, but you've followed the rules. Moving sideways with tracks on the floor is not abusing things like lifting your model into a one-track-wheely to fit through a smaller gap that the rules don't permit it to pass through, claiming "nothing says I can't!" Now that opponent I simply wouldn't play again. It wouldn't be fun if they're trying nonsense like that, so I wouldn't make the same mistake twice. Luckily, this is largely an internet argument and I've never met anyone who tries stunt driving with a Stormhammer screaming "SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T MWUAHAHA!"

If tanks can turn sideways or upside down if they want while moving, can't infantry too? If i want to withdraw from close combat but my unit is
surrounded by enemy models, why can't I just use some of my movement to stand the model on its head, at which point it will fit between the enemy models just fine?

P.S. I am NOT advocating this, merely pointing out what it leads to if followed a little further.

I would definitely call silly buggers on it. By that logic, a Shadowsword can go up on it's gun and fit through a 1" gap

Coh Magnussen wrote:If tanks can turn sideways or upside down if they want while moving, can't infantry too? If i want to withdraw from close combat but my unit is
surrounded by enemy models, why can't I just use some of my movement to stand the model on its head, at which point it will fit between the enemy models just fine?

P.S. I am NOT advocating this, merely pointing out what it leads to if followed a little further.

Mournssquats wrote:I would definitely call silly buggers on it. By that logic, a Shadowsword can go up on it's gun and fit through a 1" gap

Yep, this is what happens if you pull this thread. I mean, you can't, 99% of people would accept that. I think this is largely an internet problem that won't manifest in real life.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
In my earlier post I literally stated there's nothing against it in the rules. Don't just react to one post in an evolving conversation and take it as someone's entire argument. You also stated above you don't disagree with me on HIWPI so it appears you're trying to argue just to argue? Defining differing takes on 'common sense' is futile and off topic.

I could say the same thing about you. I was responding to Eihnlazer regarding what the rules say and you decided to interject with "common sense" as an argument. I was simply responding to the points you had made. I'm happy to drop that discussion though. It seems we both agree on RAW and what most people find acceptable.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
To the last bit, no, as there's nothing in the rules to require it. You can abstract in your head that the tank turned and turned back if that's important, but you've followed the rules. Moving sideways with tracks on the floor is not abusing things like lifting your model into a one-track-wheely to fit through a smaller gap that the rules don't permit it to pass through, claiming "nothing says I can't!" Now that opponent I simply wouldn't play again. It wouldn't be fun if they're trying nonsense like that, so I wouldn't make the same mistake twice. Luckily, this is largely an internet argument and I've never met anyone who tries stunt driving with a Stormhammer screaming "SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T MWUAHAHA!"

The last bit was addressing your "common sense" argument, and yet you have responded with RAW. There is nothing in the core rules that requires you to be facing the direction you are moving, and likewise there is nothing in the rules requiring you to place your model flat on the table. As noted, we have permission to move vehicles sideways and rotate them onto their sides. From a rules POV one is not more abusive than the other. However your social contract with the other human playing the game may put further limits on what actions are acceptable, and it seems like your expectations of a social contract would implicitly prohibit tanks being placed on the side, however I don't think that's really the point of the discussion.

 vim_the_good wrote:
To OP.
I suggest next time that you take a set of six sided dice with six on every side and another set with one on every side.

Seems like a good idea

Fan67 wrote:

Well, I aksed the judge of that tournament, and he said nobody came up with this question.
So firstly, OP should have contacted TO.

So, there was 2 points in my first post, 1) premeasuring 2)hull models stuff ; cant say wether anyone contacted judge on the first point(also - there were 2 judges), but! on the second point - (drifting-mooving on one track-wheely-Bane) was allowed by the judge directly.


Also - why havn`t anyone read about hover tank (which in most casees hover more than 1" from the ground) with melee range issue =(

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
In my earlier post I literally stated there's nothing against it in the rules. Don't just react to one post in an evolving conversation and take it as someone's entire argument. You also stated above you don't disagree with me on HIWPI so it appears you're trying to argue just to argue? Defining differing takes on 'common sense' is futile and off topic.

I could say the same thing about you. I was responding to Eihnlazer regarding what the rules say and you decided to interject with "common sense" as an argument. I was simply responding to the points you had made. I'm happy to drop that discussion though. It seems we both agree on RAW and what most people find acceptable.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
To the last bit, no, as there's nothing in the rules to require it. You can abstract in your head that the tank turned and turned back if that's important, but you've followed the rules. Moving sideways with tracks on the floor is not abusing things like lifting your model into a one-track-wheely to fit through a smaller gap that the rules don't permit it to pass through, claiming "nothing says I can't!" Now that opponent I simply wouldn't play again. It wouldn't be fun if they're trying nonsense like that, so I wouldn't make the same mistake twice. Luckily, this is largely an internet argument and I've never met anyone who tries stunt driving with a Stormhammer screaming "SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T MWUAHAHA!"

The last bit was addressing your "common sense" argument, and yet you have responded with RAW. There is nothing in the core rules that requires you to be facing the direction you are moving, and likewise there is nothing in the rules requiring you to place your model flat on the table. As noted, we have permission to move vehicles sideways and rotate them onto their sides. From a rules POV one is not more abusive than the other. However your social contract with the other human playing the game may put further limits on what actions are acceptable, and it seems like your expectations of a social contract would implicitly prohibit tanks being placed on the side, however I don't think that's really the point of the discussion.

You don't have permission, there's simply no prohibition. Again, these aren't the same thing. Given RAW doesn't cover it there is only HIWPI, so don't criticise me for discussing HIWPI and how 99% of others would play it. I maintain that this is an internet problem and won't manifest with reasonable opponents.

And no, I responded with a bit of RAW (as you were trying to bait me into a logical trap with your question) and a lot of HIWPI. Because it takes both to make these rules function, quite frankly, so it's appropriate to do so.

If you don't have permission then you don't need a prohibition as you aren't allowed to do it in the first place.

The rules you use to allow rotation of a vehicle from north to east are the same that allow you to rotate it onto its side. General permission has been granted and the rules don't differentiate between these two types of rotation. It's fine to say how you think it should be played, but don't say a rules based argument is wrong based on HYWPI. Either you have rules supporting your position or you don't.

Also, it's only a logical trap because you are inconsistent on how you apply your "common sense" house rule.

JakeSiren wrote:
If you don't have permission then you don't need a prohibition as you aren't allowed to do it in the first place.

The rules you use to allow rotation of a vehicle from north to east are the same that allow you to rotate it onto its side. General permission has been granted and the rules don't differentiate between these two types of rotation. It's fine to say how you think it should be played, but don't say a rules based argument is wrong based on HYWPI. Either you have rules supporting your position or you don't.

Also, it's only a logical trap because you are inconsistent on how you apply your "common sense" house rule.

You're telling me that 99% of the world putting a tank on its tracks and leaving it on its tracks is a 'house rule'?
That not allowing cartwheeling models to fit through gaps too small for the base is a 'house rule'?
Yeah OK whatever dude.

And I gave you a handwavium explanation for how common sense meshes with accepting that tanks can move 'sideways' already, so no inconsistency here, thanks. I showed you how some simple 'splainy makes that palatable, whilst also saying I don't find cartwheels acceptable. As we're in HIWPI here, you can't prove me wrong. Go ahead and tumble models any which way you like... just make sure you measure the distance traveled by the model properly... that being the distance between where the point of the model that moved the furthest started and ended. Crack on with it. You might not even finish a rotation of your superheavy. That's what I'd insist if you insist that RAW allows what you want. You're technically not wrong per se, so I'll make sure you move technically correctly.

But this is silly. The whole RAW Or You Are Wrong just simply doesn't work in this instance. You will not find a single tournament allowing tank wheelies. Most of the staunch RAW At All Costs advocates around here wouldn't agree with you. You're arguing for argument's sake over something that you are most definitely in a tiny minority if you believe legit. Do me the service of accepting that and not trying to paint me as being incorrect or disingenuous. I'm just trying to play the game and make it work. And to do that we don't have tanks doing a wheely.

This really is a ridiculous discussion.

First off, with the exception of climbing vertically in ruins or climbing during movement in general, you are never given permission to remove a models base from the tabletop.

Since vehicles without bases count their hull as their base the same goes for them.

You are never allowed to remove the base of a model from the tabletop during gameplay (so no flipping, flopping, or hip hopping).

We only allow people to pick their models up when they move to speed things up and to not knock terrain over.

On that same note however, if you had originally deployed your rhino on its side, you would be allowed to keep it on its side the whole game. It would actually "HAVE" to stay on its side as officially the side on the table is its base.

I wouldnt even mind this personally as that makes it easier to surround with infantry.



And don't ask me for page numbers and quotes on that because the exact letters I wrote are not in the book, its just the interpretation of what is written by me, who happens to read a lot. I'm also lazy and so wont bother to look it up for you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

You're telling me that 99% of the world putting a tank on its tracks and leaving it on its tracks is a 'house rule'?
That not allowing cartwheeling models to fit through gaps too small for the base is a 'house rule'?
Yeah OK whatever dude.

What else do you call a rule that's not in the rule book or in a FAQ? It doesn't matter how many people accept it, it's still a house rule.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

And I gave you a handwavium explanation for how common sense meshes with accepting that tanks can move 'sideways' already, so no inconsistency here, thanks. I showed you how some simple 'splainy makes that palatable, whilst also saying I don't find cartwheels acceptable. As we're in HIWPI here, you can't prove me wrong. Go ahead and tumble models any which way you like... just make sure you measure the distance traveled by the model properly... that being the distance between where the point of the model that moved the furthest started and ended. Crack on with it. You might not even finish a rotation of your superheavy. That's what I'd insist if you insist that RAW allows what you want. You're technically not wrong per se, so I'll make sure you move technically correctly.

Then it sounds like we agree? RAW allows it, and HYWPI is up to you and your opponent?

Regarding moving the tank sideways, this can allow the vehicle to move further than what would normally be allowed if they rotate first.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

But this is silly. The whole RAW Or You Are Wrong just simply doesn't work in this instance. You will not find a single tournament allowing tank wheelies. Most of the staunch RAW At All Costs advocates around here wouldn't agree with you. You're arguing for argument's sake over something that you are most definitely in a tiny minority if you believe legit. Do me the service of accepting that and not trying to paint me as being incorrect or disingenuous. I'm just trying to play the game and make it work. And to do that we don't have tanks doing a wheely.

This really is a ridiculous discussion.

I accept that a majority of players would house rule tank wheelies as a no no. I am merely pointing out what the rules allow. Your HYWPI is yours, and while I have reason to believe is internally inconsistent, it's still yours at the end of the day.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
First off, with the exception of climbing vertically in ruins or climbing during movement in general, you are never given permission to remove a models base from the tabletop.

Since vehicles without bases count their hull as their base the same goes for them.

You are never allowed to remove the base of a model from the tabletop during gameplay (so no flipping, flopping, or hip hopping).

We only allow people to pick their models up when they move to speed things up and to not knock terrain over.

On that same note however, if you had originally deployed your rhino on its side, you would be allowed to keep it on its side the whole game. It would actually "HAVE" to stay on its side as officially the side on the table is its base.

I wouldnt even mind this personally as that makes it easier to surround with infantry.

As you noted later in your post, this isn't completely backed up by RAW, but for the sake of discussion how do you purpose to have the entire "base" of a Rhino on the table? If the hull is the base then the roof parts, side parts, and floor parts all need to be touching the table. Obviously this is not the case. Which leads us to accept that only part of the base needs to be touching the table. This allows me to physically roll a rhino, and as long as part of the rhino is touching the table then it is a legal move.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

And don't ask me for page numbers and quotes on that because the exact letters I wrote are not in the book, its just the interpretation of what is written by me, who happens to read a lot. I'm also lazy and so wont bother to look it up for you.

Then basically a HYWPI. No point discussing rules if you are not going to use them.

Nothing says a models base has to stay flat on the table either. So if its possible to tip a hive tyrant sideways while moving it and then squeeze it between 2 other models... what... 4-6mm(?) gap then thats what your saying a vehicle can do by the same logic.

If you are accepting that a base must stay flat on the table when moving models around then you must also consider that a hull must stay flat on the table.

If you don't think that is the case then what the feth game are you playing?

 Gretten wrote:

As for putting 5 units on the table all at once then “deploying” them one at a time – I’d personally be fine with – as long as it wasn’t taking up a massive amount of the allotted time. As long as the opponent declared which of the 5 units was deployed 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc it’d be fine. Plus, in a way, it allows you to then counter deploy as you know the, highly likely, starting positions of 5 units.

As for deployment - yes, it`ll be fine. But it was in the first round at the end of moove, when reinforcements were coming. So, to my mind, it was kind of unfair to do so.