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.

 John Prins wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
You are probably right. This makes it much harder to calculate. We can asume the further you travel the less you loose to pivoting. And if you need to pivot abruptly mid move it complicates the whole thing quite a lot.

Thanks.

Edit: Turns out it's less than I thought - see above.

(Edit: I'm an idiot. If the base was pivoted on the center, you'd lose 5" on the arc sweep but gain (170mm-105mm/2 =) 32.5mm of forward movement, or 1 1/4". Add that to 7 and you get 8 1/4", which is not a lot more than 8 1/2". )

Yeah, I forgot the baze increases didn't I? So on my 4,9" pivot I would need to add 30mm (Asuming a 160 x 100 base) also know as 1,2 inches. So the knight on the pivot then move is moving (12 - (4,9 - 1,2)) 8,3 ". And some how more if you pivot while moving. While I do not doubt the result I would like to know why combining the two movements end up with a further result.

But with so little diferenciating it, would it be rude to ask them to pivot and then take 3,7 (probably easier with 3,5) of the movement range?

It's actually a 170x105mm base. A 90 degree turn on the center (85mm radius) works out to an arc of 5.3" - call it 5 1/4" for ease of play. So you'd have 6 3/4" more linear movement after the pivot. Adding in the 1 1/4" you gain by pivoting, you could turn sideways and your base edge would effectively move forward 8".

If you pivot on the long edge (170mm radius), a quarter circle turn is an arc of 10 1/2" (almost exactly). That's the longest radius you can pivot on, so every other quarter circle pivot will take less movement - and get harder to accurately measure. At some point you just gotta guess and err on the side of moving less rather than more. Given the power of a knight's charge, I think accurate measurement is pretty important.

I still favor sheer displacement for simple moving and pivoting, though. You're still moving a lot less than a round base would. Ovals are harshly punished for turning in a game where a unit's facing is meaningless!

Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

The rules don't say much. No point on the base (or hull for models without bases) can move more than the movement stat. How you're supposed to measure that movement is largely left up to interpretation. Oval bases are the only ones that typically need to pivot, and most people agree that pivoting uses up movement because the simple act of pivoting on the center can get the base edge closer to the enemy.

 John Prins wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

The rules don't say much. No point on the base (or hull for models without bases) can move more than the movement stat. How you're supposed to measure that movement is largely left up to interpretation. Oval bases are the only ones that typically need to pivot, and most people agree that pivoting uses up movement because the simple act of pivoting on the center can get the base edge closer to the enemy.

Pivoting uses up movement simply because no point can have moved more than the movement distance (stat is misleading here, as this all applies to other movements such as Pile In too). If you pivot, a point have moved.

You are correct that we are given very little guidance on how precisely to calculate the movement. This is why in my opinion this question cannot be answered in pure RAW terms. We simply don't have enough information, and even if we did the nature of a miniatures game makes checking the precise amount of movement including pivoting virtually impossible.

This is why for practical purposes most people intuit which point on the model moved furthest, then trace a line from that points start position to its end position, and use that to determine distance travelled.

Anything else simply leads to madness in my opinion.

 John Prins wrote:
I still favor sheer displacement for simple moving and pivoting, though. You're still moving a lot less than a round base would. Ovals are harshly punished for turning in a game where a unit's facing is meaningless!

Well you don't have to turn generally. Unless you are trying to go through narrow area where the wide area doesn't fit. But then from having round base you BENEFIT as otherwise you wouldn't have that option at all so wouldn't fit period.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

rules arguably measure the path traveled (distance moved), in this case that path is an arc. there is no other way to achieve that movement.

eg if you move around a corner, you don't measure the shortest path from a to b, you measure the path you walk. same with rotating in an open spot, that part of the model moves along a path, and there is no other way to achieve that movement. for simplicity id happily measure a straight line from point to point in open terrain, and to the best of my ability measure around corners when that is the case

I too agree that, whilst the rules seems to suggest to measure the total displacement, the occurrence of corner, way around and avoiding scenery seems to strongly enforce the idea that you have to check the actual path.

I usually pivot in the initial spot consistently with what final position I need, and the move the model avoiding further pivoting.

The only real issue related to arcs is the same AoS had (don't know if it's solved now) where a model (without base specifically) that has long/lateral protrusion waste huge amount of movement only because of its physical shape... but then, the game is True Line of Sight so maybe it's intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue about pivoting whilst piling in and consolidating is indeed EXTREMELY INTERESTING. Not only that open a can of worms about how they check the "nearer to the enemy" in case of pivoting, but to add another issue lamest all the stratagem the IK has in melee are heavily depending from spacing

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

It is a RAW question. And it is a question of practicalaty. The reason I am so stuck on pivoting is that when you pivot you actually use up a big amount of movement, you can not just measure a straight line from A to B as you are actually cheating ever so slightly. This can be important when making charges, or multi charges as the knight base can br used to lock multiple units in combat.

From a practical standpoint I was wondering if you could solve it by pure math. Acounting inn the cost of turning 90° or 45° degrees whenever you want to pivot said amount and move the remaining space. Some argue that this uses up more movement then if you pivot while moving the model. This sounds odd in my mind. Also, during play it can be harder to do.

I also see now that my math is wrong. I 170 mm gets a circumvent of 53,4 cm. One quarter is rougly 13,3 cm. You have also gained 32,5 mm as the base turns, or 3,25 cm. That means the 90° pivot costs you 10 cm or 3.9 iches. Lets round it uo to 4 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
John Prins that is different then what you git when you did the math? Am i missing something. I often do tiny mistakes when I have not done math in a while.

I found the circumvent. I divided it by 4 to get a quarter. I minused the diference in base sieze from the long to the sort side as you 'gain' that lengt, and that is the cost of a pivot around it's own center.

But this also disahres with Prins measures earlier. I feel like I am doing something wrong here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit again: This means after you pivoy 90° around your center you have 6,7 " left to move. That is with measuring from the base. (Remember that you gained the lengtvof the base as mentioned above.)

 Cybtroll wrote:
I too agree that, whilst the rules seems to suggest to measure the total displacement, the occurrence of corner, way around and avoiding scenery seems to strongly enforce the idea that you have to check the actual path.

I usually pivot in the initial spot consistently with what final position I need, and the move the model avoiding further pivoting.

The only real issue related to arcs is the same AoS had (don't know if it's solved now) where a model (without base specifically) that has long/lateral protrusion waste huge amount of movement only because of its physical shape... but then, the game is True Line of Sight so maybe it's intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue about pivoting whilst piling in and consolidating is indeed EXTREMELY INTERESTING. Not only that open a can of worms about how they check the "nearer to the enemy" in case of pivoting, but to add another issue lamest all the stratagem the IK has in melee are heavily depending from spacing

Nearer to the enemy is a simple base-to-base measurement, which point of the base traveled which distance or arc doesn't interfere with that

The rules say to measure from point a to point B though... you are not "actually cheating ever so slightly" to follow the rules.

Battle Primer Page 3 wrote: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. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

So you measure in straight lines from the part of the base that moved the furthest. You do not measure an arc, unless you have to go around some terrain that is in an arch.

If you have to go around the corner of a building, you still measure in straight lines, you just have to use two or more lines to do this.

No, but if you can pivot for free as some sugest when you only measure longest point to longest point you can end up in situasjons where the backside of your base is important.

Either for measuring range for weapons. For multi charging. For piling in vs closest enemey unit after a charge. It is not hard to come up with senarioes where this matters.

 Niiai wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why are you measuring an arc? the rules do not mention an arc.

It is a RAW question. And it is a question of practicalaty. The reason I am so stuck on pivoting is that when you pivot you actually use up a big amount of movement, you can not just measure a straight line from A to B as you are actually cheating ever so slightly. This can be important when making charges, or multi charges as the knight base can br used to lock multiple units in combat.

From a practical standpoint I was wondering if you could solve it by pure math. Acounting inn the cost of turning 90° or 45° degrees whenever you want to pivot said amount and move the remaining space. Some argue that this uses up more movement then if you pivot while moving the model. This sounds odd in my mind. Also, during play it can be harder to do.

I also see now that my math is wrong. I 170 mm gets a circumvent of 53,4 cm. One quarter is rougly 13,3 cm. You have also gained 32,5 mm as the base turns, or 3,25 cm. That means the 90° pivot costs you 10 cm or 3.9 iches. Lets round it uo to 4 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
John Prins that is different then what you git when you did the math? Am i missing something. I often do tiny mistakes when I have not done math in a while.

I found the circumvent. I divided it by 4 to get a quarter. I minused the diference in base sieze from the long to the sort side as you 'gain' that lengt, and that is the cost of a pivot around it's own center.

But this also disahres with Prins measures earlier. I feel like I am doing something wrong here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit again: This means after you pivoy 90° around your center you have 6,7 " left to move. That is with measuring from the base. (Remember that you gained the lengtvof the base as mentioned above.)

Then please identify where in the rules the requirement to pivot about the center of a base exsist?
Your inventing restrictions that are not within the rules as some excuse to try and math something to the mm you realise that most tape measures arn't calibrated can't account for any 3 dementional displacement of the measure it's self.
This is no longer really YMDC this is a science experiment with no purpose.

Ice_can wrote:

Your inventing restrictions that are not within the rules as some excuse to try and math something to the mm you realise that most tape measures arn't calibrated can't account for any 3 dementional displacement of the measure it's self.
This is no longer really YMDC this is a science experiment with no purpose.

I agree with this.

The degree of accuracy being discussed here is impossible to measure in a real game. This is all theoretical posturing with absolutely no relation to how a game can realistically be played.

You are correct in one thing. No where does it state that you need to pivot before measuring.

What you can not do how ever is measure maximum distance in a straight line while pivoting the base at any point during the movement as some part of the base has now moved longer then it should.

So what is your solution for the times when you do somehow need to pivot the base?

John Prins sugestion is to curve the measuring tape in the arc that you move. It is functional, but how practical is it during and actual game?

I was hoping there was a theoretical way of solving this. Hopefully by calculating the movement cost of pivoting 90° and 45° degrees and just add this to the distance moved for fast and easy measure. As it turns out, this might be wrong. John Prins pivoting while moving seams to take up less movement. So far nobody that is good enough in geometry can confirm or deny this even with 666 views on this thread.

 Niiai wrote:
No, but if you can pivot for free as some sugest when you only measure longest point to longest point you can end up in situasjons where the backside of your base is important.

Either for measuring range for weapons. For multi charging. For piling in vs closest enemey unit after a charge. It is not hard to come up with senarioes where this matters.

It will never matter if you are measuring from the part of the base that has moved the furthest.

You only measure "longest point to longest point". (That means the part of the base that moved the furthest is the only thing that matters). Pivoting is not really free, but if the base moved equal to or less than the movement characteristic, it does not matter how the base is orientated at the end.

 Niiai wrote:
You are correct in one thing. No where does it state that you need to pivot before measuring.

What you can not do how ever is measure maximum distance in a straight line while pivoting the base at any point during the movement as some part of the base has now moved longer then it should.

So what is your solution for the times when you do somehow need to pivot the base?

John Prins sugestion is to curve the measuring tape in the arc that you move. It is functional, but how practical is it during and actual game?

I was hoping there was a theoretical way of solving this. Hopefully by calculating the movement cost of pivoting 90° and 45° degrees and just add this to the distance moved for fast and easy measure. As it turns out, this might be wrong. John Prins pivoting while moving seams to take up less movement. So far nobody that is good enough in geometry can confirm or deny this even with 666 views on this thread.

The proof is very simple. It's following the hypotenuse of a triangle versus following the other two sides. Albeit with curves.

Deathreaper I do not think you understand the reason we are discussing this or the geometric problem involved. Or you might be, but you are not showing it in how you describe it.

Did you see John Prims practicle examples where he measured from longest point to longest point and cheated on the distance?

How do you sugest you measure longeat point to longest point with your tape measurer during the game? Curving it or just point to point?

 Niiai wrote:
Deathreaper I do not think you understand the reason we are discussing this or the geometric problem involved. Or you might be, but you are not showing it in how you describe it.

I understand what is being discussed, but I do not know why an arc was mentioned when the rules do not mention measuring in an arc.

Did you see John Prims practicle examples where he measured from longest point to longest point and cheated on the distance?

I did, but he was bending the tape measure for no good reason.

How do you sugest you measure longeat point to longest point with your tape measurer during the game? Curving it or just point to point?

Point to point, as the rules do not say to measure in an arc.

You find the part of the base that has moved the furthest and make sure that point is equal to or less than the movement characteristic of the model being moved. You measure in straight lines, going around terrain as normal.

I've done some maths for you.

If you pivot 90° before moving then you have moved any given point on a circular base:

2πr/4 + distance between the centre points of the base before and after movement.

If you rotate as you move, you can rotate at a rate such that every point on the base moves in a directly straight line from its initial position to its final position. In which case it's simple Pythagoras based on the radius and the distance of the centre point to the new position (plus the radius).

This means for an example of radius 1" and distance between centre points of 4":

Pivot then move: each point on the edge has moved 5.57"

Pivot while moving: each point on the edge has moved 5.10"

It might just be me missunderstanding then. Quite possibly, this is in part why I ask. And, from a practical standpoint it might not acount for a lot of movement. But it could soon be if a models needs to change base direction multiple times in a move.

But in the early picture i drew a circle, the circument of a base. Think of it like a clock. If I just want to pivot, would I not need to measure the distance in the circle from 9 to 6. Or would I just need to measure the distance between 9 to 6. The last one is shorter, but can the basr acrually move in that line?

If we do not want to pivot on the spot, but want to move and pivot, does not the same prinsipple apply?

It is not a 'got you'. I am asking because I am uncertain.

Stux: Thank you. So you save movement by moving and pivoting at once.

Can you also explain if you need to curve the measuring instrument or can you just move in a straight line?

There is an error in here actually, but I'm not going to be able to solve it right now, need to get back to work. It can't make a perfectly straight line if pivoting while moving... It's still less than pivot then move, but it's more complicated to calculate.

Thank you. My math skills are not uo to snuff these days. I recignise the potensial problem but I do not know how to aproach it.

I made some pictures illustrating the conondrum. You want to move your knight, you need to pivot the base at some point during the move. Usualy because the best way ton counter a knight is to put cheap units in front of it as it can only move over infantery when it is falling back. Denying knight movement with units, terain and flyers in a legit startgegy.

In picture 1. you can see the problem illustrated perfectly. Here we just pivot. The black is the base. The blue is the circumvent. The green is how far we move if we measure from point to point. But the base can not move like that without having the other side move a lott more. So the red line is how far we actually move. This is longer then the green arrow, and we would need to curve the measurement instrument. (Or do math beforehand.)

In picture 2. We pivot before me move as we can se from the red line. This is accuret, and requiers some math beforehand, but it shortens the amount you move.

In picture 3. We use the same method as in picture 1. We measure shortest distance, the green arrow. This implies a pivot at some point, either before of after the move. This pivot is not free, as you get the pivot from picture 2, as free movement. Also, if you measure really wrong you du it like the purple arrow. This is really cheating on the distance.

What is implied with the method used in picture 3. is that we pivot while moving. But we are not actually doing this. To pivot while moving you have to measure movement in a curved line, like we se in picture 4.. Note that the green arrow and the red, the distance actually trvaled, is the same.

So if you are up against a knight and your plan is to prevent it from moving around to much, how rude is it to ask the knight player to measure using curved measurments? Because if you allow him to just measure distance as in picture 3 he would be moving further then he is allowed to move.

The rules don't actually state which measurement to use when moving, they just tell you to move the model and no part of the base can move further than the model's Move characteristic. The convention is to pick up the model and place it in its final position, measuring the longest distance travelled by a point on its base. Sometimes you have to move in stages to move around models and terrain, in which case you do the same procedure but may need to do it three or four times to determine your final position.

What you're describing is one potential interpretation of a fairly imprecise rule, while others are going with the common convention. As far as I can tell the rules themselves don't actually say how to handle this and are (very) open to interpretation.

Actually the rule is very precise. People just are bad at measuring. And the rule is also very bad from a practicle standpoint. The part of the rule that is clear is that no part of the model can move longer then it's movement caracteristic.

'The convention is to pick up the model and place it in its final position, measuring the longest distance travelled by a point on its base.' Do you mean measure:

- The green line in picture 3.
- The green or red line in picture 4.

Because it sounds like you are describing the green line in picture 3 witch is cheating under the rules as written. Wheras the curved line in picture 4 is not cheating. Cheating might be a wrong word as it implies intent, but you unknowingly do not follow the rules is a better phrasing.

 Niiai wrote:
Actually the rule is very precise. People just are bad at measuring. And the rule is also very bad from a practicle standpoint. The part of the rule that is clear is that no part of the model can move longer then it's movement caracteristic.

'The convention is to pick up the model and place it in its final position, measuring the longest distance travelled by a point on its base.' Do you mean measure:

- The green line in picture 3.
- The green or red line in picture 4.

Because it sounds like you are describing the green line in picture 3 witch is cheating under the rules as written. Wheras the curved line in picture 4 is not cheating. Cheating might be a wrong word as it implies intent, but you unknowingly do not follow the rules is a better phrasing.

Now your once again rewording the actual rule to imply an issue exsist where one doesn't.

The simple answer is no part of the model may move more than it's movement value, the exact how it moves is neither described or exampled. Additionally the example your using is arguing over esentially an irrelevance.

Also if you want another reason why trying to apply this level of anaylisis to 40k 8th edition rules is crazy.
Why can a knight fall back over a terminator, etc but can't move over said unit in a normal move?

Said unit is larger than a hedge, aegis defence line, but a knight can't ignore them when falling back. Except the rules as the extrapolation they are not the simulation your trying to make them.

Ice_can wrote:

Now your once again rewording the actual rule to imply an issue exsist where one doesn't.

The simple answer is no part of the model may move more than it's movement value, the exact how it moves is neither described or exampled. Additionally the example your using is arguing over esentially an irrelevance.

Can you please explain how I am rewording it?

I think your understanding of geometry prevents you from seing the problem and you are suggesting people should willing and unvillingly cheat.

 Niiai wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Now your once again rewording the actual rule to imply an issue exsist where one doesn't.

The simple answer is no part of the model may move more than it's movement value, the exact how it moves is neither described or exampled. Additionally the example your using is arguing over esentially an irrelevance.

Can you please explain how I am rewording it?

I think your understanding of geometry prevents you from seing the problem and you are suggesting people should willing and unvillingly cheat.

No i'm not suggesting people cheat I'm suggesting that you stop trying to apply mathematical geometry to a real world problem without understanding the significant exceptions that need to exsist to allow them to actually be significant.

Your basically depending upon the following assumptions which are not proveable, RAW.
All points of the model exsist within the confines of the base of the model.
That in instances where additional 3rd axes movement is required the model remains in it's current orientation to the reference plane. That the model doesn't have to move it's base to a z axis reference plane to move up or down. Doing so would see models moving over walls use up huge amounts of movement.


People are using calibrated measuring devices in such a way as to be able to accurately measure a multi dimensional displacement in planer displacement that the rotational components is statistically significant.

People also measure the rotational components of models on round bases as RAW the rules do not differ for models with different shapes of bases.

I'm not arguing that you measure the longest displacement made by any part of the model while measuring the movement in such a way as to manoeuvre around terrain. My issue is your framing this as a YMDC, it's no longer that it's a maths project that results in more issues than it solves.

Well it is a YMDC. We have already proven that doing a simple measure and then moving the model moves parts of the base further then it is allowed in the rules. (I am not talking about hight, I have no idea why you bring it up.)

What is remaining is what is the furthest you can move the model legaly? It would apear from a curved measurement. My initial asymption about pivoting and the measuring proved wrong.

While not YMDC, is there any way to find a good solution to this? Without curving the tape measure every time you move the model.

Why this makes people so angry I do not understand.