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.

It was recently asserted in that horrible "Technically Legal but Damn Sneaky" thread that the 'Pivot Trick' worked with oval bases.

I woul love an explaination as to how this would be legal as the BRB is quite clear that we measure movment from a consistent point of the base of a model and it's true that "As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover.".

But I can't find any permission for pivoting TMCs.....

It comes down to whether you interpret the movement rules as allowing you to pivot and then move, or to only strictly pivot as you move.

If you allow the former then the pivot trick works, as you rotate the model then measure the movement.

If you go for the latter (which I personally would, as it's what the wording of the movement rules seems to be saying) then pivoting won't change the actual movement distance, as you would measure the distance before the first time you turn the model. Essentially, you just measure the distance and place the model down at the intended distance facing whichever way you want.

TMC are the same as vehicles.

As for all the "pivoting as you move" instead of "before you move" nonsense. If I wanted to do this trick, and you said "you have to pivot as you move" I would say fine, I'm moving .0000000000000001 inches forward, then pivoting, then moving 11.999999999999999 inches forward, and still get into base contact.

EDIT:
This probably comes off a bit more aggressive than intended.

That was my thought exactly. How much does one have to move first in order to be pivoting as you move? If I nudge my model forward 1/8 of an inch, then pivot and move 11 and 7/8 forward I have achieved the same trick.

Also, if pivoting as you move excludes before you move, that interpretation should also infer that you can't pivot at the end of your move either. So then the assertion that you can pick up the model and just place it at the "intended" (as insaniak put it) distance facing in any direction would be false as well, since you couldn't pivot after moving your 12".

I play that you can pivot at any time after you have selected the vehicle as your next model to be moved, until you have stated you are finished moving it.

See the thing is BRB is quite clear that one measures distance travelled from a consistent point. It also has no mention of 'pivoting' models iirc other than infantry in the shooting phase. now MC are not infantry so they can't pivot in the shooting phase, also there are no rules allowing for a 'based-model' to pivot for 'free' before moving if one pivoted an oval base as far as I can tell one is forced to actually measure the arc made by the chosen point as part of the movement.

I would be very interested if without the 'free pivot' the vehicles are entitled to, someone could devise a way to gain distance when one is measuring from a set point on the base.

As the OP of the original thread I'd like to apologise for the feth storm that my original statement caused.

Dracos wrote:That was my thought exactly. How much does one have to move first in order to be pivoting as you move?

It doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect the total distance moved.


Pivoting a base that is not round and then measuring the distance to move can potentially grant extra movement.
Measuring the movement distance and then pivoting as you move on the other hand means that the shape of the base is irrelevant... you will never get any extra movement out of it.

So then the assertion that you can pick up the model and just place it at the "intended" (as insaniak put it) distance facing in any direction would be false as well, since you couldn't pivot after moving your 12".

If you disallow turning after the model finishes its movement, the model can still wind up facing whatever way you like after it finishes its movement, because there is no requirement in the rules for models to move forwards. So you can just turn it sideways as it moves.

There is no requirement for SOME models to move forward, but vehicles can only move straight forward or backward, no drifting or sideways movement allowed. (vehicles still being models I wanted to clear up any confusion that might arise)



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:There is no requirement for SOME models to move forward, but vehicles can only move straight forward or backward, no drifting or sideways movement allowed.

And where does it say this?

The rules for vehicles talks about combining forwards / backwards and pivot in order to move.

No, it doesn't. All it says is "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 move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."

At no point does it say "You MUST move forwards and reverse".

I thought with the whole permissive ruleset thing that you could only do what the rules say you can do. So if it says you can combine forward and reverse movement that's what you can do. It doesn't say you can combine forward with sideways movement.

Unless you're thinking of using the general permission on how models move from the initial movement section - all other rules tend to be modifications of these rules for specific circumstances, e.g. MC altering the cover rules.

Arschbombe wrote:I thought with the whole permissive ruleset thing that you could only do what the rules say you can do. So if it says you can combine forward and reverse movement that's what you can do. It doesn't say you can combine forward with sideways movement.

The general movement rules say you can move, the vehicle rules do not change this. What they do Change is how they Pivot and how it affects their movement.

So, you have a rule saying you can move, and vehicles follow that.

Now show me where it says I cannot now move (as I am permitted to) facing any direction I want?

@nos: Exactly, and nowhere do the vehicle rules change the general movement rules for anything other than pivoting and the "speeds".

All it says is "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 move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."

At no point does it say "You MUST move forwards and reverse".

Ah that is interesting. So the silly "I can not turn a vehicle if my side is against a wall/another vehicle" and therefore cannot shift to the side" is gone. Very well.

I think this is the problem as illustrated : pivoting to gain an extra 1/2 inch or so. Firstly its cheating. Second you'd at least be counting as moving. It's why bases are generally round (except for bikes)

Pink is your base, light blue your measuring zone, dark blue the axis, and yellow the difference if you pivot.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

All it says is "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 move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."

At no point does it say "You MUST move forwards and reverse".

Ah that is interesting. So the silly "I can not turn a vehicle if my side is against a wall/another vehicle" and therefore cannot shift to the side" is gone. Very well.

Now, tank shocking on the other hand has some fairly specific limitations.

Why is it cheating? Vehicles have gained extra inches for 12 fricking years (with enough studio geeks knowing exactly hw it works, before a lame "its unintended!" post appears) now, so why should it be any different for infantry?

If you have a non round base you WILL "gain" apparent movement by pivoting, and this is 100% legal. End of.

-Nazdreg- wrote:So the silly "I can not turn a vehicle if my side is against a wall/another vehicle" and therefore cannot shift to the side" is gone.

Yeah, but you still can't pivot on the spot without ramming a friendly vehicle in this case.

As for the matter at hand, yeah, players get a little extra movement with regards to the difference between the distance between the center of the vehicle and the front, and the center of the vehicle and the sides. Likewise for biker bases (although I hadn't considered this before).

The thing is, though, this amount of "free" movement is so miniscule that players should have no problems whatsoever dealing with this. On a personal note, I agree that it feels like an illegal extension of movement, but given the way the rules are written, the minisculity of the advantage, and the ease of avoidance, it's really not worth making a fuss about.

I had this happen and it actually made a dfference in the game. I had a trygon prime facing perpendicular to a unit during my opponents turn. He shot at it with rapid fire weapons (after moving) and was just over 12 inches away. My turn I move the trygon toward his unit 6", then pivoted to shoot, took my shots (killed some of the squad) and now that I had turned the oval base was in range to charge and did so. This of course upset my opponent as he was too far to shoot but still got charged...but of course it was well within the rules.

zeshin wrote:I had this happen and it actually made a dfference in the game. I had a trygon prime facing perpendicular to a unit during my opponents turn. He shot at it with rapid fire weapons (after moving) and was just over 12 inches away. My turn I move the trygon toward his unit 6", then pivoted to shoot, took my shots (killed some of the squad) and now that I had turned the oval base was in range to charge and did so. This of course upset my opponent as he was too far to shoot but still got charged...but of course it was well within the rules.

In this case your opponent was an idiot. If you killed some of the squad, why didn't he remove the models from the front of the unit to put you out of assault range?

Gwar! wrote:

zeshin wrote:I had this happen and it actually made a dfference in the game. I had a trygon prime facing perpendicular to a unit during my opponents turn. He shot at it with rapid fire weapons (after moving) and was just over 12 inches away. My turn I move the trygon toward his unit 6", then pivoted to shoot, took my shots (killed some of the squad) and now that I had turned the oval base was in range to charge and did so. This of course upset my opponent as he was too far to shoot but still got charged...but of course it was well within the rules.

In this case your opponent was an idiot. If you killed some of the squad, why didn't he remove the models from the front of the unit to put you out of assault range?

True. He thought he was safe. It hadn't occured to him that the oval base meant I was closer and I wasn't about to start correcting him. A bit TFG but he's a buddy and would have done the same to me.

zeshin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

zeshin wrote:I had this happen and it actually made a dfference in the game. I had a trygon prime facing perpendicular to a unit during my opponents turn. He shot at it with rapid fire weapons (after moving) and was just over 12 inches away. My turn I move the trygon toward his unit 6", then pivoted to shoot, took my shots (killed some of the squad) and now that I had turned the oval base was in range to charge and did so. This of course upset my opponent as he was too far to shoot but still got charged...but of course it was well within the rules.

In this case your opponent was an idiot. If you killed some of the squad, why didn't he remove the models from the front of the unit to put you out of assault range?

True. He thought he was safe. It hadn't occured to him that the oval base meant I was closer and I wasn't about to start correcting him. A bit TFG but he's a buddy and would have done the same to me.

How could he not have known he was safe or not, you had to measure range to shoot. I know when I am being shot by a unit that could be in charge range i make them measure.

-Nazdreg- wrote:So the silly "I can not turn a vehicle if my side is against a wall/another vehicle" and therefore cannot shift to the side" is gone.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, though, not too many players are going to be happy with you drifting your vehicles sideways, regardless of what the rules say.

Phototoxin wrote:I think this is the problem as illustrated : pivoting to gain an extra 1/2 inch or so. Firstly its cheating. Second you'd at least be counting as moving. It's why bases are generally round (except for bikes)

Let's not go bandying around the cheating allegations. It's only against the rules if you follow one of the two common interpretations. If you follow the other one, it's perfectly acceptable.

And just pivoting on the spot in certain situations does not count as moving.


Frankly, I think this is another of those issues that people blow up all out of proportion. It generally doesn't gain you that much extra distance, and only works in specific directions. And if your opponent is using it to gain an extra half an inch of movement in the first turn... you can counter it if necessary by simply deploying half an inch further back.

They way I see it it should be how far you're displaced from your original position. No part should be more than your move away.

Phototoxin wrote:They way I see it it should be how far you're displaced from your original position. No part should be more than your move away.

The way you see it, fortunately, is completely incompatible with what the rules have said for 12 years. By your logic, pulling a 180" turn uses up about 6" of movement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why is it cheating? Vehicles have gained extra inches for 12 fricking years (with enough studio geeks knowing exactly hw it works, before a lame "its unintended!" post appears) now, so why should it be any different for infantry?

If you have a non round base you WILL "gain" apparent movement by pivoting, and this is 100% legal. End of.

Thing is, this isn't for infantry Nosit's for MC , you must measure from a consistant point on the base and unless your oval base houses infantry you are not allow to pivot in the shooting phase. How are you going to 'Gain distance' by following them restrictions?

ChrisCP wrote:unless your oval base houses infantry you are not allow to pivot in the shooting phase.

Where did you get this idea from?

Phototoxin wrote:They way I see it it should be how far you're displaced from your original position. No part should be more than your move away.

Measure from model center to model center and you'll see that the vehicle hasn't actually moved more than 12" and you're following the rules by measuring from the same point to the same point.

Gwar! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:unless your oval base houses infantry you are not allow to pivot in the shooting phase.

Where did you get this idea from?

Why I thought noone would ever ask~!
Page 11, second column 'turning and facing'.

"Infantry models can also be turned to face their targets in the Shooting phase, so don’t worry about which way they are pointing at the end of their Movement phase"