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.

CD - because tankshocking lets you pivot then measure from where the tank is now pointing.

ihatehumans - So a tank driver moving faster when running someone over, but only when someone is off to one side, is realistic? Why doesnt it move faster when moving straight ahead?

You also mistook condescension for incredulity. Firstly for how one person can think they have "proven" that pivoting reduces your movement, despite the poll AND the last few pages showing the exact opposite (including your incorrect diagrams - seriously, try it out - move a rectangular object so the front is 12" away and pivot it around the centre. The front will NOT be 12" away from the starting position) and then finds tank shocking, a move that is entirely legal, a disgusting move when it accomplishes the exact same thing that is already legal?

Baffling.

ChrisCP wrote:

Is that meant to make no sense?

I think so ... i got absolutely nothing from that but shoom shoom im a raider ... lol.

ChrisCP wrote:

Ok I get it. It is stating the ridiculousness of pivoting taking up movement. In the first step, the Raider is facing front and moves forward 2" as measured from the front, and still facing frontwards. Then after moving the 2" it rotates 90 degrees to go left. The controller goes to measure again for the Raider's movement at the same spot as before and has now discovered, solely by rotating, that the same measurement spot on the Raider is now 4" away from where it ended the 2" movement, hence the move 4" line (The red line connecting the two yellow dots on the straight Raider and the now turned Raider). Then the game explodes because that is a WTFOMGBBQ moment as by pivoting movement was somehow expended which is explicitly not allowed by the rules.

B

There is no free pivot if you are also moving any distance at all.

you get to pivot as you move, but there is nothing in the rules that give you an additional free movement and its actually cheating. so measure distance from before you pivot in a direction and make sure no part of the vehicle is further from its starting position than allowed.

anything is is explicitly against the rules as written. very clear very simple, free pivot in place only if not moving,

Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

This thread hurts my brain. I'm still wholeheartedly B, even more so with the graphs (that are mostly right. I'm tempted to try and redraw them nice and pretty and always measuring from the same spot with step by step analysis so there's no confusion.)

However, what makes me shudder is the amount of vitriole from people who disagree with the 'B-ers.' I look up and ihatehumans and Slacker are just being peppered with back-handed abuse. At least they've been spending this thread actually trying to make their point with direct rules quotes and diagrams, putting in all the effort. As for the thread being won 'a long time ago' you think maybe all the argument from B's side popped up because of the mass of votes for A? Now, suddenly that people have actually taken "A doesn't feel right" to "A is illegal due to such and such rule" the poll is lopsided, the people having voted before new informations and views were presented.

Also, I'm kind of disgusted by the Tank Shock tactic too... I GUESS the only downside is no pivoting after 'movement' but still. Renders all 13 pages of this moot, makes my head hurt, and makes me regret having an opinion in the first place because someone always can find a way around it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

You don't get it do you?

You don't just measure from one spot, it's any spot going outside of movement range.

You measure the movement, then pivot, you don't suddenly 'lose' any movement.

It doesn't really matter anyway, by the sounds of it I doubt you will ever play a game with any of the people who do movement in a way opposite to you, and if you do you'll be TFG if you act like this in a casual game. At a tourny, it will be their word versus yours to a TO and I have strong faith in my personal skill at explaining to your average TO that ANY part of your vehicle that ends over the maximum movement range is breaking the rules. If you feel you would have an easy time telling a TO that the RaW says it's fine to pivot and then move, even though it means part of your vehicle is over the maximum movement, then go ahead and play in those tournies

No, YOU dont get that you are breaking many, many rules.

You mean all the UK tournies I have ever been to, including the biggest in the country - UK GT?

Sure, you try to explain it. meanwhile the perplexed TO, who has played this way for the last 3 editions, will go "uhuh?" and rule against you.

Also, where are you getting permission to repeatedly change where you measure from? You are told to measure, singular. I am fulfilling those rules, you are not. So you break *at least* two rules (by reducing movement due to pivot, and by measuring when not allowed to) whereas i break *none*

Finally - why would I be "TFG" for wanting to follow the rules? Surely the person who wants to play by a houserule and DEMANDS that their opponent plays it that way is TFG?

Edit: also I am NOT pivoting then moving. I start my movement by moving 1 planck length forwards. I then continue my move by pivoting. I then move forwards. If you cannot understand this I dont know how to more simply explain it...

I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

It's using the rules for a specific motion (tank shock) for something other than its intended purpose. Also, before this no one (at least no one I've ever heard of in any way, shape, or form) has ever used tank shock without there being some kind of target to 'shock'. Hence, exploiting a lack of definition in when tank shock may be used.

This would work for straight line movement (i.e. the first turn charge people want to get out of land raiders) but if you wanted to do any kind of turning at all (i.e. moving around obstacles) you'd have to revert to the previous arguements.

^ Also, it's possible to exploit something and remain 100% within the rules. I'm not saying that this IS within the rules, but merely that its RAW status is irrelevant.

Pvt. Jet wrote: Now, suddenly that people have actually taken "A doesn't feel right" to "A is illegal due to such and such rule" the poll is lopsided, the people having voted before new informations and views were presented.

Which isn't really a problem, since the poll was asking about how people actually play it, not how they perceive the RAW.

Also, I'm kind of disgusted by the Tank Shock tactic too...

The point with the 'tank shock tactic' wasn't that it was something that people should actually do. It was initially presented as evidence that that particular interpretation of the rules didn't make a great deal of sense, as if that's how the game is supposed to be played there is little reason to not just declare a tank shock every time you want to move in any direction other than directly forwards.

insaniak wrote:

The point with the 'tank shock tactic' wasn't that it was something that people should actually do. It was initially presented as evidence that that particular interpretation of the rules didn't make a great deal of sense, as if that's how the game is supposed to be played there is little reason to not just declare a tank shock every time you want to move in any direction other than directly forwards.

And the odd thing is, the fact that the "tank shock tactic" works is in itself evidence that it doesn't work in normal movement procedure, because otherwise it would not need to be spelled out in such a specific manner.



....and /thread.

Sorry, you might need to explain that...

Gwar! wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I can explain it!

Exploitation, some people are willing to do it, some aren't.

How is playing by the rules "Exploitation"?

Easy...Exploitation is simply wanting to play by any rule that I don't like.

ihatehumans wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hacksaaw - ok, I measure from the centre of my vehicle before I pivot.

In addition EVERY TIME you pivot *during* a move this pivot is *strictly* not allowed to reduce your movement. So I move the vehicle one planck length forward and then pivot, which cannot reduce my movement.

So in other words it is not cheating, in fact your method IS cheating as it bviolates the "cannot reduce movement" rule.

You don't get it do you?

You don't just measure from one spot, it's any spot going outside of movement range.

You measure the movement, then pivot, you don't suddenly 'lose' any movement.

It doesn't really matter anyway, by the sounds of it I doubt you will ever play a game with any of the people who do movement in a way opposite to you, and if you do you'll be TFG if you act like this in a casual game. At a tourny, it will be their word versus yours to a TO and I have strong faith in my personal skill at explaining to your average TO that ANY part of your vehicle that ends over the maximum movement range is breaking the rules. If you feel you would have an easy time telling a TO that the RaW says it's fine to pivot and then move, even though it means part of your vehicle is over the maximum movement, then go ahead and play in those tournies

Except that you're wrong and the rules and diagrams specifically say you must measure from one point to the same point, as you are never allowed to measure to any point other than the one, using only game terms how do we tell that any part of the vehicle is farther away?

If I go a tourny I may print out a diagram from GWAR! and use it and the actual rules to show how things should go.

Norade wrote:
Except that you're wrong and the rules and diagrams specifically say you must measure from one point to the same point, as you are never allowed to measure to any point other than the one, using only game terms how do we tell that any part of the vehicle is farther away?

If I go a tourny I may print out a diagram from GWAR! and use it and the actual rules to show how things should go.

You shouldn't have to, as noone I've ever played with or seen play has ever attempted to pull this 'pivoting reduces your measurable movement range' shenanigan, nor has anyone I've ever heard of in any sort of tournament setting.
I think the general tournament playerbase is mostly smart enough to understand that 'pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move' means 'pivoting does not reduce the vehicles move'.

Too bad some people keep ignoring clear examples and rules quotes though, and even when shown multiple clear BRB examples of how the rules work despite their arguments just decry it as an 'exploit'. Guess this thread'll just keep going.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, YOU dont get that you are breaking many, many rules.

You mean all the UK tournies I have ever been to, including the biggest in the country - UK GT?

Sure, you try to explain it. meanwhile the perplexed TO, who has played this way for the last 3 editions, will go "uhuh?" and rule against you.

Also, where are you getting permission to repeatedly change where you measure from? You are told to measure, singular. I am fulfilling those rules, you are not. So you break *at least* two rules (by reducing movement due to pivot, and by measuring when not allowed to) whereas i break *none*

Finally - why would I be "TFG" for wanting to follow the rules? Surely the person who wants to play by a houserule and DEMANDS that their opponent plays it that way is TFG?

Edit: also I am NOT pivoting then moving. I start my movement by moving 1 planck length forwards. I then continue my move by pivoting. I then move forwards. If you cannot understand this I dont know how to more simply explain it...

Good, I'm glad all the UK tournies you played in, and the previous rule sets, allowed you to play in a manner your used to. Good to see TO's catering to their specific crowd. Are you saying that all the tournies that run comp scores must have that right too? And all the ones that don't and haven't for years? Custom scenarios and scoring systems? Tournies differ greatly between each one, and just because the majority of tournaments you have attended have played it one way, does not make it the right way.

Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

You would be TFG because you insisted that only your interpretation of the rules could possibly be correct and that anyone else is clearly inferior to you in comprehension and is trying to make you play against the RaW. I don't know about your casual games, but in mine we hold it open that GW RULE WRITERS ARE AMATEURS and that each person has differing comprehension of the same language, for the sake of enjoyment you play rules that best suit everyone, or take turns playing alternating interpretations.

It's pretty clear by now that because you are so used to playing it YOUR way, you see anything else as absurd. You refuse to give any ground on the actual rules, you rarely back up any of your statements with rules quotes, you just say "this is how it is" without referencing where it says that. I have quoted the rules so many times I could recite them in front of an audience, but it doesn't matter because you ignore them. The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules. If that means you have to play movement differently, then god forgive GW.

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

ihatehumans wrote:You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

Except that you must measure multiple times to move around a large circle as many arguing side B have shown. You could also measure from the center, to where you want to go using a string, that has a very slight bend at one end and is held tight out the rest of the way, then tap, pivot and move. No rules broken, not being a TFG by jumping through hoops to play within the rules.

ihatehumans wrote:You would be TFG because you insisted that only your interpretation of the rules could possibly be correct and that anyone else is clearly inferior to you in comprehension and is trying to make you play against the RaW. I don't know about your casual games, but in mine we hold it open that GW RULE WRITERS ARE AMATEURS and that each person has differing comprehension of the same language, for the sake of enjoyment you play rules that best suit everyone, or take turns playing alternating interpretations.

Except unlike you we have proof and when brought up among my group they all agreed that the pivot move works after reading the rules and having me show them at the table. They never thought of doing it, but they will gladly allow it as, for most vehicles, it can have drawbacks large enough to make it useless. Also, by definition GW writes are professionals as they get paid for their work, lease get a better dictionary before throwing out definitions you don't seem to understand.

ihatehumans wrote:It's pretty clear by now that because you are so used to playing it YOUR way, you see anything else as absurd. You refuse to give any ground on the actual rules, you rarely back up any of your statements with rules quotes, you just say "this is how it is" without referencing where it says that. I have quoted the rules so many times I could recite them in front of an audience, but it doesn't matter because you ignore them. The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules. If that means you have to play movement differently, then god forgive GW.

It's pretty true that you have shown poorly drawn diagrams that were, by the way, wrong and continue to argue with no rules backing you. You attack posted for how they play with the TFG label and are more inflexible than even GWAR! who has been shown to change his mind when soundly proven wrong.

ihatehumans wrote:You are measuring twice, you measure once when you start your movement, then you move one plank forward, and you measure again to come up with a new distance after pivoting. That's measuring twice, once after actually moving, which isn't how the rules work, you measure BEFORE moving, then may move and pivot, but all the measurements you made when the model hadn't moved STILL stand, you don't get to make new ones.

The rules never actually require you to complete your measurement before moving the model. They simply require that the model does not exceed it's maximum movement distance. So it's perfectly acceptable to measure as you move.

The RaW is different in this edition to how you have always played it, pretty much every edition the RaW changes, otherwise GW would just be ctrl C ctrl V most of their rules.

The RAW is different in that it's been re-worded slightly and speed bands have been added in... but the actual mechanics of vehicle movement and pivoting are exactly the same as they were in 3rd and 4th edition. All 3 editions have worked on the premise that vehicles turned on their centre as they move, and that this does not affect their movement distance.

For what it's worth, people had this exact same argument during those two previous editions as well. But from my experience, most players have gone with being able to pivot and then measure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

How about we steer clear of the derogatory names... particularly of people who are ostensibly older than you are, hmm?

insaniak wrote:

Norade wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:Have you read the rules for measurement? The only rules for measuring ANYTHING use an example of measuring two units, at which point you measure every model in the unit and use the closest point. If you are moving I would assume you would again, use the closest point.

I don't do assumptions kid, so put up evidence or back off.

How about we steer clear of the derogatory names... particularly of people who are ostensibly older than you are, hmm?

Mind telling him to not paint me with the TFG brush then? Besides, how is using kid to describe a man acting like a child worse than what the F in TFG stands for?

If I may point it out again, we're not saying pivoting REDUCES move... it's just part of it. Assuming that you measure your distance beforehand (using a string, or laying a tape measure on it's side to get the bend) you only get to move to the 12" from a point on your hull, as stated by the rules. If you'd like, I can pull the relevant quotes back out again.

However... if I may suggest such a thing, may we boil the argument down into one question? WHEN do we measure movement?

If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want. (However, this prevents you from ending at a position where, if you were at a horizontal line, and wanted to move to a horizontal line 12" up, from moving to it and pivoting to present your entire side along said line. The final pivot you'd make at that point would leave you a bit behind the line, due to length vs width considerations. This also prevents starting sideways and moving 12", using the initial pivot to 'gain' an inch or so on the move, because that initial pivot is part of your move to get to the 12" line.)

If we decide you measure each piece of your movement individually, option A works. This allows us to pivot, measure, and move/pivot an unlimited amount of times until we've moved (forward and backward) the full 12". This would allow the appearance of moving more than 12" (as you'd end up more than 12" away from the edge of your own deployment zone, to use an example.) It also simplifies the process of moving around large things, as you can measure the distance due to the current position of your vehicle rather than measuring it all beforehand.

So where do the rules say when we measure in the movement phase? I can't find a single quote.

The only one worth mentioning is the: "Once you have started moving a unit you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. You may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit." This is worth mentioning because if we decide that all movement is measured beforehand, it means that we can't do the "move planck forward, pivot, measure, and move" (which correspondingly wouldn't change your move any under option B anyway. But that's besides the point.)

All other mention of measuring is done in the context of "any unit may move up to it's maximum movement distance" or summat. Not much help there.

So... what say you thread? I personally think all 13 pages come down to this decision. What say you?

Pvt. Jet wrote:If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want.

Here's the thing: If you have to measure before moving the vehicle at all, there is absolutely no point in the rules telling us how the vehicle pivots, as it will make no difference.


The fact that they tell us to pivot the vehicle on its centre point says very strongly, to me at least, that the intent is for us to move the vehicle however far, pivot on the spot, and continue the movement. So for a 6" movement around a corner, you would measure 3" and move the tank that far, pivot on the spot, and then move a further 3".

If you have to measure the 6" before moving, you would just measure the 6" and them shift the tank to the final location. You would never have to worry about how the vehicle actually turns the corner.


Just some food for thought...

insaniak wrote:

Pvt. Jet wrote:If we measure it purely before we move, and never again, option B is true. Hull to 12", and once you start moving you may pivot however you want.

Here's the thing: If you have to measure before moving the vehicle at all, there is absolutely no point in the rules telling us how the vehicle pivots, as it will make no difference.


The fact that they tell us to pivot the vehicle on its centre point says very strongly, to me at least, that the intent is for us to move the vehicle however far, pivot on the spot, and continue the movement. So for a 6" movement around a corner, you would measure 3" and move the tank that far, pivot on the spot, and then move a further 3".

If you have to measure the 6" before moving, you would just measure the 6" and them shift the tank to the final location. You would never have to worry about how the vehicle actually turns the corner.


Just some food for thought...

The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand. Also, they could have simply meant for the 'does not cost movement' clause to address concerns from fantasy players who are used to a more complicated system of turns, twists, about-faces, and other things.

Also, with the tap, pivot, move crowd -
It would actually work out to: measure, tap, measure, pivot during movement, placement.

Also, you can measure three inches forward, place the tank in its 'final' position, measure three inches upward, then place the vehicle in its final position (position also being your favorite orientation).

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

Slackermagee wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:The problem with this being that you must pivot as you move (the 'as' being part of the rule on pg57), which necessitates measuring beforehand.

How so? Why can't you measure as you move?

And as I just pointed out, if you have to measure beforehand, pointing out how they pivot is pointless. You would never actually need to do it.

For a bit of a laugh, my immediate reaction was akin to dividing by zero. I just imagined someone moving a tank while measuring 12" in front at all times...

You can measure as you move I suppose, having the tape out there on the table and stopping at a certain point. After you've placed the model though, wouldn't you still count the movement to the furthest hull point? Page 6 (or whatever it was) details how not to move for the purpose of gaining distance, so counting distance to a point farther back along the model would seem to contradict that paragraph (and the very basic diagram).

No, they showed there measuring to the same point on the hull not to the furthest point. Your camp seems to advocate using the example they showed and measuring from one point to a different point.