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.

First off this is based in some cheesy ruleslawyery behavior so let's start with a description of that;

I was watching a game and this fellow started the game with his razorback sideways with relation to the battle line, as far forward as he could deploy. He then moved the vehicle oriented sideways as far as he could while allowing his grey hunters to deploy, then used his free pivot. The pivot thus added about 1/2" to his effective move, allowing him to rapid fire and get a 12" melta shot in where he otherwise could not have reached. A 1" difference between length and width = 1/2" more movement with this trick.

So... If that is legal... Could I modify, for instance, a land raider to be narrower and/or longer to abuse this further? Where would the limit be? Could I have a land raider shaped like a dark Eldar raider (very long and thin) to have a 3" difference thus adding 1 1/2" to my first turn assault threat range?

If the limits are the models natural size, what about those tiny rogue trader era ones? Could I lengthen but not widen one to a current land raider models legal dimensions?

I almost want the answer to be "no that is not legal" because this conversion will be difficult and expensive, but I can't pass up a WAAC tool for my toybox with 'Ard Boyz on the horizon.

Indiges wrote:First off this is based in some cheesy ruleslawyery behavior so let's start with a description of that;

I was watching a game and this fellow started the game with his razorback sideways with relation to the battle line, as far forward as he could deploy. He then moved the vehicle oriented sideways as far as he could while allowing his grey hunters to deploy, then used his free pivot. The pivot thus added about 1/2" to his effective move, allowing him to rapid fire and get a 12" melta shot in where he otherwise could not have reached. A 1" difference between length and width = 1/2" more movement with this trick.

This has been debated for many years. I believe the general consensus is that yes, you can do this.

So... If that is legal... Could I modify, for instance, a land raider to be narrower and/or longer to abuse this further? Where would the limit be? Could I have a land raider shaped like a dark Eldar raider (very long and thin) to have a 3" difference thus adding 1 1/2" to my first turn assault threat range?

If the limits are the models natural size, what about those tiny rogue trader era ones? Could I lengthen but not widen one to a current land raider models legal dimensions?

This is clearly answered in your rule book.

I almost want the answer to be "no that is not legal" because this conversion will be difficult and expensive, but I can't pass up a WAAC tool for my toybox with 'Ard Boyz on the horizon.

Hope that helps.

Indiges wrote:I was watching a game and this fellow started the game with his razorback sideways with relation to the battle line, as far forward as he could deploy. He then moved the vehicle oriented sideways as far as he could while allowing his grey hunters to deploy, then used his free pivot.

Moving vehicles sideways is technically legal, but it's not a manoeuvre that's going to win you friends. There's a fairly clear inference in the rules that vehicles are supposed to move forwards or backwards, and that's how most people play it. As I said, technically legal, though.

You seem to be saying that he moved his vehicle, disembarked the unit in it, and then pivoted the vehicle, though... which is most definitely not legal. The squad in the vehicle is a separate unit... once you have moved on to their movement, you can't go back and add anything to the vehicle's movement. He would have had to move the vehicle (including pivoting to whatever final facing he wants) and then disembark the squad.

Otherwise, yes, what he did was legal. He could have accomplished the exact same thing by pivoting the vehicle before it moved, without raising eyebrows over the sideways movement, though.

Could I modify, for instance, a land raider to be narrower and/or longer to abuse this further? Where would the limit be?

The limit would be the tolerance of your opponent. There are no rules in Warhammer 40000 that cover altering your models. It's a generally accepted part of the game... up to the point where your opponent decides that you're doing it solely to gain a perceived advantage in-game, and refuses to play against you if you use that model.

The pivot has been debated over and over, personally i am of the opinion that it is perfectly legal (although others disagree)
Changing a Land Raider to be narrower and longer That is modelling for advantage and is completely illegal (and yes is answered clearly in your rule book).

Revenent Reiko wrote: ... (and yes is answered clearly in your rule book).

Again, there is no rule in the current rulebook covering converted models. The closest you get is the rule on changing a model's base.

insaniak wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote: ... (and yes is answered clearly in your rule book).

Again, there is no rule in the current rulebook covering converted models. The closest you get is the rule on changing a model's base.

Sorry insaniak, i completely missed your post.
huh, i thought there were rules about modelling for advantage and whatnot?
Also, isnt a vehicles hull counted as its base? (i know it is for measuring distances, does this not count?)

insaniak wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote: ... (and yes is answered clearly in your rule book).

Again, there is no rule in the current rulebook covering converted models. The closest you get is the rule on changing a model's base.

Almost all friendly play is governed by a social contract. Modeling for advantage may not be technically illegal but people will not want to play or get angry and avoid you in the future.

Competitive play, many events require specific model standards, TO approval and use some FAQs which make modeling for advantage illegal. So you can try to modify your landraider with the expectation it can be banned for pretty much any reason.

Both seem to lend itself to 'modeling for advantage' is a waste of time because you can't guarantee you can use the model, so you almost would need to have a backup just in case.

Revenent Reiko wrote:huh, i thought there were rules about modelling for advantage and whatnot?

Nope. Again, there's the rule about changing your model's base. That's it. The rest just comes down to how tolerant your opponent is.

Also, isnt a vehicles hull counted as its base? (i know it is for measuring distances, does this not count?)

Vehicles with a base measure to the base... except in the case of skimmers, where the base is ignored for all purposes except assaulting the vehicle. The exception to that being Storm Ravens and Valkyries, which have additional rules allowing you to use the base for measuring dis/embarking distance and range to objectives.

Fair play, I've always taken the line that it is illegal and act accordingly. (im not going to flip out about it, but i would call an opponent on it).
Cheers for the clarification on bases too.

Indiges wrote:First off this is based in some cheesy ruleslawyery behavior so let's start with a description of that;

I was watching a game and this fellow started the game with his razorback sideways with relation to the battle line, as far forward as he could deploy. He then moved the vehicle oriented sideways as far as he could while allowing his grey hunters to deploy, then used his free pivot. The pivot thus added about 1/2" to his effective move, allowing him to rapid fire and get a 12" melta shot in where he otherwise could not have reached. A 1" difference between length and width = 1/2" more movement with this trick.

You can't move and then get a "free" pivot. The rules state move the vehicle -OR- pivot about the center. In the course of moving, the vehicle may freely turn (pivot) as needed. The total displacement of the vehicle is then used to measure distant traveled. Pivoting about the center permits a vehicle that HASN'T moved a chance to orientate the vehicle without being considered moved.

Your friend moved his vehicle thus is not permitted the "free" pivoting at the end of the move. The pivot at the end is part of the move thus part of the distance traveled by the vehicle, thus, not free.

To illustrate the point: in this thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/208498.page

Devlain has some super awesome conversions on his rhinos, making them taller. This is altering the normal dimensions of the vehicle, but is clearly a labor of love and coolness rather than an attempt to gain advantage. Some people will refuse to play against them as they are not the same dimensions of the official model(their loss, I would never pass up a chance to see cool conversions like this on the table) and others will be perfectly fine with it and appreciate the creativness.

Like Insaniak said ... you work this out with your opponent. Conversinos that alter the dimensions might be perfectly fine(like Devlains) or they might inspire you to ask " Your'e that TFG I keep hearing about arn't you?" In my experience there are very few peolple willing to be a git and make a 10" wide rhino to give the rest of their tanks cover. Those people do exist, but they are usually so rare as to be a non issue. If you have the misfortune to have one of those kinds of players ... just make it clear thats not the kind of game you want to play and if they want opponents they should alter their behavior.

I love converting and scratch building but I try to keep it as similar to the original as possible. If somebody looks at a rhino I scratched/converted, they would say "yes, that is a rhino, a nice/funny/odd looking one but a rhino nonetheless."

If you are modeling to advantage, expect to lose opponents quickly.

-cgmckenzie

Just to point out that TGAs view point is not one supported by either 5th ed, nor 4th and 3rd ed rules.

You measure distance travelled, not displacement. That is entirely made up.

I agree with those of you who are suggesting this is unsporting and is likely to alienate people in a casual or normal tournament setting. I wouldn't use the basic tactic, much less the modified models anywhere other than at an 'Ard Boyz event (or something in the same vein.)

However... at such an event I'm quite willing to weather a few dirty looks to win. An (un)sporting chance at the TO not overruling it is worth taking a table saw to 3 rogue trader era land raiders if I can find them cheap enough on eBay. The input is much appreciated!

On a related note- how would you handle a much smaller (rogue trader era) land raider played unmodified? It wouldn't be as blatantly abusive as what I proposed earlier, but it would still be much easier to hide behind terrain (or a modern land raider) and would be much more likely to have a template scatter off of it. I find the idea of one converted to be a crusader packing a full 16 models makes me happy just thinking about it. It just needs to be painted as a clown car, with some space wolf clowns inside.....

If somebody has an 'antique' model in their army, I am more than glad to let them field it. It is a citadel figure and allowed by rules. Plus it is really cool.

The only problem is when you start with modded in anyway. TO can(and should) disallow use of it if it changes in a manner which affects gameplay in any noticeable way. My army could be built to counter land raiders, not shoebox sized monstrosities. Changing the model that much will greatly affect play no matter how you slice it.

-cgmckenzie

Indiges wrote:First off this is based in some cheesy ruleslawyery behavior so let's start with a description of that;

I was watching a game and this fellow started the game with his razorback sideways with relation to the battle line, as far forward as he could deploy. He then moved the vehicle oriented sideways as far as he could while allowing his grey hunters to deploy, then used his free pivot. The pivot thus added about 1/2" to his effective move, allowing him to rapid fire and get a 12" melta shot in where he otherwise could not have reached. A 1" difference between length and width = 1/2" more movement with this trick.

There is nothing wrong with this tactic however if you do it it normally annoys your opponent so they wont play you again. If you want to make friends I wouldn't suggest it.

Indiges wrote:So... If that is legal... Could I modify, for instance, a land raider to be narrower and/or longer to abuse this further? Where would the limit be? Could I have a land raider shaped like a dark Eldar raider (very long and thin) to have a 3" difference thus adding 1 1/2" to my first turn assault threat range?

If the limits are the models natural size, what about those tiny rogue trader era ones? Could I lengthen but not widen one to a current land raider models legal dimensions?

I almost want the answer to be "no that is not legal" because this conversion will be difficult and expensive, but I can't pass up a WAAC tool for my toybox with 'Ard Boyz on the horizon.

Just like using a 'counts as' model, its at your opponents disgression. If you were using it to gain an anfair advantage then people would realise and not allow you to use it. Hence nicely converted model goes to waste and retires from wargaming.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just to point out that TGAs view point is not one supported by either 5th ed, nor 4th and 3rd ed rules.

You measure distance travelled, not displacement. That is entirely made up.

It's not made up, just a poor choice of wording. As I was writing my post, the example in my head equated the two when, in fact, they don't have to be. The distance the vehicle traveled my not be equal the displacement of the vehicle. However, the core points made in my post are still valid: there is no "free" pivot available to a vehicle that has moved. The distanced gained by turning (pivoting) at the end of the move is added to the total distance the vehicle has traveled.

I have lots of 1st/2nd edition stuff that I use in games. Most people think they are cool.

Other people, they whine about the advantage it gives me.

For example: I have 3 old metal dreadnoughts, they are probably about 60% of the height of the newer models, in fact, my GK terminators stand about the same height as them the way they are based. I will not deny, they have a distinct advantage over the newer models, they can hide behind terrain easier, they can hide behind other models easier, get cover easier and when assaulting a super-heavy, they can be in complete blindspots of firing where nothing can hit them....

Given the TLOS, many older models are advantageous in tournaments and if they are what you own, don't let anyone tell you not to use them. If you're going all out, buying RT Era stuff just for a gaming advantage in normal play, I would worry more about improving your own skills as a good player will counter that kind of cheese.

TGA; no, it is not.

Any displacement gained by pivoting is just that, displacement. You must measure from a constant point, in which case you cannot change your point of measuring when pivoting.

Again, if the vehicles moves, in the OP for example, there is no "free" pivoting, it's all turns and movement. If a vehicle is moved sideways twelve inches such that it's twelve inches away from a model and then is turned ninety degrees such the front of the vehicle is now eleven inches from the model, the vehicle moved thirteen inches, not twelve.

@TGA The model has *moved* 12", as the brb describes movement. A pivot is not movement according to the brb, so while yes a pivot may displace where the model is located on the table a pivot does NOT affect the movement of the model.

The 40k rules just do not count pivot changes as part of the movement allowance.





Sliggoth

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA; no, it is not.

Any displacement gained by pivoting is just that, displacement. You must measure from a constant point, in which case you cannot change your point of measuring when pivoting.

The problem I have with that is that, given that there is no guidance on which point of the model you pick it is potentially incredible abusive. If I pick the back of the model then pivot 180degrees before moving I've just gained the whole length of the vehicle.

Examples:


(left to right)

1. Standard forward moving, measuring from the front-most point of the vehicle. I think that most people would have no problem with this and it follows the guidance given in the rules.
2. Rotating and then measuring the front most point of the vehicle. I see this quite often but I do not see this as legal since turning happens during movement yet the measuring is happening after the vehicle has started it's move.
3. Measuring from a fixed point as Nos is suggesting (in this case the centre). Nothing in the rules suggests measuring the centre of models.
4. Measuring from a fixed point as Nos is suggesting (in this case the tip). Whilst the vehicle movement diagram could be interpreted this way it allows a really obvious exploit. All models will be able to move their full move + their base or hull length if this how the rules work.
5. Measuring from the front most point (determined by movement direction) before moving to the front most people (in the same direction) after moving. I see this as the only method of moving including rotation which is legal. The start position is determined before any movement and the final position is determined after all movement.

The ACT of turning doesn't reduce the movement of the vehicle but the distance traveled is what matters.

From the BRB page 57:

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.

Thus, in my example, the vehicle moved its maximum 12" then made one final turn making it travel a total of 13". Per the above rule, this is not a valid move as the vehicle has exceeded its maximum distance.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The ACT of turning doesn't reduce the movement of the vehicle but the distance traveled is what matters.

From the BRB page 57:

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.

Thus, in my example, the vehicle moved its maximum 12" then made one final turn making it travel a total of 13". Per the above rule, this is not a valid move as the vehicle has exceeded its maximum distance.

I agree. Measuring has to be from start position to final position. Not perform a part of your movement (turning) and then measure and then turn some more.

So the claim that you're making is that "The act of turning does not reduce movement" but turning counts against how far the vehicle can move?

solkan wrote:So the claim that you're making is that "The act of turning does not reduce movement" but turning counts against how far the vehicle can move?

No, I'm suggesting that you must measure from your starting position to your ending position.

Turning does not reduce your movement, as the diagram shows (note that 1 and 5 have both moved the same distance), but it also does not increase it which is what you are claiming.

Tell me what justification there is for performing a part of your move before measuring? Or measuring and then performing another part of your movement?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The ACT of turning doesn't reduce the movement of the vehicle but the distance traveled is what matters.

From the BRB page 57:

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.

Thus, in my example, the vehicle moved its maximum 12" then made one final turn making it travel a total of 13". Per the above rule, this is not a valid move as the vehicle has exceeded its maximum distance.

+1

I don't really care how my opponent measures movement, as long as no part of the vehicle ends up farther than the maximum possible move. If I played somebody who insisted on exploiting the weakly worded rules in this instance, it would probably be the last time I played that person.

Scott-S6 wrote:

solkan wrote:So the claim that you're making is that "The act of turning does not reduce movement" but turning counts against how far the vehicle can move?

No, I'm suggesting that you must measure from your starting position to your ending position.

Turning does not reduce your movement, as the diagram shows (note that 1 and 5 have both moved the same distance), but it also does not increase it which is what you are claiming.

Tell me what justification there is for performing a part of your move before measuring? Or measuring and then performing another part of your movement?

Consistency, sanity, and an expectation that if you divide the course that a vehicle moves during its turn, the sum of the length of those segments is how far the vehicle moved.

Considering that one of your examples require a player to ignore the statement in the rules, "Vehicles turn by pioting on the spot about their centre-point", I'd love to know what you think that particular rule is for.

solkan wrote:Consistency, sanity, and an expectation that if you divide the course that a vehicle moves during its turn, the sum of the length of those segments is how far the vehicle moved.

You're assuming that vehicle movement is still measured as it was during previous editions. Those editions all expressly demonstrated that type of movement&measurement. The current one does not.

Surely it's more consistent to measure vehicles the same way that you measure infantry? From start position to end position regardless of rotation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:Considering that one of your examples require a player to ignore the statement in the rules, "Vehicles turn by pioting on the spot about their centre-point", I'd love to know what you think that particular rule is for.

No, I'm not. We know how vehicles move, this is clear. We do not know how to measure that as it is never expressly stated (the only example is for a straight move).

If measurement is start to finish on a fixed point of the vehicle (as some have stated) then 3 and 4 would be possible. I do not believe that they are.


The current rules simply do not tell us how to measure vehicle movement in anything other than a straight line.

It may be as per previous editions in which case example 2 is the right one. It may simply be a measurement from start position to finish position in which case 5 is correct.

If you measure from the center of the vehicle and pivot from the center, you avoid this problem. If you are going to insist on trying to exploit the rules for a couple inches, expect to loose opponents to play against later.

-cgmckenzie