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.

ihatehumans - you have shown diagrams that were proven to be wrong. Id advise not bringing them up as "proof" of anything.

The reason I am so sure on this is because, well, its what the rules say....

Anyways:

Measure from centre point of hull, pivot, continue move. Easy. 100% following the rules.

Slackermagee wrote: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.

I was thinking more along the lines I mentioned before, with measuring however far, pivoting, and then measuring the next part of the movement, rince and repeat as many times as necessary... which is the way I've always played it, and the way I've always seen it played.

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).

I start the measurement from the vehicle's front, and finish at the vehicle's front, exactly as it shows in page 12 of the rulebook.

Let's do a couple thought experiments:

Forget for a second everything you know about 40K, you are now your average first time 40K player. In the real world we define movement as such:



A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Now lets read the rules for pivoting:

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.

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

So, when a vehicle can move 12" and pivot as it moves, it can move as in A, B and C. It "does not reduce the vehicle's move" so it is not limited to moving as in D, and it can only pivot "providing it does not exceed it's maximum move" so it can not move over 12" as in E.

Still not convinced? Here's another:

Firstly, how regular models with round bases move:



The model may be placed anywhere within the red circle.

Now, say that you couldn't pivot vehicles, the facing they start with is the facing they keep, their movement would like this:



The vehicle may be placed anywhere within the red rectangle.

Now, you ARE allowed to pivot vehicles, they have the following rules:

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.

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

In other words, pivoting does not, should not and can not reduce or increase a unit's movement.

Now let's look at our previous picture where you couldn't pivot. This picture does not, should not and can not change, since pivoting doesn't effect movement, only facing.

Let's compare the picture with the two schools of thoughts:




The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Slackermagee wrote: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.

I was thinking more along the lines I mentioned before, with measuring however far, pivoting, and then measuring the next part of the movement, rince and repeat as many times as necessary... which is the way I've always played it, and the way I've always seen it played.

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).

I start the measurement from the vehicle's front, and finish at the vehicle's front, exactly as it shows in page 12 of the rulebook.

The way I always see it played is that you measure how far you can move, and leave the measuring tape there, you may then play your models within that range. This is why the bendy red sticks are bendy, this is why measuring tapes are bendy, so that you can measure around obstacles or along a path, rather than having to move the measuring tap allowing for added error in having to measure several distances instead of one.

ihatehumans wrote:A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Within a certain context, that would be true. Within the context of the rules, not necessarily.


And I would be curious as to how you determine your 'average' gamer's habits...

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

That second quote is referring to the game turn, not the act of turning the vehicle. Telling you that you can combine forward and reverse movement while turning makes no sense... the vehicle pivots on its centre, so it's not moving forwards or backwards as it turns.

The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.

The reason there is an argument over it is that, while the way you are suggesting it should be done is arguably how it possibly should work... it's not what the rules say to do, it causes the fact that pivoting is even mentioned in the rules to be nonsensical, it's inconsistent with the Tank Shock rules, and it's simply not (going by my own experience over the last 15 years playing 40K in several different cities and clubs, and the various discussions that have popped up online over this in the last 3 editions of the game) how it is generally played.

insaniak wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:A, B and C are all said to have moved 12" while D has moved LESS THAN 12" and E has moved MORE THAN 12" that is how the police understand, that is how scientists do it, that's how your average 13 year old gamer does it.

Within a certain context, that would be true. Within the context of the rules, not necessarily.


And I would be curious as to how you determine your 'average' gamer's habits...

Well what other descriptions on movement do we have, and by that i mean, what actually moving a model constitutes, all it says in the book is that you can move your models a certain distance, it doesn't define exactly how this works. Since it doesn't define it, the ONLY description we can use is the everyday usage of the phrase "move it X distance" which I defined.

insaniak wrote:

The two most important parts to take from this is;

a) Turning does not reduce the vehicle’s move.
b) ...turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move.

That second quote is referring to the game turn, not the act of turning the vehicle. Telling you that you can combine forward and reverse movement while turning makes no sense... the vehicle pivots on its centre, so it's not moving forwards or backwards as it turns.

Sorry, I accidentally clipped the 'turn' part in my copy/paste, I meant only to grab the "providing..." part. I was trying to elaborate that pivoting can not grant extra movement. Unless you are arguing the rules say that it can?

insaniak wrote:

The fact that there IS any kind of argument on the matter kind of makes me laugh.

The reason there is an argument over it is that, while the way you are suggesting it should be done is arguably how it possibly should work... it's not what the rules say to do, it causes the fact that pivoting is even mentioned in the rules to be nonsensical, it's inconsistent with the Tank Shock rules, and it's simply not (going by my own experience over the last 15 years playing 40K in several different cities and clubs, and the various discussions that have popped up online over this in the last 3 editions of the game) how it is generally played.

So the way people have done things previously in previous rules and the way others do things in the new rules, means the 'others' are wrong?

Why wouldn't pivoting be mentioned in the rules?

It is specifically mentioned under the tank shock rules AS being inconsistent (I already pointed this out to you) in the same way as measuring after you declare the distance you move and having to move that full distance, or are you going to be convinced that is how normal movement works too, for consistencies sake?

Finally, please PLEASE provide me with (or point me towards) a clear step by step explanation as to how the rules say to do movement. With specific rules quotes for all actions/restrictions and diagrams where helpful. I haven't thoroughly searched all 14 pages, but so far I haven't seen anything better than GWAR's diagrams and various people simply stating that is the rules, end of story. Having an actual grounds for an argument would go a long way in convincing me

Except that we cant simply measure a circle of possible movement range and say that the vehicle can move anywhere in that circle. Movement is defined in the BRB as moving straight forward or backward, and limited by no being able to go at all in some place (impassable, within 1" of enemy models) so the only time that we are given the ability to measure is when we are actually moving. In other words, when the model is going forward or backwards we can measure from the hull.

We cant measure from where the hull sued to be btw, we measure from the hull.

We are told that the vehicle can move forwrds and backwards, and that it can pivot which doesnt affect the moevement range.

So we can measure when the vehicle goes forweard and backward, that implies that we MUST measure from the hull as the vehcile goes forward and backwards. Not from some point on the ground where the vehicle was at some time in the past.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Except that we cant simply measure a circle of possible movement range and say that the vehicle can move anywhere in that circle. Movement is defined in the BRB as moving straight forward or backward, and limited by no being able to go at all in some place (impassable, within 1" of enemy models) so the only time that we are given the ability to measure is when we are actually moving. In other words, when the model is going forward or backwards we can measure from the hull.

We cant measure from where the hull sued to be btw, we measure from the hull.

We are told that the vehicle can move forwrds and backwards, and that it can pivot which doesnt affect the moevement range.

So we can measure when the vehicle goes forweard and backward, that implies that we MUST measure from the hull as the vehcile goes forward and backwards. Not from some point on the ground where the vehicle was at some time in the past.



Sliggoth

You can, and should, define an AREA in which models may be placed in their movement. This is NOT always a simply circle as indicated previously, but a shape adapted by surrounding terrain and the shape of the vehicle. You may measure, as many times as you want, BEFORE physically moving the vehicle, these measurements being made are to determine where the vehicle may move. After measuring this distance you may place the vehicle in this area. THAT is how the BRB describes it, you MAY NOT measure as many times after a unit has started moving, there is no need for it, you only NEED to measure when you are determining it's maximum movement distance on the board, after that all you must do is physically move it.

I have described the above, in greater detail, with corresponding rules quotes, previously. Your explanation(s) have been done without any reference to corresponding rules.

Why is it so hard for people to provide rules quotes and/or references? Otherwise you have no backing to your claims!

I think this arguent will never be resolved. The only way both sides can ever be 'happy' is if, in 6th Ed, you have to pay to pivot. Say, 1" per 90 degree turn.

Because the rules quotes have been provided - turning cannot reduce your movement, yet in your world turning DOES reduce your total movement - meaning your interpretation is wrong....

UltraPrime wrote:I think this arguent will never be resolved. The only way both sides can ever be 'happy' is if, in 6th Ed, you have to pay to pivot. Say, 1" per 90 degree turn.

I would be happy if GW wrote clear, concise rules in 6th. I would be ecstatic if they actually hired some help from trained, experienced professionals in the area of writing easy to follow rule sets. It would be amazing if I could just sit down, read the rules, and know in precise steps how the game goes. Instead we have hodge podge rules where key aspects remain undefined because GW see their 'game' as more of a 'hobby' and sees rules as 'guidelines' for having some fun with your models, rather than actual instructions for a competitive game.

I personally don't mind GW treating everything as a hobby, the problem arises when people decide that GW rules are a competitive basework for tournaments, and as such rules lawyering and RaW shenanigans ensue, where people can argue about anything from movement to psychic abilities with out an easy to find right/wrong answer. Simple language nuances become game winning strategies and all hell breaks loose. Not that it really matters as most tournaments are a shambles anyway where the TO enforces rules that are completely, obviously wrong (like dismounting just the independent character from a transport carrying a unit he is attached to) and players disregard obvious rules (deploying daemons normally). Attending a 40K tournament is often as much based in the luck of the dice as it is the luck of the draw with TO's and opponents.

ANYWAY /endrant

As it stands, I would settle for some one explaining, in great detail, why they see the RaW working for option A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rules quotes have been provided - turning cannot reduce your movement, yet in your world turning DOES reduce your total movement - meaning your interpretation is wrong....

Where is the reduced movement? See my example where in a world where you CAN NOT pivot you have the same movement as where you CAN using my method.

On the other hand, using YOUR method, the distance you can move changes RADICALLY when you incorporate pivoting...

Pretty sure if it doesn't change, you don't lose or gain anything, but if it DOES change you MUST have gained or lost.

Repeating the same wrong statement, continuously, without rules quotes or diagrams... you think that's convincing anyone but yourself?

People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there.

No reference to moving at all. It says that as part of pivoting you are allowed to combine moving forwards and backwards as long as you do not exceed your maximum movement. I have rules quoted the references line by line, word by word. The best others do is quote my quotes and then 'boil it down' the way you have.

If I wanted it 'boiled down' I'd buy a pot and burn it!

It's really something I wish that GW would clarify. So small yet so big.

I play B. If any part of the vehicle moves farther than 6 inches, it counts as having moved cruising speed, and I won't let my opponent move the vehicle farther than 12 in this manner.

GW should steal, ahem, borrow some of these diagrams for future Errata or 6th edition for 100% clarification.

ihatehumans wrote:

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there

Other people have provided all the neccessary rules quotes. I don't have the book, but reading the quotes has convinced me that they are right and you keep on ignoring what the rules actually say in favor of what you WANT them to say.

As well as the when do you measure argument, I think another sticking point is the RAW "Turning does not reduce the vehicles move".

The pro A camp appears to be taking the point of view that as there is no reduction for pivoting you are free to measure from any possible position that the vehicle could pivot to. This allows them deploy sideways and then pivot and measure the distance from that position, or move a plankt length pivot and measure from that pivoted position.

For me in the against A camp I read that as, there is no reduction to maximum movement for turning. To me a movement reduction would be if the rules said turning up to 90° reduces movement by 2" turning up to 180° reduces maximum movement by 4". Which obviously they don't.

I don't know if I am making the distinction between the two views clear but this is why I believe those in the hardline pro A camp don't even acknowledge the anti A argument as a valid interpretation of RAW.

Anyway I think this will be my last post on the subject. Personal I don't feel A is the way the rules are either written or intended. but despite this I feel the best way to play both for consistency and speed is to pivot to face the direction you want to go and then measure one line from the centre of the front of your vehicle. Move the vehicle along that line, ending with the vehicle behind the point measured to with the vehicles front perpendicular to the line and the centre of the vehicles front on that line. You can then pivot on the spot at the end of the move. Yes this would allow you to gain (from my perspective) inches by deploying sideways, but this is not something I would choose to do anyway.

skyth wrote:

ihatehumans wrote:

skyth wrote:People have explained in great detail already.

It boils down to vehicles only being able to move forward or backwards. You only measure movement distance while you move. Pivoting is not moving forwards or backwards so it is not measured.

Nice rules quotes and references. I have seen this stated but the corresponding rules aren't there

Other people have provided all the neccessary rules quotes. I don't have the book, but reading the quotes has convinced me that they are right and you keep on ignoring what the rules actually say in favor of what you WANT them to say.

Oh they have, have they? So since you managed to read it and accept you can't possibly quote it... Just reading something and deciding someone is right/wrong is about as unconvincing as it gets. While the thread itself is about how you play it, and that's fine, I personally only care about people trying to convince me otherwise, and vice versa. I would be posting in a separate thread, but Dakka mods see fit that all discussion on such matters remain in this thread, as such I have no shame in hijacking this thread for my personal use. So if you wish to discuss anything in this thread, with me, give concise explanations and/or rules quotes, as insaniak for example did (for a bit, and then when on about some other stuff), or be polite and give up as GWAR seems to have, or my personal least favorite, continue to spout the same unsubstantiated claim over and over generally clogging down any real discussion on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bangbangboom wrote:As well as the when do you measure argument, I think another sticking point is the RAW "Turning does not reduce the vehicles move".

The pro A camp appears to be taking the point of view that as there is no reduction for pivoting you are free to measure from any possible position that the vehicle could pivot to. This allows them deploy sideways and then pivot and measure the distance from that position, or move a plankt length pivot and measure from that pivoted position.

For me in the against A camp I read that as, there is no reduction to maximum movement for turning. To me a movement reduction would be if the rules said turning up to 90° reduces movement by 2" turning up to 180° reduces maximum movement by 4". Which obviously they don't.

Pro A: I can pivot so that my maximum range is increased, or if I wish to pivot at the end of my movement my maximum range may be reduced!

Anti A: You can't use pivoting to change your maximum range at all, your maximum range is your maximum range and can not be changed by pivoting or otherwise.

To be finer though, the real discussion centers around whether you measure maximum range of a unit's movement from the center to center, or whether you measure from closest to closest. There is no rule outlining specifically which one, the only article we have on measuring any distances at all is on measuring units within a range of each other, and that says measure from closest to closest. Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention center to center movement (or rather centre to centre lol) so I am inclined to use the example we are given. The pro A's strongest point I have seen so far is that it has been played their way for a long time.

Norade wrote:

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.

What the diagram shows and what the rules advocate are often slightly out of sync, as the diagrams show you a simplified case. Also, using your logic, to tank shock wouldn't we have to pivot exactly 30 degrees or whatever it is that they show on that particular diagram? Crocodile attack style tank shocks, GO!

ihatehumans wrote:Nowhere in the rulebook does it mention center to center movement (or rather centre to centre lol)

Hey it's English and it's centre, not my fault it transfered wrong when it went over the ocean .

But the pro A camp really do believe its RAW and apart from "this is how we have always played", "its RAW" will be the only argument you will get. So... you have to try to understand why they think it's RAW and I believe it is the interpretation of that turning rule which is causing some of the issues.

At the end of the day there is no such thing as RAW, language is about expressing and interpreting meaning and ideas. So what you really have is rules as interpreted, the Pro A's are obviously interpreting something in a way that makes them believe they can't be wrong. They can't explain what that is because they can't see another way of interpreting the rules.

The same can be said for you iHate, you can't see how you could be wrong

And so the Pros and the antis just end up banging heads not understanding why the other party can't read the rules properly.

Try to work out HOW they came to there point of view and then maybe you can find a effective way of explaining why its wrong.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

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.

THis is all that is needed

In the "no pivot" camp the end result of your breach of rules is the above situation, where pivoting HAS reduced movement.

which is explicitly not allowed.

ihathumans - please read and understand this for once. It may help you.

Slackermagee wrote:

Norade wrote:

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.

What the diagram shows and what the rules advocate are often slightly out of sync, as the diagrams show you a simplified case. Also, using your logic, to tank shock wouldn't we have to pivot exactly 30 degrees or whatever it is that they show on that particular diagram? Crocodile attack style tank shocks, GO!

No, not at all as the diagram says nothing about the angle being important. You miss that fact that one diagram shows and makes a point of showing that you measure to the same place, the other has an unlabeled angle only there to show how the move works. I would be shocked to have to explain this to anybody else, however you seem incapable of using logic to do anything as shown by your wall of ignorance style tactic of simply repeating yourself while not reading what others have to say.

ihatehumans wrote:Well what other descriptions on movement do we have, and by that i mean, what actually moving a model constitutes, all it says in the book is that you can move your models a certain distance, it doesn't define exactly how this works. Since it doesn't define it, the ONLY description we can use is the everyday usage of the phrase "move it X distance" which I defined.

The book points out how vehicles pivot, and that doing so does not reduce their movement. So you move the vehicle however far, pivot, and continue your movement.

Within that framework, it is possible for a part of the vehicle to have moved more than 12" from it's starting while the vehicle is only considered to have moved 12"... but that happens because the framework provided gives rules to follow as to how to determine that movement.

I was trying to elaborate that pivoting can not grant extra movement. Unless you are arguing the rules say that it can?

It doesn't grant extra movement. It does change how that movement is measured.

insaniak wrote:So the way people have done things previously in previous rules and the way others do things in the new rules, means the 'others' are wrong?

No. The way people have done things previously and in this edition (for a given rule that has remained unchanged save for a slight change in how it is worded), combined with the other things I mentioned suggests to the people who follow that interpretation that it is the correct one.

Why wouldn't pivoting be mentioned in the rules?

Sorry, you've confused me there. Pivoting is mentioned in the rules. It's what we're discussing...

It is specifically mentioned under the tank shock rules AS being inconsistent (I already pointed this out to you)

And didn't explain what you meant by it when I asked you to, so I'm still not following what you're talking about.

Finally, please PLEASE provide me with (or point me towards) a clear step by step explanation as to how the rules say to do movement. With specific rules quotes for all actions/restrictions and diagrams where helpful.

Ok, to break down the entire argument:
The movement diagram on page 12 of the rulebook shows us that to measure movement, we pick a point on the edge of the model and measure the movement based on that point (The Vehicle movement rules additionally mention that we measure to and from the vehicle's hull). It specifically shows the front centre of the hull used for a vehicle (which is what I've generally seen done... the centre-point option many have mentioned in this thread is, in my experience, less commonly used as it's not as easy to be accurate with it).

We're told on page 57 that vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, that this is done by pivoting on their centre, that this does not reduce their movement, and that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving.

I would point out the use of the word 'reduce' as opposed to the 'affect' that has been used at times in this thread. For normal infantry movement, the rules do indeed say that turning doesn't affect their movement. For vehicles, it simply points out that turning doesn't reduce it.

So, we can pivot the vehicle as it moves. Thus, you move the vehicle however far you want (up to it's maximum movement) measuring the distance travelled from a point on the vehicle's hull. At any point in that movement you can choose to pivot the vehicle and then carry on with movement, measuring the distance travelled from that same point on the hull. You don't include the distance travelled as a part of the pivot in that measurement, as the vehicle movement rules specifically tell us that pivoting doesn't reduce the vehicle's movement. You just measure up to where the vehicle pauses, pivot, and then resume measurement as the vehicle moves off.



The alternate, that you just measure a circle around the vehicle and move the vehicle to somewhere on the edge of that circle, as I pointed out before removes any point in the rules telling us to pivot on the vehicle's centre. It also ignores the diagram that shows us to measure from a consistent point when measuring... If you're going to include the pivot in the movement, you would need to measure the actual distance travelled by your measure point. So for most vehicles, turning 90 degrees is going to use up the bulk of their movement if they want to move at Combat speed.

Ok, here is the most simple example of how the one arguement fails:

A vehicle moves forward a full 12" straight ahead.

The vehicle then attempts to pivot to the right 15 degrees, in order to face its front armor directly at an enemy unit.

This pivot has moved the front left corner of the vehicle more than 12" from its starting location, beyond the circle/ lozenge shape measured at the start of movement.

Now we are either going to have to violate the rule that pivots do not reduce movement (in other words move the vehicle backwards a bit) or else concede that this idea isnt working.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Ok, here is the most simple example of how the one arguement fails:

A vehicle moves forward a full 12" straight ahead.

The vehicle then attempts to pivot to the right 15 degrees, in order to face its front armor directly at an enemy unit.

This pivot has moved the front left corner of the vehicle more than 12" from its starting location, beyond the circle/ lozenge shape measured at the start of movement.

Now we are either going to have to violate the rule that pivots do not reduce movement (in other words move the vehicle backwards a bit) or else concede that this idea isnt working.



Sliggoth

... Or just point the vehicle at its new target so that no part of the hull is beyond the distance measured? Really people, there's an AS. As you move. Not before you move. Not after you move. You may pivot AS you move. Not whenever you damn well please in the movement phase. Move (while turning and pivoting) to the destination measured from a part of the hull.

As to Norade: Your taking the diagrams at face value and ignoring the rules text above them. Its a simplification of what should be done. If we took everything at face value we would be turning that way in tank shock, every squad would have to maintain exactly two inches of space between each model, etc. etc. That paragraph explicitly details that movement should be done in such a way as to avoid tacking on extra inches on account of differences between front and side vehicle facings. It never states in the RAW to measure front to front, only to measure in such a way as to maintain yourself within the distance measured before you begin moving. You cannot pivot before moving if you intend on moving afterwards (this not complying with the 'if pivoting alone' bit). If you move one planck forward then pivot, you must keep the hull of your vehicle behind that one planck point you measured. Then you can take the rest of your movement minus that one planck.

Let's assume that one is instructed, explicitly by RAW, to measure front to front. You start sideways, measuring 12" upward from the front of the tank and place the tank in a frontwards facing position behind that 12" point (the tank having turned on the way there). Want to measure less than 12"? Do the above but record the distance you yet want to travel and repeat the process from your waypoint.

As you move, yes. Moving the full distance still allows a pivot at the end of that movement. Or if that concept is too unsettling, lets move the vehicle 11.99" straight forward so that it still has movment allowance left and then do the pivot. If its has to not move its full allowance in order to pivot...then the pivot is reducing the movement, which is expressly not allowed in the rules.



There are two different ways that movement is being measured in this debate.

One method is to measure a movement radius from the starting position of the vehicle. This method does not allow a pivot and then moving the vehciles full allowance in the new direction (unless its done a 190)

The other method measures the distance the vehicle moves, as it is moved across the board. This does allow the vehcile to move its full allowance in the new direction.


There is another rule (tank shock) which strictly follows the second method.

For some people, this would be an indication that the second method is actually the correct method. For others, this is simply an indication that the tank shock rules are incorrect as well.


But of course, if one is moving in a curving path then one must still measure as one moves along that path as well, effectively saying that the first method requires the use of the second method as well. An example is when moving around impassable terrain to get to the other side, the vehicle never moves more than 12" from its starting location but we do not allow the vehicle to wind around a path thats 24" long to arrive at its new location.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:As you move, yes. Moving the full distance still allows a pivot at the end of that movement. Or if that concept is too unsettling, lets move the vehicle 11.99" straight forward so that it still has movment allowance left and then do the pivot. If its has to not move its full allowance in order to pivot...then the pivot is reducing the movement, which is expressly not allowed in the rules.

'At the end of' is not during, its at the completion of movement. Also, the vehicle can move its full move allowance: some portion of the hull moved .01" when you place it again. There has been a net gain of .01". Pivoting does not 'gain' you distance (which would contradict the rules expressly written on page twelve above the diagram for instances such as these) just as it does not 'lose' you distance.

Sliggoth wrote:
There are two different ways that movement is being measured in this debate.

One method is to measure a movement radius from the starting position of the vehicle. This method does not allow a pivot and then moving the vehciles full allowance in the new direction (unless its done a 190)

The other method measures the distance the vehicle moves, as it is moved across the board. This does allow the vehcile to move its full allowance in the new direction.

The second method and the first method differ by only one point: every who does the second method is doing the first method in segments. You lay down (or what have you) your ruler like everyone else does, yes? You record how far the vehicle has gone from its starting point? Then there's no difference between this and the first method. If you pivot before starting to measure the distance you've traveled, which is what I assume you're doing, then you've pivoted before movement began. Which is wrong, as per pg57. Again.

Sliggoth wrote:
There is another rule (tank shock) which strictly follows the second method.

For some people, this would be an indication that the second method is actually the correct method. For others, this is simply an indication that the tank shock rules are incorrect as well.

And for the vast majority of people I've known both here in Vancouver and back in Pittsburgh the Tank Shock rules are entirely separate from the regular movement rules, being a special attack move. They're not wrong, they're a different set of rules entirely. To begin with, the very first line states to pivot then move. Pg57 very clearly states that in regular movement you must pivot as (meaning after you have started to) move.

Sliggoth wrote:
But of course, if one is moving in a curving path then one must still measure as one moves along that path as well, effectively saying that the first method requires the use of the second method as well. An example is when moving around impassable terrain to get to the other side, the vehicle never moves more than 12" from its starting location but we do not allow the vehicle to wind around a path thats 24" long to arrive at its new location.

This has been brought up so many times in this thread. Its a point that held little merit before and holds none now. Segmented movement will work if you absolutely need it to, otherwise you do what everyone else has done since they invented bendy rulers: bend you ruler about the route, stopping your vehicle in the orientation of your choosing before it violates its movement limitations.

Of course, you also have to occasionally have to place the vehicle down to make sure it fits but still. Bendiness, not just for yoga students.

Slackermagee wrote: You cannot pivot before moving if you intend on moving afterwards (this not complying with the 'if pivoting alone' bit).

The allowance to pivot as you move does not prevent you from pivoting at the start of that movement.

If you move one planck forward then pivot, you must keep the hull of your vehicle behind that one planck point you measured. Then you can take the rest of your movement minus that one planck.

In which case such a turn is impossible, as the vehicle has to pivot on its centre point.

Let's assume that one is instructed, explicitly by RAW, to measure front to front. You start sideways, measuring 12" upward from the front of the tank and place the tank in a frontwards facing position behind that 12" point (the tank having turned on the way there).

That still relies on the assumption that you have to complete the measurement before you start to move the tank, which is not actually required by the rules.

It's equally valid to turn the tank and then measure as far as you want to move in that direction. Or, if you really want to insist on the 'no turning before moving' then just moving a fraction of an inch forwards (sorry, I'm not getting into 'planck' measurement... too silly) then pivoting, then measuring the rest of the tank's movement.

Hmm, seems that some terms mean radically different things to people. Lets try this tack then, since it seems people want something new.

There seems to be some disagreement over the measuring itself. We are not explicitly told how to measure. We are told that a vehicle has a movement allowance, so therefore we know that we can measure how far a vehcile moves so that this allowabce is not exceeded.

This is the ONLY permission we are given, there is no permission to measure an entire umbrella area or range of movement, we are being given permision to make certain that the movement allowance is not exceeded. How does a vehicle move? It only moves forward and backward...so then we are only allowed to measure its distance when it moves forward or backward. There is no permission to measure an umbrella around the vehicle, in fact this sort of measurement is likely to give us all sorts of data on ranges to other units, data which we most certainly are NOT allowed to obtain.

A pivot does not reduce a vehicles movement, so we are not allowed to measure a pivot. We are allowed to measure movement, the forwards and backwards movement of the veheilce, but we are not given permission to measure pivots since pivots do not reduce a vehicles movement allowance. Can a pivot end up with a portion of the vehcile farther away from its starting point that the vehicles moveemnt allowance? We dont know, because we are never given permission to make a measurement of the pivot.


Realistically we can understand that a pivot may see a portion of a vehicles hull ending up farther from its starting location...but because movment in 40k is a representaion of movement in the real world such is allowed. The movement phase in 40k is simplified movement, vehicles are explicitly allowed to pivot and in no way reduce their movement. This is in its very nature going to result in moves that are not perfect by every standard.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Hmm, seems that some terms mean radically different things to people. Lets try this tack then, since it seems people want something new.

There seems to be some disagreement over the measuring itself. We are not explicitly told how to measure. We are told that a vehicle has a movement allowance, so therefore we know that we can measure how far a vehcile moves so that this allowabce is not exceeded.

This is the ONLY permission we are given, there is no permission to measure an entire umbrella area or range of movement, we are being given permision to make certain that the movement allowance is not exceeded. How does a vehicle move? It only moves forward and backward...so then we are only allowed to measure its distance when it moves forward or backward. There is no permission to measure an umbrella around the vehicle, in fact this sort of measurement is likely to give us all sorts of data on ranges to other units, data which we most certainly are NOT allowed to obtain.

A pivot does not reduce a vehicles movement, so we are not allowed to measure a pivot. We are allowed to measure movement, the forwards and backwards movement of the veheilce, but we are not given permission to measure pivots since pivots do not reduce a vehicles movement allowance. Can a pivot end up with a portion of the vehcile farther away from its starting point that the vehicles moveemnt allowance? We dont know, because we are never given permission to make a measurement of the pivot.


Realistically we can understand that a pivot may see a portion of a vehicles hull ending up farther from its starting location...but because movment in 40k is a representaion of movement in the real world such is allowed. The movement phase in 40k is simplified movement, vehicles are explicitly allowed to pivot and in no way reduce their movement. This is in its very nature going to result in moves that are not perfect by every standard.

Sliggoth

If Gwar!'s explaination didn't work I doubt this will either, but it was well written for what it's worth.

My explanation was prettier!