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.

Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

On a side note: Big THANK YOU to Yakface and the other admins for letting this virtual chin-wag extend to 15 pages of RAW discussion, despite the large red lettering on the first page. Loved the hash out we had.

Slackermagee wrote:Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

Except as far as the game is concerned, it hasn't moved 14, it's moved 12.

Gwar! wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:Alright, I'll cave.

I'll accept that this is the only game I've encountered where a 12 move unit can have moved 14.

Except as far as the game is concerned, it hasn't moved 14, it's moved 12.

Which has been precisely the pro-DOH.

Mm-must... stop... arguing.

I've only skimmed the last pages; you guys actually convinced Slacker? It's actually possible for a thread that went on for 15 pages to end amicably?

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.

Ah, and to think I told my self I was done with this thread.

I stopped reading here btw.

Since we obviously can't agree even on how to measure and move regular miniatures.

Let me just clear this up though, are you saying that in order to move a regular, non-vehicle unit, I have to declare the path it will take, then measure it, once I have measured it, at all, I have to move that path? So the very second I apply any length on my measuring tape/stick to the board, in any direction, I MUST move THAT direction the FULL distance? If I move the measuring tape, even one planck, from this spot, I am measuring illegally? Oh 1 planck is ok but over an inch will be pushing it?

Amusingly enough, what triggered this discussion for me, was Dash using this A movement with his raiders. You know what ELSE Dash did? He measured the FULL movement range of his Raider, and didn't move it. He even used the information gleaned from his potential 24" movement to make sure to stay out of charge range of some angry orks. Guess what? He can do that. Totally legal RaW as far as I am concerned, but APPARENTLY in YOUR world it's not...

I find it ironic, truly, just how much you see as RaW that, well, isn't. Guess what:

When I move a unit, I can measure in any direction from that unit, up to the unit's max movement, this creates that 'umbrella' as you named it. I'm not going to RaW argue it, and most especially I won't be surprised if the usual suspects try to tell me they've always played it the other way, and that's how it was in the last editions, and it's only had minor rewording, and that's still how everyone plays it now... so it must be right! Look they will show you, by using language as loosely as possible to invent things (like measuring from the centRE and pivoting modifying how you measure movement rofl ) while common sense is ignored in light of their carefully manipulated RaW. They even have diagrams to show they are right, sure the diagram only has one mode, them being right, and it doesn't build any concepts, it just displays them being right, but that's all you need!

I'm starting to wonder why we even have a term "RaW" in 40K since even RaW seems to be unintelligible to most players


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and just so we are clear insaniak, the diagram for movement:

DOES NOT SHOW IT BEING MEASURED FROM THE SAME POINT!

It just as much shows it being measured from closest to closest, just as I said it should.

So please explain the lovely paint diagram which shows that YOUR method violates "pivoting does not reduce movement"

In other words RAW you are wrong, RAP you are wrong, and RAI (as the rules have not changed in 3 editions - the minor revision is JUST that; it does not actually alter how you move) you are wrong.

0-3.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So please explain the lovely paint diagram which shows that YOUR method violates "pivoting does not reduce movement"

In other words RAW you are wrong, RAP you are wrong, and RAI (as the rules have not changed in 3 editions - the minor revision is JUST that; it does not actually alter how you move) you are wrong.

0-3.

You know how my movement method looks exactly the same as the one where pivoting doesn't exist. In my world, if you can move something two ways, and both ways result in the same distance, then neither of them reduces or increases the movement. Then again I don't live in a world where movement distances are context sensitive :(

But thats the key problem. Movement in 40K IS context sensitive, to use your phrase.

Movementin 40k for vehicles is only when they move straight forward or backward. Thats what movement is defined as. Thats what the movement allowance is tied to. Movement in 40k is not an accurate representation of real world movement, many other rules in 40k are also not very accurate or precise when compared to the real world. The rules in 40k are built that way however. At one time there were movement rules that were more detailed and complicated, those riles did perhaps more accurately measure distance but perhaps because they were more complicated they were replaced by the current rules.

Its an intentional simplification of the older process, it creates some weaknesses but it is simpler and it seems thats what they want at the moment.

Sliggoth

ihatehumans - stop adding "or increase" - the rule only requires that pivot does not *reduce* your movement, it is SILENT on whether it can "increase" your movement.

So yes, explain that diagram - you are a) required to pivot about the centre and b) this action cannot reduce your distance.

Your method "works" only by ignoring both of those rules, wihch doesnt make it a particualrly satisfactory method now, does it?

RAW, RAI and RAP are *all* against you.

ChrisCP wrote:

If I may state something?

This diagram is false.

Now, I'm sure you all agree with me, but from my take on the option B (which may not be the same as slacker and ihatehumans) pivoting doesn't reduce movement. It's PART of the move. There a big difference in how we look at this. In this diagram, you would have moved 2" because you went up so the end of your movement (thus your front in this case) has moved your chosen distance, at which point you pivoted (backwards, nonetheless. If you had moved in a straight line you might have moved LESS than 2").

Unfortunately, reading and rereading has led me to believe that I have no asnwer! The "turning does not reduce movement" throws me off entirely. So, I'll play however the person I'm playing with wants to play (encouraging option B I suppose... gotta have some pride).

Good debate all... most of the time. The attacking of semantics in people's posts and repeated abuse of shoddy diagrams rather than the arguments after them was a bit annoying.. but there were gems! Gems of intellectual debate that made me glad I submitted my time to this thread!

Hope this gets cleared up in 6th. Cheerio! 15 pages is enough.

Just stop arguing against Option A. You might be think your right, you might BE right, but there are way too many people who are far too used to getting a 22"+ charge range off of their land raiders/Trukks/Raiders/etc. for anything you say to get through.

They have a way of measuring which allows for A, we have a method of measuring that only allows for B, and if it really actually becomes an issue in a tournament game... grab a judge and point out pages 57, 12, and the way each player has been moving. The judge will make a call and then you continue.

Except your way involves breaking the rules (it reduces your movement when you pivot) and in fact means pivoting doesnt exist - in your rules.

So breaking at leqast one rule and ignoring how to move doesnt seem the strongest of arguments now, does it?

Well, it seems a lot stronger argument when somebody doesn't pick and choose things that we say and warp them. If I hadn't argued the topic yet and read your post you'd think those who argued for B had no basis in the rules whatsoever!

Nice contribution.

Your statement is false, by the way. Although really, I'm done arguing the point too, as no progress is going to be made.

You guys still limping along on this?

Yep, they're still trying to say that RAW supports one side or the other...

Pvt. Jet wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

If I may state something?

This diagram is false.

Now, I'm sure you all agree with me, but from my take on the option B (which may not be the same as slacker and ihatehumans) pivoting doesn't reduce movement. It's PART of the move. There a big difference in how we look at this. In this diagram, you would have moved 2" because you went up so the end of your movement (thus your front in this case.

Really, which part? Because you've made a blanket statement about my diagram and without pause moved onto your interpretation of this set of rules. Either that or you're not explaining how you're measuring certain elments of 'my' move, secondly....

The diagram is accurate.

When one is moving 'forwards' in 40K is must be in a direction perpendicular to the tangent of the forward-most point of the front arcs hull.
There is a few ways to reach this conclusion but the most direct is vehicles may never 'wheel around' and any method of measuring distance which would create a reading on a bearing would be false as the only way to obtain this titlted move is to have wheeled around.

Now my diagram the second section of possible movement marked in red shows a measurment of movment distance that is not perpendicular to the tangent of the forward most edge... Now obviously one must draw the conclusion that this distance covered by the forward-most point of the front arcs hull cannot be measured for the purposes of movement as this would be measuring the forbidden action that is 'wheeling'.

If we were to measure in the fashion I think you want us to one would have measured an illegal move

False my arse

Okay, I hadn't been paying attention to this thread and clearly it has gone way, way, way off the deep end into a rules argument.

I don't like to keep this poll threads locked as I want people to always be able to cast their vote on how they play in the future, so I'm going to lock this thread long enough for it to slip off the first few pages and then unlock it later.

Once unlocked, PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE ARGUING ABOUT THE RULES IN THIS THREAD.

If you absolutely must (and really, why?), please start a new thread on the topic.