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.

So this has crossed my thoughts today:

In the way you are able to deploy DE raider sideways, rotate 90* and gain a few inches, is it possible to apply said "gain" upon entering from reserves?

Can you be "as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn" on your flank, and then rotate to have the front of your vehicle a few inches further than reserves would have allowed you?

Yes, I dont spot anything wrong with that.

I don't believe you can, because the act of rotating would mean that some of the vehicle is now hanging off the table. You must retain the same centre and so if you spin to put an extra inch on the front of the vehicle, you'll also have an inch that is just hanging in empty space, which is not allowed by the rules.

Sorry i might have to make it clearer:

I am suggesting that you rotate in this way from outside the table and then move fully onto the table, not simply rotate and stay there...

I essence your vehicle has gained some positioning while still beginning it's movement phase "fully off-table"

No, They move on as if they had been just off the board. You don't actually place them just off the board. You just measure your movement distance from the board edge.

So upon coming in from reserves you are not able to perform the "pivot 1" win" ?

Also, by extension have i missed the rule saying vehicles "have to move forward"? and would "coming in sideways" (might apply better to strafing Venoms, than strafing Rhinos ) be an option then?

There is no rule that specifically limits vehicles to moving forwards and backwards, no.

Moving your vehicles sideways won't earn you any friends, though.

I understand, and this was to see if it would be fully illegal or just as "underhanded" as deploying sideways which is now very common.

Thanks!

Yeah, I completely hate the 'deploy sideways; gain an inch' tactic. Seems like the poster child for gaming the system.

coredump wrote:
Yeah, I completely hate the 'deploy sideways; gain an inch' tactic. Seems like the poster child for gaming the system.

Yet one known to the studio, for 16 years.

its not gaming the system...

its a "feature"

lol

I frequently move my skimmers sideways. I don't have a problem with it.

not every battle will have two armies facing each other when it starts, who is to say that when conflict was initiated the vehicles were already going in that direction and vear to face the enemy?

also, note that so long as the centre (the point also referenced for the pivot) does not move more that its allotted distance you can indeed get your extra bit of distance when coming in from reserves (deploy and move sideways and end with a pivot)

 nutty_nutter wrote:
also, note that so long as the centre (the point also referenced for the pivot) does not move more that its allotted distance ...

This is not an actual rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

coredump wrote:
Yeah, I completely hate the 'deploy sideways; gain an inch' tactic. Seems like the poster child for gaming the system.

Yet one known to the studio, for 16 years.

Still hate it. Still feels like an abuse of a game rule. To be honest, I have never seen it matter... and it would have to be a pretty special case for it to make much of a difference. Luckily I only play Nids, so I don't have to worry about doing it myself; and I realize it is part of how the game is played, so it doesn't bother me when others do it.

 insaniak wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
also, note that so long as the centre (the point also referenced for the pivot) does not move more that its allotted distance ...

This is not an actual rule.

Isn't it an indirect consequence of following the rules? I don't think there is a way to follow the rules and have the center move more than the allowed distance. (I realize that still doesn't make it 'against the rules')

It mattered a lot more with the older deployment styles - e.g. quarters where you could be less than 18" from an enemy unit, meaning 1 - 2 inches extra could almost g'tee a first turn charge. 3rd ed wytches especially benefited

coredump wrote:
Isn't it an indirect consequence of following the rules? I don't think there is a way to follow the rules and have the center move more than the allowed distance. (I realize that still doesn't make it 'against the rules')

No, it's not connected to the actual rules at all, due to the vagaries of measuring a non-circular object that can pivot as it moves.

It's ultimately no different to the way the LOS and range rules allow a vehicle with the right positioning to be able to shoot at an identical enemy that can't shoot back at it.

 insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:
Isn't it an indirect consequence of following the rules? I don't think there is a way to follow the rules and have the center move more than the allowed distance. (I realize that still doesn't make it 'against the rules')

No, it's not connected to the actual rules at all, due to the vagaries of measuring a non-circular object that can pivot as it moves.
.

I can't think of a single situation that would allow you to follow the movement rules, and also have the center move more than the legal number of inches.

Lets say a Combat Move Land Raider. I can't think of a legal way for the center of the LR to be more than 6" from its starting location.
The outside of the hull can move more or less than the center, by rotating it could start 12" away, move 6", rotate, and now be only 5" away. But the center will still be only 6" from its starting location.

Am I missing a certain technique?

Coredump: you have the math right for when the model begins its movement while on the table.

However, when that land raider is starting from reserve a sideways start will mean the center is an inch or so further in than if you started with the LR pointing forward.

The reserve rules are silent with regards to model orientation prior to movement. The movement rules say you are allowed to pivot anytime you want. I'd say it's perfectly legal to begin the movement with a pivot then move forward from reserve.

Cheese? Maybe.. But as has been pointed out the rules designers have known abou this type of thing forever and haven't broached the subject. I'd call that tacit acceptance.

Tactit stupidity more like.

All the games in our area play by measuring your vehicle's maximum move from the hull. So you're free to position your Raider horizontally. But you no portion of the Raider's hull can end up more than 12" from where it started. The same type of rules you'd have to abide by if you had a large oval base.

Every once in awhile a new player has come by who did the horizontal "turn to get extra inch" thing. Once they see their opponent not doing the same thing, and simply shaking their head in disapproval... well what do you know... they stop. Because they realize making moves like that is just sort of dickish. Really? You need to exploit the rules to get an extra inch? Really?

I find it hilarious that threads like this still come up.

Murrdox wrote:
I find it hilarious that threads like this still come up.

I find it hilarious that nonsense like yours still come up. It's been, what, four editions? Get with the program. Pivoting is free. By the rules you stated (which are unlikely to be the ones you actually play by, from what I've personally seen), a raider can't even turn around at combat speed, and nobody can pivot in place and still be stationary.

Instead, what I see are people measuring from one side of their vehicle to any side of their vehicle, getting more distance than is legal by doing the inverse; starting facing forward, and ending facing sideways, 6" from the front.

Murdoch - so after 16 years you still don't think it is the rule as intended? They know its works like this, and have no issues. I know this from two differeepnt sources...

"stupidity" , "dickish" , wow

So that's what people think of me when i play within rules.

Murrdox wrote:
Really? You need to exploit the rules to get an extra inch? Really?

If it were actually an exploit, you would have a point.

The fact that they haven't bothered to alter the rule to remove this 'exploit', despite the vehicle movement rules working like this since 3rd edition, suggests that it's not actually an exploit, but simply a part of how the rules work.


As Pyrian pointed out, doing it the way you suggest just reverses the issue. You can still squeeze extra movement in certain situations, it just works a little differently.

The fact that vehicle moves have been like that since 3rd edition is why I personally believe it still is the way it is. There is something to be said for writing rules in such a way that they can be understood fairly easily by a 12 year old, and the vehicle rules are one of them. The spirit of the vehicle movement rules is that you're literally driving your vehicle around the battlefield, pivoting and turning, complete with VROOM VROOM noises like if you were playing with your old matchbox cars.

Saying the spirit of that rule is ALSO that your Raiders should deploy sideways so they can move forward an extra couple inches is just weedy IMO.

The rule is your vehicle can move 6". That's what we go by. Setting up your vehicle in such a way that you can break that rule and move part of your vehicle's hull MORE than 6" is yes, an exploit in my mind.

My opinion, sure. Does RAW allow you to do it the way you do? Sure. Our group recognizes it's cheesy and an exploit and dumb, and we don't play it that way. That's all I'm sayin.

Murrdox wrote:
My opinion, sure. Does RAW allow you to do it the way you do? Sure. Our group recognizes it's cheesy and an exploit and dumb, and we don't play it that way. That's all I'm sayin.

Does your group also play that a rhino that pivots 180 degrees at the start of its movement counts as having moved 4 and a half inches before it even starts moving?

Because that's what you get from the 'no part of the hull can move more than x"' interpretation.

 insaniak wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
My opinion, sure. Does RAW allow you to do it the way you do? Sure. Our group recognizes it's cheesy and an exploit and dumb, and we don't play it that way. That's all I'm sayin.

Does your group also play that a rhino that pivots 180 degrees at the start of its movement counts as having moved 4 and a half inches before it even starts moving?

Because that's what you get from the 'no part of the hull can move more than x"' interpretation.

Forgive my vague description earlier of how we play it. We treat vehicles similar to oval bases. Meaning that you measure 6" from the hull of the vehicle. Then you start your normal vehicle move. At the end of your vehicle move, no part of the hull of your vehicle can end outside of that bubble. So just like an oval-based unit can't move 6" and then "rotate" to gain an extra couple of inches, neither can a vehicle.

The thing is, that approach gives you an inconsistency in movement distance based on when the vehicle moves.

Example 1: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees, and move 6".

Example 2: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees. Next turn I move 6".

By your way of doing it, the rhino in example 2 has moved completely legally, while the rhino in example 1 has moved too far. But they have both moved the exact same distance.

That way lies madness.



{Multiple edits because I apparently can't type this morning... :( }

Well... it is usually okay to mover farther, if you take two turns to do it.

coredump wrote:
Well... it is usually okay to mover farther, if you take two turns to do it.

The thing is, they have both moved 6 inches. The only difference is that one pivoted on the same turn as it moved... and the rules tell us that pivoting isn't supposed to reduce the vehicle's movement distance.

If a vehicle can move 6 inches in a direction it was already facing, then it should be able to move 6" in a different direction after pivoting.