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.

Good Point Ebon. I was thinking the same thing as I read the thread.

So, there are two primary situations being discussed. One is the idea of starting sideways, turning to gain extra movement, and then moving. This is allowed under the rules and is somewhat unavoidable due to the shape of some vehicles.
The other is moving sideways and then turning at the end of the move. This is not legal, since only forward and reverse movement is allowed. To move sideways, you must turn, move, then turn back to the original facing, so we shouldn't even be discussing that possibility.

So, one is illegal right off. As for the other, I played a Wych Cult for a time and plan on starting one again, and I can tell you that you don't need the extra inches. Dark Eldar are so fast that you usually end up using far less then their maximum movement anyway. Add in things like fleet and 12 inch assaults, and it all becomes just theoryhammer to me anyway. In my experience Dark Eldar don't need an extra couple of inches 99% of the time. What they desperatly need, however, is sufficient terrain.

I would also like to add to what Ebon said:


There are two different concepts being discussed here, one is a vehicle's movement allowance and another is the actual physical displacement the vehicle model moves while making it's "movement".

Some players may want to think these are the same concept (As some have been in this thread), but they are not.

Vehicles may move up to their movement characteristic (12" for a standard vehicle) and pivoting on the spot incurs no penalty.

Physical displacement is irrelevant in this equation because a vehicle can easily (and legally) move forward 6" and then move backward 6" to the same exact spot it started. Its final "physical displacement" is 0 inches, but the vehicle has still technically moved 12 inches and cannot fire its weapons.

But how do we know this to be true? Why isn't physical displacement the yardstick for how far a vehicle "moved"? Two things.

First, is the basic vehicle movement rules on page 61:

"This means that a vehicle can combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."


The second is the Skimmers Moving Fast rule on page 69:

"In order to qualify as moving more than 6 inches, the skimmer must end its move more than 6 inches from where it started the turn. Players may not claim their skimmers are 'circling' or moving 4 inches one way and 3 inches back."


As we can see in both those examples if the total physical displacement of a vehicle is what constituted how far it actually "moved" then those two rules would be entirely redundant.

Although that in and of itself is not actually a fool-proof argument, nowhere in the rules for 40k (not in the basic movement rules either) does it state that the total physical displacement of a model is what is used to determine how far it has "moved".

On the contrary, many basic premises of the movement rules seem to suggest that as you move a model along a "path" you use up its movement allotment. The fact that you cannot move a model through a gap that isn't as large as its base, or models simply moving "around" a piece of impassable terrain using up their entire movement allowance despite the fact that the models actually only ended up being physically displaced a couple of inches, etc. All of the movement rules in the game seem to function under the premise that a model uses up its movement as it moves, regardless of the final physical distance moved.


So what does this all mean? Well, that vehicle pivoting is a "legal" way for a vehicle to physically move a couple of extra inches (or more if you convert really, really "long" vehicles). Therefore this type of action cannot be classified as "cheating".

Is it unethical? Well, that concept is up to each individual player. I certainly wouldn't use the tactic and I would generally perfer to play against opponents who didn't utilize the tactic either, but I would never call someone a "cheater" for using it just as I wouldn't call someone a "cheater" who used Epic Whirlwind models for his Whirlwinds so he could hind them behind a crate.

The rules as written allow some silly, silly things to occur.

I wouldn't call them a cheater, but I also wouldn't play them if they placed Epic Whirlwinds down on the table. That would be what I'd call a 'clue' as to how this game is going to go.

As far as the turn of the Raider, that is also what I'd call a 'clue' as to the type of game this is going to be. But, this is ok as I'll have my rectangular bases ready. Or, at least my Chaos Lord on a bike with a ridiculously oversize base for my demonbomb.

I'm surprised that people see this as even a moral grey area. I'm not going to comment on the epic whirlwinds, other than to say that's a pretty nice straw man argument.

I've watched this scenario happen hundreds of times, with every vehicle in the game. The pivot effect is a little more pronounced on the raider, but only because of it's shape. But I've seen this happen all the time with rhinos and their various tanks.

A player goes to move his vehicle, he turns to face it the direction it is going, and moves it forward whatever the choosen distance. How is this fudging the rules? Any odd extra (or less) movement will happen for any vehicle depending on its shape.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the git who moves a raider sideways on it's path to a target, and swings it 90 degrees at the end of its move to get obvious extra movement. I'm asking about everyday, normal vehicle movement.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how is it other people move their vehicles other than to face them in the direction they are going, measure out their movement, and place them forward?

I agree 100% Ebon. I don't see how it's a grey area at all.

I can see converting minuatures only to gain a game advantage through modelling to be unethical, as well as using a minuature from another game system, even though technically they're legal.

Posted By Ebon on 10/25/2006 9:10 AM
I'm surprised that people see this as even a moral grey area. I'm not going to comment on the epic whirlwinds, other than to say that's a pretty nice straw man argument.

How would that be a straw man argument when I'm agreeing with your point?

The rules are crystal clear: pivoting does not cost a vehicle any of its movement allowance so it clearly may be used to gain a few extra inches.


As to why it still may be considered unethical by me, it's simple: I don't personally believe the authors of the game realized the potential impact of extra pivot movement and the tactic is based upon the shape of the vehicle; the longer the vehicle the more abusive the tactic becomes.

While there is nothing in the rules preventing free movement gained from pivoting, there is also nothing in the rules preventing players from bringing models to the table of any shape or size. A player can easily bring a two-foot long Raider, deploy it sideways, turn it on the first turn and disembark models nearly anywhere on the table. The rules fully allow this.

Only the personal ethics of players stops this from being a regular occurance. I personally hope that players I have to play against understand the abusive potential of this rule and decide for themselves that they don't want to use it. So far, I've been pretty lucky.

So please don't tell me I'm making a straw man argument when I'm discussing my personal ethics. If I consider players bringing Epic sized Whirlwinds to the table ethically equatable to players gaining extra movement through pivoting their vehicles that is entirely my right as it is my opinion.

In fact, a straw man argument would be to attack the weakest part of this argument (which makes no sense since there is only one part to the pivot rules) and apply that weakness as strong enough to defeat the main point. In this case, a straw man is not possible. Additionally you can't make a straw man argument if the argument is made in favor. (you can however make a weak agreement)

However, I should re-interpret my previous understandings. As per the rules, afterI have looked it over quite a few times, unfortunately you are not incorrect.

However, a person's willingness to interpret the rules to disparage their opponents and to give themselves an advantage is less than meritorious of honorable mention on a forum or otherwise.

This is something I don't think the GW staff writers thought of, and they should have. Just as it is legal to make a base that is a 18" circle/rectangle/square, whatver, it is also legal to pull off the above maneuver. Does that make it fair? Not necessarily. To say because its in the rules does not make the rule inherently fair. Surely there is great umbrage with many of the rules that are written as they are. Enforcement of these standards of fairness, is unfortunately impossible. There are always players willing to use the rules in their exactness to great advantage of themselves. The only enforcement could be to simply not play such players which would be my decision.

Simply you are certaintly within the rules to do the above maneuver, as well as give yourself bases that are far larger than standard bases. This argument is very synonymous to other arguments, like Rites of Battle's applicability to opposing space marines, or Aun'Va giving opposing Tau forces stubborn, or claiming that you can use your opponents teleport homers when DSing terminators. whether you should utilize the rules to such effect is a completely different thing, one based on ones own ethical standards. Unfortunately not a discussion for the rules forum as of yet.

Would someone care to answer my last question? How exactly do you move your vehicle models in a manner that differs from turning the vehicle to face the direction they are moving, measuring their movement distance, and placing the model forward, that is morally superior to the method described herein?

Sure, I would agree that doing that with a two foot long raider is unethical, but that's because of the modeling, not because of how he moved the model. You're saying that the above method, performed with a normal raider, is somehow unethical. I'm asking what is the manner you move normal models that is somehow more ethical?

Wow, this is an odd thing to get 6 pages of replies for. I really don't understand how people get to the extra move from the pivot in the first place.

First, let me say that I completely understand the physical displacement argument. At any point, when a vehicle pivots it will naturally gain an inch or two of movement in the direction it now faces. this applies to every vehicle in the game, with perhaps the exception of the Monolith, because it's square. However, it's not specifically the pivoting rule that is in question here, but rather the question of how movement is resolved.

The BGB is fairly clear on a couple of points:

1. Movement is only allowed either in a forward or reverse direction (pg 61)
2. Pivots cost 0 movement, and any number of them are allowed in a turn. (ibid)
3. A vehicle pivots and moves sequentially, not at the same time.

In order for a Raider to gain inches of movement by pivoting at the end of it's movement you are neccessarily breaking at least one of the above rules. If the raider starts facing sideways, the player must by needs turn it to face the direction he wishes it to move. At this point he has certainly just gained an inch or two. The player can then move in whatever direction he has just turned to face. This sequence can be repeated as often as allowed by the total movement of the vehicle.

I'd imagine that everyone agrees so far.

But when you get to the end of the movement, that is to say when the Raider has consumed its entire movement allotment, you would then, by the RAW, have either the rear or front of that raider facing in the direction you moved. If that is the case, then there is no way to pivot the vehicle to gain extra movement, even forwards to rear pivots gain no extra movement because the RAW states that a vehicle pivots around its center point, rather than another point (where the base attaches for example)

The only way to gain 'extra' movement by pivoting a vehicle at the end of it's movement is to have already broken the rules by moving that vehicle in a direction other than forwards or back. If your raider was wider than it was long then there would certainly be some bonus movement. But as the Raider is plainly not wider than long there's no movment to be had.

'Extra movement from a pivot' requires a vehicle to be moved sideways. The BGB only allows for forwards and reverse movement. Therefore no extra movement can be had at the end of a move without breaking the RAW. With the caveat of the wider-than-long vehicle. This entire argument is premised on the potential straight line movement mentioned in the first post of course.

As an addendum, the "what about the rhino" argument falls flat unfortunately. Rhinos are also incapable of sideways movement, and to pivot at the end of a move in order to change a front for a rear facing (to aid a disembark) won't garner extra movement of any kind.

Cheers

You misunderstand what's going on. No sideways movement is required.

Start facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. Pivot to face the direction you're going. Move 12". The nose of the raider (You moved forward the whole time) is about 14" from the start line because of the pivot.

That can't be true Skyth. If you start prependicular IE like this
|
|
-----

to where you want to go, then when you move in that direction the pivot cant do anything to put you ahead of 12"(yuo are already facing the direction you want to go in this sense).

To get what you are talking about yuo have to be able to move sideways as in my example a couple pages back.

If you aren't allowed to move sideways then there is no way for the 14" movement while technically only moving 12" to work. Nice job on clearing this one up for me Fenris.

ATI you misunderstand what skyth is saying.
Raider = XXXXX>

Boundary of deployment = ------------

Diagram of deployment, raider:

XXXXXX>
----------------------------

Then raiders turn to move, pivots


X
X
X
--------------------
X
V

The nose is now ~2" from the deployemnt zone, even though the raider is physically displaced 0". He can move 12" towards his target and has effectively gotten his wyches/warrirors 2" closer then had he deployed nose first.

now i see it sorry for ineptitude. hmm....

If Wyches are in CC then it is going to be a bad day.  Let me clarify the total movement possible.  It sounds like a webway army.  So it starts by the opponent not killing off the Webway carrier(s), who plops it down, which is 3 inches by itself placed in btb with that model which is likely as far forward in the deployment zone.  Then next turn reserves can roll in from there, and move 12", disembark 2", possibly fleet 6" and assault 6-12" depending on drug roll.  That is a ton of movement possible across the board.  To top it off, Wyches do indeed have power weapons.  They can choose from a straight up power weapon or agonizer.  Agonizers wound on a 4+ reguardless of toughness, and neither allow armor saves.  So there you have a break down without the 12" to 14" inch discussion.  Dark Eldar do not need to slyly move a magic 14" to get you, if the Webway is out, or more than one Webway, you are likely going to not enjoy what comes out, whether it be Wyches or a Talos etc.

Also, any DE army, you could have an Archon/Arcite, and Succubus, and a Dracon/Dracite all with power weapons in one squad of wyches.   Assuming reserve rolls and you place the two IC's together.  I ask you where do you want to go today?

Exactly. Like I mentioned earlier, fussing about an extra inch and a half gained from pivoting before you move is silly, because Wyches in a raider can already charge you from up to 32 inches away. They are one of the only units in the game that can legitimately pull off a first turn charge.
That's why most players take Lelith, because she and her squad can chose which drug power they get, and the 12 inch charge is the power of choice.

Actually, there are alot of armies that can pull off a first turn charge legitimately.

Space marines, Chaos space marines, Kroot mercs, Dark eldar, Daemonhunters, and Witch hunters (Actually, any Imperial army using DH/WH allies)

If you include cleanse/cityfight missions you also get Eldar, Imperial Guard, Orks, Tau, and Tyranids.

What can do it in a marine list, scout bikes? What can in the Demonhunters and Witchhunters, Demonhosts?

Marines have Scout Bikers. Daemonhosts can, as can an Evesor assassin.

I forgot Necrons from the original list...The have Wraiths that can use a monolith to get a first turn charge.

 

"You misunderstand what's going on. No sideways movement is required.

Start facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. Pivot to face the direction you're going. Move 12". The nose of the raider (You moved forward the whole time) is about 14" from the start line because of the pivot."

Dude, read my post, I stated clearly that a pivot at the beginning would gain you movement in the new direction. Further, there were people on this thread suggesting exactly what I argued against, which is to end the move facing sideways and then pivot to gain movement, which obviously isn't possible/legal.

As well, the pivot at the beginning of the movement will only 'gain' you straight line movement the first time a vehicle moves in a game. After the first move the same restrictions about facing and pivoting that I described earlier come into play. The only instance where this 1 1/2" move can really be put to use in a game situation is if, at the beginning of a phase, there is something worth assaulting set at a 90 degree angle to the vehicle's current heading. It's not complicated.

Cheers

the point of the question if you read assaulting from a open top, you can measure from any part of the vehicle. speed freak players measure from the front of there buggies to get that extra inch. DE players do the same thing I measure from the tip of the raider and i put my raiders on 40mm bases not the flying ones and i measure from front of base to front of base when moving, Its just liek people measureing range from the front of the vehicle too get that extra inch or so out of landraiders

Kultofthebonedragons:

Please do not post on threads that are more than a month old, especially when you are not posting relevant information.