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.

Some people are assuming that their ability to pivot in the shooting phase represents their ability to turn at the waist or point their arms behind them. While I can understand their point I'm not sure that the I agree with them as the rules state that immobilized vehicles cannot even pivot and this would also allow a walker to never expose it's rear armor even when immobilized(which is a pretty significant change).

I think the line briancj is referencing on page 72 would be interest though. Can someone post the actual text. How does it phrase that pivoting during shooting is not movement? I don't have the BRB with me. That seems like the core of the otherside's arguement.

It does seem silly that a walker can engage attacks on all sides in assault, but can't do the same thing in shooting since most walker's CCWs and guns are mounted the same way, but that has nothing to do with the rules as written. As always you could house rule this anyway you want.

phillosmaster wrote:I think the line briancj is referencing on page 72 would be interest though. Can someone post the actual text. How does it phrase that pivoting during shooting is not movement? I don't have the BRB with me. That seems like the core of the otherside's arguement.

Page 72, under Walkers Shooting, "This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles."

I say it depend's on the model my Defiler has a sponson so i think it's fair it can turn and shoot, Where as a Sentinel could'nt ATST with it's leg's shot off can't really turn to shoot can it?

may be wrong though.

Shadowbrand wrote:I say it depend's on the model my Defiler has a sponson so i think it's fair it can turn and shoot, Where as a Sentinel could'nt ATST with it's leg's shot off can't really turn to shoot can it?

I suspect that the movement available to the different models is actually the reason behind the removal of the 'pivoting at the waist' rules from the 5th edition walker rules.

It's a remnant of 4th edition. There is no rule allowing the walker to turn at the waist, regardless of how the model is designed. The only rules governing turning the walker involve pivoting the entire model to face the target.

And the rules tell us that immobilised walkers can not pivot.

It makes no difference within the rules whether the walker has a turnable waist joint or not, since there is no such thing in the rules. The walker can only turn to face its target if it is not immobilised, and its weapons have a 45 degree arc of fire, again regardless of how they are actually modeled because the walker rules specifically state that they have that arc.

It makes sense to me that the whole extra agility in the fluff is represented by the 360 degree firing arc during the shooting phase, but once immobilized, the firing arc is cut down to an arc strait ahead from the gun, just like every other hull mounted gun on an immobilized vehicle.

My questions were answered by the 8th post. I don't know about you guys, but I'm certain that walkers can't pivot... Thanks for bringing it up however, I had the same question about my war walkers.

I have a follow up though: If one walker is immobilized the squad cannot move as it's a squad, I know that is true. However, if 2 out of the 3 other walkers are not immobilized would they still be able to pivot?

In squadrons aren't vehicles destoyed if immobilized?

Yup.

Yes indeed - squadrons gain the benefit of reducing stunned to shaken (cant fire but can keep up with the rest of the vehicles), but suffer the disadvantage of immoblising result meaning destroyed.

The short answer, no

The long answer, no because immobile units can't pivot, although an imobilized walker still has a 180 line of sight. Which is probably what your friend was refering to when saying they can pivot.

This rule should be represented in the walkers section of the BGB, I don't have it on me atm.

willydstyle wrote:Page 57:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving...however immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)."

QFT. That pretty much sums it up.
But as to the "phase move" question, does being immobilized stop you from running? (I'm guessing yes)

Running is a form of movement, so yes.

obviously RaW preventss walkers from pivoting in the shooting phase, but wouldngt it make sense? I see immobilised results on walkers as the legs being damaged (but not destroyed, that would be wrecked). Most walkers have most of their armour and weapons on their torso, right? so it would make sense that they could pivot for shooting. This isn't RaW, but it would make a good house clarification.

Kreedos wrote:... although an imobilized walker still has a 180 line of sight...

Not in 5th edition they don't. LOS is measured from the guns now, which have a 45 degree forward arc on a walker.

spartanghost wrote: Most walkers have most of their armour and weapons on their torso, right?

Most, yes. All, no.

So rather than have two sets of rules (those with a moving waist, and those without) we just have one set of walker rules that apply to them all.

In that context, it makes more sense to confine them all to the same standard as the least maneouverable than to allow those that are incapable of such movement to do it anyway. Less confusing that way, at least for those who aren't used to walkers being able to turn in the middle from previous editions.

Going to have to jump on the board of yes they can pivot in their shooting phase if immobilized.

Yes, page 67 does state that immobilized vehicles can not pivot.

As noted above though page 70 states that for walkers can pivot in their shooting phase and not count as moving.

RaW these two ruling conflict with each other, but look into RaI. Why would they take their time to specifically write out that pivoting is not a movement? Combat speed and Stationary are the same when it comes to firing on a walker.

Stationary - Fire all weapons
Combat speed - Fire all weapons

RaI leans toward yes they can pivot due to the walker specific RaW entry, but if the issue becomes heated in a match just roll a D6 each and keep playing.

Blue, "Does not Count as moving" is NOT the same as "Is not moving so may do it if immobilised."

BlueDagger wrote:Yes, page 67 does state that immobilized vehicles can not pivot.

As noted above though page 70 states that for walkers can pivot in their shooting phase and not count as moving.

RaW these two ruling conflict with each other,

There is no conflict.

You have a rule that applies to all walkers, saying that they can pivot in the shooting phase.
You have a rule that applies specifically to immobilised walkers, saying that they can not pivot.

The more specific rule takes precedence. No conflict.

Why would they take their time to specifically write out that pivoting is not a movement?

It could be because they intended them to be able to pivot even when immobilised.
It could be just for clarity, without the writer realising that it was a superflous statement.
It could be just in case they decide to include Ordnance Barrage weapons on walkers again any time in the future.

That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

QFT

Just to bring up an interesting point, but the rules for pivoting non-walker vehicles says that the pivoting does not count as movement either (with a specific exception in the transport-vehicle rules for disembarking), but I've never seen anyone claim that an immobilized non-walker vehicle can pivot in the movement phase.

Also, while Dreadnoughts may have the ability to turn around 180 degrees (or may not, I don't know), Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Sentinels, Penitent Engines, and Soulgrinders aren't so lucky.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, while Dreadnoughts may have the ability to turn around 180 degrees (or may not, I don't know), Killa Kans, Deff Dreads, Sentinels, Penitent Engines, and Soulgrinders aren't so lucky.

Dreadnoughts have no such ability, it is not written either in the space marine codex, nor is it written in the main rule book.

unistoo wrote:The effects of "Immobilised' also prohibit it:

BGB p.61 wrote:An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place

Quoting for relevant repetition.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

I didn't mean that as "Gwar! The Magnificent is always right so be it!" I meant it as "When people claim xyz is RaI, it actually means RaII, Rules as I Intend" rather than any sort of logical conclusion.

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:That's the problem with arguing RAI. Most of the time there's no way of actually knowing what was originally intended.

RaI should be Renamed RaII: Rules as I Intended

FOUL TROLL!!!
Did you learn nothing during your long exile?!?

I didn't mean that as "Gwar! The Magnificent is always right so be it!" I meant it as "When people claim xyz is RaI, it actually means RaII, Rules as I Intend" rather than any sort of logical conclusion.

It was a trollish post and shall be dealt with as such!


I kid. Seriously though, RAI is not just a "I says so" rule. It's trying to look at what the people who were writing the rules MEANT for it to happen, as opposed to a peice of paper. When the RAW fails, it's sometimes obvious to see what GW MEANT to happen when writing that rule. (Such as the "Banshee charge through cover" rule)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Such as the "Banshee charge through cover" rule

That, I am afraid, comes down to people saying "This is how it USED to work". It USED to be that Grey Hunters Could Charge out of 12" moving Rhinos, fire their Bolters then assault. Do I claim I can because they USED to be able to do that? RaI is clear after all, since that's how it was INTENDED to work wasn't it?

Same situation.

eh?
I don't know about any Grey Hunters (Spehz Puppehz), but I remember that people argued over the WORDING in the Banshee argument. As Eldar were made during late 4th ed, the rule said they ignored cover 'bonuses' when charging. Now with 5th ed, there are no bonuses, but 'penalties', it is clear that RAI by GW were that this should work in 5th ed, yet a simply ill-forseen piece of wording has led to much trollrage.

Gwar! wrote:

R3con wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but walkers are not vehicles, they are walkers....and therefore have their own section in the BRB and their own special rules....


Doesnt this sort of get rid of the Vehicle rules on page 57? Walkers are not Rhinos

No, Walkers are not Infantry, but they most certainly are vehicles.

In fact, the very first line of the Walker rules, Page 72:

Walkers are a very unusual type of vehicle.

I’m afraid an objective review of the relevant rules data points, in conjunction with the standardized rules of logical analysis lead one to the statistical certainty that "A Walker is a Vehicle and thus follows all rules for vehicles except where otherwise stated" is the correct assumption. Tippy to and I’m off

Not that I disagree with you, but people on this board have argued that a tank ram is not a tank shock even though it states in the tank ram section that rams are a special form of tank shot.