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.

Demogerg wrote:
I dont care how EVERYONE plays, I just care about how my games are played, and if someone is so adamant to gain 2" movement through shady rules interpretation, then they can play against someone else. I'm not going to get them kicked out of the store, I'm just not going to waste my time with TFG when I can play a reasonable game against opponents who want to play a game WITH me and not AGAINST me.

So a guy who plays according to what the rule book says is playing against you and therefore TFG? In order to play with you they have to play by your special set of rules? I think that's much more TFG behavior.

I have never played a game where someone got upset about the pivot rule. It's not a huge deal since pivots cut both ways. A rhino is 3"x5". Pivoting 90 degrees adds or subtracts 1" to the perceived distance moved. A pivot doesn't actually change the distance moved. The pivots I make and my opponents make are about armor facing and access point direction. For example, I move a rhino 12" straight ahead and pivot 90 degrees at the end so a side access point is now facing where I want the squad to disembark. I lose 1" of perceived distance in doing this. Can I now shift the rhino one additional inch forward even though the center of the vehicle is 12" from where it started?

Arschbombe wrote:For example, I move a rhino 12" straight ahead and pivot 90 degrees at the end so a side access point is now facing where I want the squad to disembark. I lose 1" of perceived distance in doing this. Can I now shift the rhino one additional inch forward even though the center of the vehicle is 12" from where it started?

No, as I stated, you move the vehicle to within the max distance and pivot it to the direction you want.

I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

solkan wrote:I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

Yes, that would. I wonder how many of the "You Can't pivot like that" will stand up for the "I can move AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way around that 69" line of grots, so long as my final position is 12" away" which their "interpretation" allows.

ihatehumans wrote:
No, as I stated, you move the vehicle to within the max distance and pivot it to the direction you want.

Right. But I asked the question in the context of the "extra movement" perception that drives this debate. If I can't "gain" any movement with a pivot then I shouldn't be allowed to "lose" any movement either.

Arschbombe wrote:
So a guy who plays according to what the rule book says is playing against you and therefore TFG? In order to play with you they have to play by your special set of rules? I think that's much more TFG behavior.

There is a difference between playing a concise and tight game of warhammer following all of the rules as written, and exploiting said rules by doing something that MAY or MAY NOT be RAW, and is most certainly against logic and common sense, (a race car doesnt start the race facing perpendicular to the starting line...)

Also, I agree with one of the above posters, that the poll option B is not really any better than A, but I dont really care about the semantics in this case, lets just call this what it is, an exploitation.

I marked "A" it's how I and my gaming group learned.

We all take the perceived loss if we move up 12" then turn to face the side.

I think it evens out, since I usually end up taking the perceived loss to turn to the side so I'm not exposing lower AV to their guns.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I think it would be really, really interesting to compare the results of this poll with a poll on driving a vehicle around very large circular obstacle, or around various masses of friendly models.

Yes, that would. I wonder how many of the "You Can't pivot like that" will stand up for the "I can move AAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL the way around that 69" line of grots, so long as my final position is 12" away" which their "interpretation" allows.

Well we were only discussing the rules in a certain context of simply moving, including obstacles means you have to trace the 6"/12"(etc) around the obstacles.

Vehicle movement has always seemed really simply to us in our gaming group...

Under YOUR context, can't any infantry model with a rectangular (or elliptical) base deploy with the long side against the deployment zone and then, when moving (or even shooting), pivot 90 degrees so as to effectively 'gain' an extra couple inches?

I can imagine this very handy for say, bikes with infiltrate pulling off a first turn assault!

@IHH: Yes, that is perfectly fine. (Almost?) all bikes with Infiltrate have Scouts as well, making it a non issue as they can move to 12" of the enemy anyway.

Demogerg wrote:
There is a difference between playing a concise and tight game of warhammer following all of the rules as written, and exploiting said rules by doing something that MAY or MAY NOT be RAW, and is most certainly against logic and common sense, (a race car doesnt start the race facing perpendicular to the starting line...)

Also, I agree with one of the above posters, that the poll option B is not really any better than A, but I dont really care about the semantics in this case, lets just call this what it is, an exploitation.

It's not an exploitation and it clearly is the RAW: vehicles can pivot freely around their center points before, during and at the end of their movement. Just because you don't like the effect the rule has of encouraging some players to deploy their vehicles sideways, doesn't make it not the rules.

Picking out this rule for its lack of realism strikes me as odd given how many other unrealistic things happen under the 40k rules.

Arschbombe wrote:

It's not an exploitation and it clearly is the RAW: vehicles can pivot freely around their center points before, during and at the end of their movement. Just because you don't like the effect the rule has of encouraging some players to deploy their vehicles sideways, doesn't make it not the rules.

Picking out this rule for its lack of realism strikes me as odd given how many other unrealistic things happen under the 40k rules.

Agreed, the whole game is an abstraction. Scale is a mess, we are effectively playing a battle on three football fields. Ten marines will not fit in a rhino or drop pod. Two thirds of the people play option A. I play option A. If I play a game I am aware that this is how it works, and I plan accordingly. This game requires flexibility, as GW is poor at writing rules, but in this case option A is the simplest way to do things without opening up an even bigger can of worms.

For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

Gwar! wrote:For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

And not from 45 feet?

i voted A
From front tip to front tip...

Gwar! wrote:For the Scale thing, I like to think that Models are one scale and distances are another, just so I can imagine my Vindicare sniping someone from 9001 yards away.

It's... it's... over 9000!!!

Exploit=/=breaking RAW

an exploit is gaining an unfair advantage in a situation, in this context I am almost specifically saying that it is within raw to play "A" however, it is against logic, its unsportsmanlike, and it may be against RAW. (I don't have my rulebook handy to check)

Me, I would choose Option A.

I would not necessarily use it, though, as my Battlewagons are long buggers, and are thus getting a bit of a "bonus" by doing it - add to that the extra 1" movement from a red Paint Job and we're talking quite a fast old transport there.
Probably best for tournaments, or against smug opponents.

Demogerg wrote:
an exploit is gaining an unfair advantage in a situation, in this context I am almost specifically saying that it is within raw to play "A" however, it is against logic, its unsportsmanlike, and it may be against RAW.

It is not remotely unfair. Both players can choose to use this rule to their advantage and plan for its use by each other; its net effect on the game is then zero. It is against logic to same extent that everything else in 40k is; it's all hooey from start to finish. It is absolutely RAW however much it may not jive with your expectation which, I suspect, is the real issue here.

A. This is how my area as a whole plays it.

Demogerg - given that this has been the movement rules for 3 editions you *cannot* state it is "unsportsmanlike" - unsportsmanlike is statnig someone cannot use a rule, perfectly legally, in the way it is INTENDED to be used (as they have had plenty of oppurtunity to alter it -this is nothing new!) against you, as you dont like it.

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

insaniak wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

Actually, Option A and B are the same, as detailed in my handy Diagram.

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Is it just me our has the original question made a huge mistake? Option B says I play measuring from the centre point, which is identical to Option A and still gives the ability to gain movement distance.

Option A doesn't mention measuring from your centre point.

That's the difference. Option A is as the rulebook says to do it: You pivot on your centre point, but measure from the front of the vehicle. So a long vehicle gains distance by starting sideways, pivoting to face forwards, and then moving.

Option B is as many play it: You pivot on your centre point, but also measure from the centre point... so while you can still gain disembarking distance with clever movement, you never gain movement distance.

Actually, Option A and B are the same, as detailed in my handy Diagram.

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

And... Gwar wins the thread, as much as it pains me to say it. I would also like to point this thread out as an excellent example as to why I loathe sportsmanship scores.

Voted A.

I suppose in 6th Edition 40k they could make a rule that says no part of the model may be outside of it's maximum movement distance after the first movement phase or something. Then again, I like the idea of my Land Raider making sick drift turns...

Gwar keeps getting the drop on me. I had just made a similar diagram:



I'm still posting it as it shows how little distance is gained through this method - is it still worth the stigma of doing something "shady"?

Also, how do you get those deployment zone bars to show up? I'm not really knowledgeable about vassal.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Also, how do you get those deployment zone bars to show up? I'm not really knowledgeable about vassal.

When you start a new game, it should have the Spearhead and Pitched battle Zones up by default.

If not, then you need to upgrade your googlefu!

Last time I played we had to use a template to turn but as I am trying to relearn the rules I would go with A even though it does seem a bit cheap.

Why cheap? well lets say you just pivot and don't move, how come your vehicle is now over the deployment line without ever moving? But hell i didn't write the rules and they do seem to support A.

Option B:


If I were to use a Chimera as example; modeling it with a dozer blade would give me an even larger gain by rule A.


However I choose Option B; because if I measure from the dozer blade 6" the dead center of the vehicle will have moved 6" as well. If I move 3" the centre will have moved 3" as well; meaning I can pivot in any direction and move an addition 3".


That being done I am free to "turn to face" my target; meanin my vehicle has moved 6" total and is now facing its intended target as per the movement rule allowing me to "turn to face."



That ALL said I may be slightly confused on my end because it sorta reads like you say this in Option A; but at the same time you mention a bonus range. The vehicle should pivot on its centre; meaning that even if its a long vehicle it would still be the same; I mean if you had a vehicle 6" long; moved it 6" forward and turned it 180degrees at the centre it would have gained nothing in range at all. The same principal would be applied to any length vehicle based soley on the fact that it SHOULD be turning at its centre. Unless you have a further forward or back "pivot" point you really wouldn't gain anything on the pivot itself.

Dracheous, look at the battlewagon image I posted above. Even if you pivot and move the the center, you can gain distance on non-square vehicles.

Gwar! wrote:

Or is it that people think option B means you measure from the Center at the start and the front at the end?

Um its still only 5.5" between the two hulls in there placement there. So where is the gained range?


if you look at the distance between the hulls whether you measure from the front of the vehicle or from the centre; there is still 5.5 inches between them. The Front of the vehicle can not move any further than the centre of the vehicle unless its made like an acordian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Dracheous, look at the battlewagon image I posted above. Even if you pivot and move the the center, you can gain distance on non-square vehicles.

But the centre of the wagons are not at the same place there; one is an inch a head of the other.


Remember; the vehicle turns ON the centre of the vehicle; so the centre of the vehicle should not move anywhere.

If you deploy the vehicle facing across the deployment line the lead edge of the vehicle must be behind the line, therefore in most case you will be able to move 12" past the deployment line. If you deploy the vehicle sideways to the deployment line the side of the vehicle must be behind the line, then you may pivot on center, crossing the line an inch or more and move forward 12", moving to 13" plus past the deployment line.