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.

SaintHazard wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:(clipped)

Ever heard of "free rotation?"

Nope, please gimmie a page number and paragraph and I'll check it out. That phrase is not in the "Vehicles and Movement" section of the rulebook so I dunno what you're talking about. Of course I'm not looking at the Tank Shock rules so perhaps you're talking about tank shocks.

Pivoting on the spot does not count as movement,so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary.

There, finished it for you...just as irrelevant as tank shock because we're not talking about a stationary vehicle. You quoted a partial sentence out of the "Vehicles and Movement" Section.

This is one of those rules you just sort of expect people to know, but hope they dont, and expect to have to explain it to them.

Fixed it for you. Its the only reason for arguing your position.

And if you want to come up with long-winded posts trying to justifying what is essentially cheating (robbing me of free rotation, or measuring my movement retroactively based on pre-pivot placement), that simply means I'm not the one who's twisting the rules to his advantage, you are.

Excuse me, who moves there tanks and is never questioned on how far they moved? Oh thats right, I am. Who need a whole thread and needs to justify his position by explaining loopholes in rules? You my friend. Legal or not, your tank moved further than 12". You also seem to have a nice arguement concerning WHY you should be allowed to do it. In a game I play...it wouldnt be an issue.

I'm simply saying at this point that its sheisty.

And if you want to then blow off the fact that you're wrong by calling me a ruleslawyering WAAC bastard (instead of, oh, I don't know, realizing there is a gray area in between Mister Rogers and Adolf Hitler), that's your prerogative.

No one is going to take you seriously if you do, though. Fair warning.

Where is it that I'm wrong in stating that if a landraider moves 12" toward a target that at the beginning of the turn was 24" away, at the end of the turn it should still be 12" away.

Thats wrong?

Sure it is...if you're scrutinising the system for a little loophole. I'm not calling you a ruleslawyering WAAC Bastard saint. But arguing this as you are....I'd be willing to bet that you're a douchebag in-game. Not saying you are, but betting that its probably so.


As I said before, you can have your 2.5"...you need em. All I need is my 12". (wow, that sounds like I'm bragging about something totally un-game related.)


... I'll play my way (the way that doesnt instigate these sort of arguements) you play yours (and enjoy pissing the occasional person off in your game, not me, but normally some noob learning how to play).

Saint gets in the last jab at 3....2....1....

1) Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement. (page 57 --emphasis mine)

This is NOT saying pivoting is not movement.

2) Vehicles can turn as much as they want during movement--and turning does not reduce their movement.

Fine, but irrelevant, but it does imply that turning does not add to it either.

3) When moving the rules say to measure from the close edge both times. Not the SAME edge both times--or even circular bases could do this every time they move.

b------d


6 dashes = 6 inches.

Gwar! wrote:Oh look, it's this thread again.

Search YMTC, this has been done millions of times.

Short Version: It's legal. If you don't like it, tough.

Arent you banned? Get back into YMTC you shark toothed, monacle wearing...ummm...rules man!


Legal? Maybe. Easy way to surprise noobs? Definatly. This application intended by designers? Doubtful. Reason enough for a huge arguement and such? Absolutely not. As 'I' said...take your extra "pivot bonus" and play on...no big deal.

I certainly don't need a whole thread to explain why this move is entirely legal, as of page 1 everyone was in agreement that this maneuver is legal, until you came along.

But you made it into an entire thread by arguing for a ridiculous position - and so far not a single player has agreed with you.

I play by the rules, but I'm flexible. If you've got an issue with the way I'm playing it, we can talk about it. I don't mind house ruling certain rules that GW decides not to clearly lay out for us - even mid-game if it becomes necessary. But if you ask me what the rules actually say, I'm going to tell you what is and is not legal. That's what's happening in this thread. We're not in the middle of a game here, where it's advantageous to house-rule something to make the game flow more easily.

I don't need that extra 2.5" to win, but if I decide to take it, I don't expect my opponent to start frothing at the mouth.

On a related note, you really need to lay off the personal insults. So far I haven't attempted to put you down in any way, simply put forward my argument in a coherent and civil manner. But I can't go back and read a single one of your posts where your comments aren't condescending, inflammatory, or vitriolic in some way.

SaintHazard wrote:
But you made it into an entire thread by arguing for a ridiculous position - and so far not a single player has agreed with you.

Dakka disagrees with me? So?

I play by the rules, but I'm flexible.

Really? With they way you've been defending this as a totally legal and "if you didnt know about it it's your fault" attitude....I never would've guessed.

I don't need that extra 2.5" to win, but if I decide to take it, I don't expect my opponent to start frothing at the mouth.

and if they did, would you take it back?

On a related note, you really need to lay off the personal insults. So far I haven't attempted to put you down in any way, simply put forward my argument in a coherent and civil manner. But I can't go back and read a single one of your posts where your comments aren't condescending, inflammatory, or vitriolic in some way.

Oh get over yourself, I didnt call you anything. I simply stated that it seemed to me like you'd act like a douchebag in a game where this issue came up.

Maybe you should go hide under your bed until your parents let you back on the computer.

Aaaand that's where I stop taking you seriously altogether.

When you've decided to be civil, we'll talk.

Thanks.

So by Deadshane1's interpretation of the rules I can start 24" away facing forwards at the start (36" from his board edge). Move the land raider 12" and freely pivot 90 to the right at the end of the movement. Notice I've only moved 10.5" and so continue to power slide my raider until I have moved 12". Freely rotate my landraider 90 degrees to the left during the shooting phase and fire my multimelta at SHORT range at his tank that he set up on his 11" mark to make sure it wouldn't be in short range!

But WTFBBQ? He is in short range of the multimelta? How did this happen a raider can only move 12" he tells me. And I even moved the proper way he stated! Oh god land raider bending time and space again! RUN!!!!

Basically Deadshane1, you are getting confused by displacement vs distance with a rectangular vehicle. This happens in a ton of cases in 40k and is completely legal and as per the stated rules. You need to under stand that moving during the movement phase != physical displacement due to the rules for forward movement and turn on the dime mechanics combined with non-circular vehicles. Even square vehicles can get this advantage, so people asking GW to make square vehicles doesn't fix this because the distance to the corner is greater than to the center point of any side. Only circular vehicles would fix this issue.

Cheers. Back to gaming.

*EDIT* some spelling.

Trigons have an effective 12" move then?!

Yes monsterous creatures on those new oval bases can benefit from this rule.

You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Its a cheap move. One not likely to gain anyones respect. Thankfully haven't had it done to me personally. Though it is easily countered via deployment setup.

Not certain if this should be moved to tactics or left here. Leaving for the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentlemen, politeness is required. lets get back to it or this thread will be shut down.

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Yea, seems to me like that's a great idea alright. It gets even better though....

Models that have the same charge range as your movement + charge can possibly be out of range to charge you, yet miraculously, you'll be in range to charge them...after your "pivot bonus" of course.

Sounds fair to me! Apparently noone has a problem with this.

Myself, I cannot be bothered...and dont need it.

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

It't not about size. It's about aspect ratio. Most models are as wide as they are long in game terms because they're mounted on circular bases -pivoting gains them nothing. Vehicles tend to be longer than they are wide and so they can magically "gain" or "lose" movement distance when pivoting. Trygons, Mawlocs and models on cavalry bases can do the same though the effect is much less pronounced.

If it is shady, I play the weaker interpretation.

If my opponent wants to play otherwise, consistency is the only demand--I can exploit rules with the best.

Though for me it has been my job, I try not to bring it into games.

Deadshane1 wrote:

kirsanth wrote:You realize every model can do the same--its just more obvious with larger ones. (See page 12)

Heck, vehicles actually have it WORSE as they usually do not want to expose a side/rear.

My trigon is perfectly fine turning 180degrees every phase.

Trigon move 12 run 6-12 assault 12.

I should do that to the next guy that says its ok for his vehicle then!?

Yea, seems to me like that's a great idea alright. It gets even better though....

Models that have the same charge range as your movement + charge can possibly be out of range to charge you, yet miraculously, you'll be in range to charge them...after your "pivot bonus" of course.

Sounds fair to me! Apparently noone has a problem with this.

Myself, I cannot be bothered...and dont need it.

Yeah, I encounter this in any tournament where I have fought the new Nids. In fact during ard boys 2010 it really seperated the good players from the bad. If you didn't know how to properly achieve max distances with your assault forces via the rules then you took it on the chin each round. A lot of people learned a valuable lesson. Basically every year the number people who have caught on to how the rules are written has doubled steadly after every ard boys tourny in my area. Eventually everyone will understand how it works and won't get caught with their pants down.

Also for those that don't know the oval Nid bases came about because people were complaining the whole army was short handed due to this rule.

Strimen wrote:Also for those that don't know the oval Nid bases came about because people were complaining the whole army was short handed due to this rule.

I would love to see anything backing this. And battle reports from the games mentioned.

Oval bases are because the trigon doesn't fit on the smaller ones and they were originally created for Valks, from everything I have read.

Also, non-vehicle models are not required to pivot around the center point--this could get even worse.

@shane
you said "The rules on moving vehicles state that "Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point."

K, that's AS THEY MOVE, not BEFORE THEY MOVE."

Now when i read this, specifically the phrase "as they move" it says to me, based on the meaning and context of the actual words, that at any time during a vehicles movement it can pivot. So to me, "at any time" means they could pivot at the beginning of their move, or at the end, or in the middle of it, or hell, why not all three? Point being, they don't have to move a little bit first, and then be eligible to start pivoting. Accuse me of being a rules lawyer too, if you want to, but it's not going to change the fact that your POV is not the only one, or even neccessarily the correct one.

Ok guys, since I love you so much:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

15 page Threadnought about this topic. Please read it. Any arguments you might have WILL be covered there.

This is one of those rules artifacts that some folks find intolerable as 'rules abuse' and others feel is perfectly wonderful because it's RAW. Very similar to the discussion about units of multiwound models with model each geared-up differently to enjoy/exploit the benefits of the wound allocation rules.

Half argue it's exploiting an unintended rules loophole and the other half argue it's an intended rule designed to benefit the specific unit type.

The thread goes round and round and comes back in various forms as the Internet 'holy war' goes on...

This is a well accepted and very common tactic in every tournament I have ever been to. I find it hard to believe that people think this is somehow new.

Since i stoped reading after 2nd page, i'd like to add that there is no premovement phase as far as im concerned... since you can't move anything at the beginning of your turn (where deep strike, reserves and all that stuff comes in), lets move to next phase, movement, so the land raider is on its movement phase, it pivots (it's already movin), then move fordward (it keeps moving it has never stopped) now he is those 14.5 in you guys mention ahead on the battlefield, so everything happened on its movements phase.

It pivoted while moving? yes
Did it count towards its movement range? no, since pivoting doesnt count and it's still moving.
He then moves fordward 12in and its done.

By impling that this is illegal you are pretty much saying that vehicles can never pivot and move their actual speed, sure its easy at the beginning of the game to measure the 24in and start arguing about but even on the game whenever a tank pivots and moves forwards is doing the same thing.

Yeah that pivot on the spot would put him about 1.5 away *even with a 6" run OR charge measured*

Pretty sloppy playing there, watch for that kind of stuff.

How about a Chimera or similar vehicle with its front armor just under 12" from the enemy pivoting in place so its side armor is now just over 12" away, putting it out of assault range even though it never moved? The rules for vehicle movement by their nature allow such things to happen.

Impostures afoot

I would change the Subject to Technically Legal but Your a power gaming, rules lawyering, jack@ss and if you in my FLGS you will not get a game in with anyone

The question was not would you allow it in a friendly game. Hell the question is not even 'is it legal?' which it is. The question was, have you encountered this before and Is it a good idea?

A) No i have not encountered this before.
B) It seems like a great Idea, if a bit underhanded.

Dracos wrote:Deadshane - you are confusing displacement with movement.

Displacement is the distance between where the vehicle started and where it ended. Movement is how far the front of the model moved.

so that would mean you have to measure from the front edge of the model and not the side?


Deadshane1 is correct on this one.

lets assume for this example we move the LR in a straight line.

Point A is the closest part of a LR's hull to the direction you are going to move.

Point B is the farthest part of the LR's hull in relation to Point A

if you start at point A, and go to point B with a land raider, Point B has to be no more than 12" away from point A.

as such the Hull when it stops at point B can not be farther than 12" from Point A.

and since a vehicle can move up to 12" to move it further would be against the rules. Pivot or not you can not travel more than 12"

You would measure after the rotation, because pivoting doesnt count as movement. Thus, from the front of the hull's location after the rotation, to it's location after the movement, it has moved 12 inches.

Emmkay wrote:As I said this is all technically legal but its a pretty cheap trick. Was wondering if anyone else out in the Dakkaverse had encountered this maneuver, or indeed if anyone thinks its a good idea!

You'd have to be a total douche to employ a tactic described in the OP. Why would a vehicle start at 90° to the battle and the direction all other troops are heading in and then turn to face the enemy before making a sudden attack? It makes no sense from a narrative point of view and is absolutely nothing more than a cheap trick preying on a loophole in the rules. Turning should count against overall movement in a wargame but even where it doesn't you shouldn't be able to use that to gain extra movement. Needless to say someone trying a stunt like this to me could find someone else to play next time.

SaintHazard wrote:It's a legit tactic.

No it's not. By moving models in a totally artificial way on the battlefield it's allowing exploitation of an unforeseen technicality in the rules. You mentioned 'checkers', I would argue that if you want to play a game by the letter of the rules then checkers and chess is your best bet. For rules that tend to be a bit loose in places and can never hope to cover all of the almost endless possibilities that can occur on an open field wargame then you really have to consider the narrative of the game being played out and think about paying a tiny bit of respect to controlling your forces in a such a manner as to allow both players to continue suspension of disbelief.