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.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Insaniak explained the rules very clearly.

It literally has been discussed dozens of times in the dozen years I've been posting on here. For exactly the reason that it's coming up now. It feels a bit counter-intuitive, and occasionally someone sees someone else get an advantage from it and says to themself "That can't be right, can it?"

GW has discussed it in WD and on their website. In articles and editorials. They conceded that it's not precisely realistic, but an acceptable consequence of the simplicity of the vehicle movement system in 3rd edition going forward, as compared to the more complex movement rules before that, with turn radii and such. Really, you only gain a significant amount of distance when the direction of desired movement is perpendicular to the present orientation of a model whose length is substantially greater than its width. Even the armies which best take advantage of it (DE raider assault) only really gain a couple of inches, and it generally only happens on the first turn.

Exactly the point I was making. GW has recognized this is how it works so why is this still an issue in the "40k You Make Da Call" Forum? It isn't something that requires us to make a call, it has been talked about by the people who wrote the rules. Done and Done.

Robbin Cruddace intended for poison to Reroll on a 2+ for MC's. He has said this. I don't think that is an actual argument...

--------------------------

So It has been decided on this website one thing, and on other sites it has been decided another. The call is GW's... as that is really the only opinion that matters. Until then... i will use RAW...

First GW has made the call, we have already cited numerous times GW has talked about this issue dating back to 1998.
Second you aren't using RAW your using your interpretation of the RAW. Sorry that isn't RAW that's RAYWTTB, Rules As You Want Them To Be.
Third if you aren't going to listen to the numerous sound reasons pointing to your interpretation of the RAW being wrong then why post? Simply to be as contrary as possible?

Hold on a second? Not a single person has actually given me A RULE that suggests that i am wrong. Only "This has been the way it has been done for a long time"

Come on... you think I am posting to be contradictory? No. I am posting for answers which no one is giving me.

I love how dash says I was uncool for not reading 10 pages of posts... but no one even bothers reading my first or second post and replying to that...
---------------

The only reason I made this post was because I found very interesting contradictions in the way the rules have been presented in the book in comparison to how the game is being played. I could care very little about the extra 2"... it isn't like DE actually NEED the 2"... but I want to find out why people think it is allowed based on the rules which I have pointed out in my first 2 posts. Not a single response has been to my first 2 posts... not even the first comment from another person. Which is sad given the reputation this website has.

also.... can we be civil? I am perfectly fine with a conversation that doesn't turn into a flame war because you don't like my arguments and refuse to respond to them. Instead you say "this is how it has always been played and you are wrong". That is not the kind of answer I want or am looking for. I want legit responses. is that a whole lot to ask from one of the biggest 40k sites online?

Revenent Reiko wrote:It is entirely legal (and has been for many years) as has been pointed out before.
@smitty, check out some DE Bat Reps where Raiders are being used (e.g. DashOfPepper's Bat Reps), its very commonly used with DE and should be there, hope that helps.
EDIT: there you go smitty, check Dash's sig ('My Guide to Winning with DE'), he shows it very well (you do Dash btw).

Just because people have been doing it for years doesn't mean they've been doing it right.

insaniak wrote:You are, however. Namely, that measurement should be from the same point on the model to the same point on the model. Otherwise, you aren't measuring actual distance travelled. So you can't measure from the side of the vehicle and then finish the movement measuring to the front. You pick a point on the vehicle (most commonly the front, although some people do still prefer to measure from the centre for some inexplicable reason) and conduct all of your measurement to and from that point for the vehicle's movement.

There's no reference to this in the BRB. It never says you have to measure to and from the same point. In fact, you would be breaking the rules even more if it did say that. With you raider perpendicular to the direction of your movement, move 12", then rotate it. Now measure the distance traveled by the nose. More than 12". Ooops.

insaniak wrote:

>Its not written anywhere that you have to measure from one point to one point. Only that your model not move ahead of the tape.

Except that the example provided is showing moving past the tape by measuring to a different point on the model. The mention of not placing the model on the far side of the tape is talking about measuring from the front point on the model, and then moving the model past the end of the tape to finish your measurement to a different part of the model.

That's an interpretation. Another, equally valid, interpretation, is that it's telling you that (in that diagram, for example) the rightmost point after moving can only be 6" away from the rightmost point before moving. My interpretation about being able to spin the model comes from the vehicle movement section, where you can rotate as you move.

And to add one thing for the 'But I may measure from the center!' people:

Page 12: "When moving models, it's a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure"

You may not! There. Right there. It tells you how to measure, explicitly and without room for maneuvering: you measure, then place behind the line. Period. End.

This is a willful misreading of what's actually in the book. All that they are saying there is that your measurement point should be consistent, on the assumption that everyone wil normally be measuring from the front of the base. If you measure from the front of the model, yes, the model should not move past the final distance mark. If you measure from the back of the model and move the model the same distance, the model will move past the measurement mark, but will only have moved the same distance.

Ultimately, it makes no difference where you measure from, so long as you use the same point for the start and the end of the movement.

Actually, the only instructions about where to measure movement come from the pg 12 diagram, which uses the leading edge. Measuring from elsewhere usually doesn't make much of a difference. Unless, of course, you're moving an oblong vehicle and measure from somewhere other than the leading edge and gain extra range from it. Then it makes a difference of an inch or two.

Since there's obviously a difference, we should investigate which is better. The book shows us measuring the front, and mentions not placing anything "on the far side of the tape." I know which way the book accepts.

insaniak wrote: You measure from and to the same point on the model because doing anything else is not actually measuring the distance moved in an accurate fashion. If you change your reference point, your measurement is going to be wrong.

This really shows me that a lot of the acceptance comes from older editions, since measuring to a fixed point isn't ever mentioned in the book that I have. (unless I missed it. That's entirely possible)

If GW really wanted us to move in a way to get extra movement from pivoting, they could have told us to measure from the center of the vehicle at all times. Instead we measure from the front to the front.

The way I see it, if you're 24" from a spot on the board and move directly toward it 6", you should end up 18" away from it when all is said and done, including any turning or spinning.

Interesting parting thought: if you have a raider that moves so the middle of it's side is 1" from a model, can you then turn it so you're within an inch? If you say that turning isn't movement, then you're not "moving within 1" of an enemy model". If you say you can't do that, then pivoting must be moving closer. If it's movement, it should count as part of how far you moved, right?

(edit: wow, that really looks like I'm picking on insaniak. Not my intent)

ElCheezus wrote:There's no reference to this in the BRB. It never says you have to measure to and from the same point.

It doesn't need to.

If I put a mark on the table, and place the end of my tape there, and then measure out 12 inches to the right with my tape, sliding the end of my tape an inch to the right as I do so, have I measured 12" across the table?

No, clearly I have not. I've measured 13", because I moved my reference point.


The same thing happens when you're measuring movement. If you start at one point on the model, and measure the model's movement to a different point on the model you have not measured the actual distance travelled. You have changed your reference point, so the measurement is invalid.

In fact, you would be breaking the rules even more if it did say that. With you raider perpendicular to the direction of your movement, move 12", then rotate it. Now measure the distance traveled by the nose. More than 12". Ooops.

Except that the rules allow you to 'break' your measurement when the vehicle pivots, by pointing out that pivoting doesn't reduce the vehicle's movement. So you are allowed to move the vehicle, pivot, and then carry on moving, without that pivot factoring into your measurement.

Since there's obviously a difference, we should investigate which is better. The book shows us measuring the front, and mentions not placing anything "on the far side of the tape." I know which way the book accepts.

Again, whether you measure front to front or back to back makes absolutely no difference, regardless of what the book says. The distance moved is going to be the same in either case.

The only way the distance changes is if you change your reference point.

If GW really wanted us to move in a way to get extra movement from pivoting, they could have told us to measure from the center of the vehicle at all times. Instead we measure from the front to the front.

We don't measure from the center because it's less accurate. And because it's less consistent with how we measure based models.

I've played games that measure from the centre, or from the heads of infantry models. It's a pain to be accurate with it. Measuring from the edge is much easier.

The way I see it, if you're 24" from a spot on the board and move directly toward it 6", you should end up 18" away from it when all is said and done, including any turning or spinning.

And where the model moving is perfectly round, that will be the case. But the fact that the rules allow vehicles to pivot without it counting towards their movement allows oblong-shaped vehicles to 'gain' movement distance. It's simply a side effect of the slightly abstract way that the rules handle vehicle movement.

It's possibly not ideal, and yes, it seems a little dodgy at a first glance... But it is how the rules work.

Interesting parting thought: if you have a raider that moves so the middle of it's side is 1" from a model, can you then turn it so you're within an inch? If you say that turning isn't movement, then you're not "moving within 1" of an enemy model". If you say you can't do that, then pivoting must be moving closer. If it's movement, it should count as part of how far you moved, right?

I never said that turning isn't movement. It simply doesn't count towards distance moved. Since the pivot happens as a part of the vehicle's movement, even if it only pivots (in which case it doesn't count as moving afterwards) it is pivoting as a part of its movement... so if that pivot brings it within 1" of an enemy, it can't do it.

And no problem... I'm a big boy

Here a thought, if you are measuring the distance using a specific point on the raider as the reference point for the movement, and can pivot during movement, couldn't you use those rules to spin a raider and gain its full length? for example, a DE raider starts facing backwards, then you measure 12" and place the back of the raider at the 12" mark. I'm not saying this sounds legal at all, but t seems a lot of the "pivot can provide extra distance" arguments would also allow this.

CODY! wrote:Here a thought, if you are measuring the distance using a specific point on the raider as the reference point for the movement, and can pivot during movement, couldn't you use those rules to spin a raider and gain its full length?

You measure from any specific point (usually the front edge) but pivot on the centre of the vehicle. So no, you can't gain the length of the vehicle by pivoting. The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

Slackermagee wrote:If you pivot to get the front of a vehicle past the 12" mark on your tape measure, you're pivoting AFTER movement and not DURING movement and are not following the Rules As Written.

So this is perfectly legal?



The vehicle didn't move past the tape at all. Yet the center of the vehicle is clearly more than 12"from where it started.

Tylarion wrote:

Slackermagee wrote:If you pivot to get the front of a vehicle past the 12" mark on your tape measure, you're pivoting AFTER movement and not DURING movement and are not following the Rules As Written.

So this is perfectly legal?



The vehicle didn't move past the tape at all. Yet the center of the vehicle is clearly more than 12"from where it started.

no that isn't right. You move without rotating. You'd go X" and then rotate round the centre. In this case you would loose 2-3".

Add to this page 57 ..."Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather then 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move."

So you want to move then its in a straight line without rotating. If you want to turn then its round the centre.

insaniak wrote:The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

It's not an assumption. Pg 57, vehicles can only move forwards or backwards.

Of course, this changes the end result in no way; you get the same result moving it sideways then pivoting it as you do pivoting first and then moving it forwards.

wileythenord wrote:Why would you give someone bad sportsmanship scores for doing something that is completely allowed within the rules?

Because the rules also support the Magical Teleporting Yarrick rule, but I would never do that in anything but a fun game either.

I *do* go to tourneys, and I do well. I also have fun with my opponents, and don't have to stretch for every tiny bit of advantage that I can get.

You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

OverwatchCNC wrote:You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

Many believe that as 40k is a permissive rules set, there is no need for a "negative" rule to forbid something, but rather, in the absence of a rule that allows it means that it is not allowed.

I think just fluff that if this were real then DoP should be able to move sideways and then pivot. Its much easier for some flying contraption to move sideways and spin then a tank.

I dont see tanks moving horizontally very easily. Though I can see them pivot. So I guess what Im saying is I think about it as if it were in the real world (I know thats silly), hence I would have no problem with The Flying things doing it, but tanks would be iffy for me.

My two cents:

For the longest time I was under the impression that vehicles could only move in a straight line, until I actually read the rule entry very carefully that said they could move as infantry, pivoting any number of times up to their movement speed. So my rhino, who's 12" I measure from the center of the hull can move diagonally a number of times, forward, back, twirlly, swirly and any combination. But this is as long as it does not exceed its movement. To be honest I can see people getting more movement out of it by simply moving diagonally to the target. Moving 3" diagonally, then measuring another 3", then another, then another.

So, you measure out your distances, then you pivot, if your moving and turning. I usually allow my opponent to pivot after they have moved, because their maneuvering has put them well within boundaries for assault and etc.

But I don't see anything that states that you can't pivot at the end of a movement phase. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't make people set down the ruler before they do that last pivot. But I don't see any rules in the book to support not being able to do that.

I think I see the other side now. I've been picking up my model and putting it down x" from it's starting position in any orientation I desire. That was my interpretation of being allowed to turn any number of times I can while moving.

Now, I see the opposing argument as present moving vehicles more like you would drive hotwheels, where it's on the table the whole time. Turning in this case would be actually rotating it on the board (as opposed to my more abstract way of just choosing orientation). So this makes it a lot more like driving than I've been doing it. One of the consequences of all of this is that you only measure "movement" when you move forward, not when turning, making all of this possible. So I think I finally understand where you guys have been coming from (I pretty much thought you were crazy before, but had faith you weren't total idiots. )

Obviously I like "my" way better, but I think the other way is more what's intended based on how GW usually handles things. Sadly it looks like there's a gap in the RAW, so if you have a different assumption (like I do) about how basic movement is handled, then you can come to a different conclusion.

If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

ElCheezus wrote:If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

... So in other words you're making up your own rules for movement? Only skimmers can move like that as they can jump over things.

Tri wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:If you move like hotwheels, pivoting can get you extra distance.
If you move like chess, it can't. (i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

... So in other words you're making up your own rules for movement? Only skimmers can move like that as they can jump over things.

In my post explaining why I see your point of view you want to pick apart words? And poorly, at that?

ElCheezus wrote:i.e. picking it up from where it starts and putting it down where it ends as long as there's a clear path)

Looks to me like I recognize that regular vehicles can't jump over things.

You're either trolling or you're assuming I'm an idiot and can't tell the difference between a regular vehicle and a skimmer, both are insulting. Have a little faith in your fellow man's ability to reason, like I demonstrated earlier. Despite disagreeing with the opposing side and not understanding why they thought the way they did, I read and thought before calling them morons. It eventually led to understanding. Try it next time before accusing me of making up rules.

Slackermagee wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

That's wrong.

You're pivoting AFTER measuring and as such you have pivoted AFTER movement and not DURING movement, you 'pivot freely as you move' not 'pivot freely whenever you like to gain an extra x"'

Now you're just making things up. =p

Movement for a unit starts when you measure range with a model and/or pick it up. Movement ends when you take your hand off the model and declare its movement complete.

OverwatchCNC wrote:You want a rule saying expressly that gaining distance by pivoting is allowed, and I would like you to show me a rule that expressly states that gaining movement from pivoting is NOT allowed. Neither exists, the game has now broken.

Um... yes there is. That is the whole point in my posts.

Dashofpepper wrote:My Dark Eldar Raider is sideways in the deployment zone. Turn One, I put my tape measure down on the table from the leading edge of the vehicle and measure 12" out. I then MOVE my vehicle precisely 12" up to the tape measure and stop. I have moved precisely 12". I then rotate my raider in any direction that I like.

None of that rotation and pivoting is movement; it is DISPLACEMENT. The vehicle only moved 12", and then pivoted, displacing part of the vehicle. It did not move additional inches; as pivoting doesn't count towards movement. MOVING requires MOVING a model. Picking it up and putting it down in another place, or sliding it along the board.

So Here is how you are doing it?

1) Move 12" along its side. No rule is broken so far, as there is no rule that says it has to move forward facing the front
2) Pivot so that the long way side is closer to the enemy.

Now, here is where the issue comes in. Measuring distance is from which point. Someone earlier said "It doesn't matter which point you measure from as long as you start and end in the same place" which is not true.

If you measure the distance traveled from the center of the vehicle, then the vehicle has not moved more than 12". If you measure from the hull however, you will find that you have moved past 12".

Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

***Note for all others: Games-workshop never actually "says" anything. There employees tend to only know basic levels of the game. When you go to a Games-workshop store and the store manager comes to correct you on rapidfiring... saying that a rapid firer can't move and shoot if it is within 12", you know there are problems with this.

Calling Games-workshop customer service is one way, but still subject to human error. If I argue your point, the employee would probably agree. However, If I argue my point, they would agree as well. What games-workshop employees say almost never matters. The final decision comes from FAQ's. If it isn't getting an FAQ, it is because no one is bothering to bring the issue up to games-workshop (this isn't games-workshop), they don't care, or they believe that the rules are clear enough on the topic for people to understand.

I'm standing 5' from a wall with my arms outstretched. I pivot 90 degrees. Have I moved toward the wall? No. Are my finger tips closer to the wall? Yes.

The example above should suffice to quash the dissenters. The vehicle is NOT MOVING when it pivots. Pivots do NOT count as movement. Pivoting changes the vehicle's profile. If the people having issue with pivoting would A) take their rulebooks and tape measures to hand and get their models out onto the table and figure this out, and B) had any sense of spacial awareness this thread topic would be extinct. This argument about pivoting at the end of the move not being allowed because the model is "no longer moving" is absurd. The model is no longer moving when you are finished moving it (IE: hands off). How about this: I'm side on to my opponent with a Rhino. I choose to pivot so that the rear of the vehicle is now closer to my opponent, thus making the outline of the firing point closer to my opponent, I get an extra .75" (+/-) closer by pivoting, and THAT counts as movement even though I haven't actually "moved" the vehicle. How about this: I'm the world's penultimate judge of distances, and I know if my enemy moves toward my Rhino in his/her turn he/she will be within rapid fire range, so I pivot so that I am now side on to my enemy, thus leaving me .75" (+/-) outside of rapid fire range...did I "cheat" or knowingly do something "beardy" by doing nothing more than pivoting to be FARTHER AWAY?

The rules clearly state "...a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn, providing it does not exceed its maximum move." (pg 57 BRB), and pivoting does not count toward this movement. This means distance measured from point A to point B has nothing to do with pivoting. The single piece of information I see that keeps failing to show up in these threads is the following: vehicles move FORWARD and BACKWARD, not sideways. So, if you deploy sideways to your opponent and then want to move toward your opponent, you pivot the vehicle so that it is facing toward (or away) from the direction you want to move, then measure from the hull (or center point, as it really doesn't matter), then move the vehicle the distance you choose, near or far. Even if you moved the vehicle backward toward your enemy, when you have finished moving as far as you choose in that direction you may still pivot again to face your opponent. Skimmers have it a bit easier because they can fly over intervening units and terrain, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways. Ground bound vehicles, such as Rhinos, must plan ahead in their movement as they cannot move over intervening units or terrain. If they parked sideways behind a low wall, then want to move out toward the enemy, they must pivot in the direction they wish to move (facing forward or backward as is their choice)...but when the vehicle pivots into the wall it must make a difficult terrain test (pg. 57 of the BRB: roll d6 for every vehicle that has entered, left (meaning exited) OR moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain...A result of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilized damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside.) The vehicle is not immobilized slightly atop the wall (as I've seen many people do at my LGS), rather it stops at the point where its pivot brings it into contact with the terrain.

The issue of pivoting is only an issue because people are moving vehicles sideways, and even then the vehicle doesn't "move" any farther than the distance measured. The profile of the hull changes position, nothing more. Additionally, EVERYONE benefits from the vehicle movement rules, so if someone is getting upset about the "free pivot" then they evidently are not moving their own vehicles correctly.
There is a way that the "free pivot" can get a Rhino @ 1.5" extra distance across the board, but that involves moving the Rhino in a zig-zag pattern, each forward (or backward, for that matter) increment being measured at 1", then pivoting 45 degrees, then moving 1", then pivoting the opposite direction 45 degrees, and so on. Is this tactic worth the effort or the time involved? No. Does this tactic benefit everyone. Yes. Why? Pivoting does not count as movement when determining distance. Obvious EDIT: Pivoting a vehicle means that physics are involved; the spacial profile/boundary of a model cannot conform to distance measured or moved without some outside force truncating that profile/boundary. Should I keep a jeweler's saw handy to lop off the offending track guard of my Rhino when following the pivoting rules leaves me no control over physics?



Re: wisdomseyes1's quote "The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model." Yes, they do, which is taken directly from the BRB. The rules say I can pivot, I'm gonna pivot. The model's profile sticks out farther, maybe closer to my opponent than he feels it should be, but that's too bad. Physics in this dimension cannot be manipulated like movie magic or fantasy role-playing.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

And my raider is stationary. I pivot about the center axis, and am now 3" forward of where I just was. You now need 4+ to hit me, right?

Dashofpepper wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:Take your raider and deploy it sideways. Place the tape measure on the table so that 12" is clearly marked. Now move your raider and pivot it. Is the hull past the 12" mark? Yes. The rules are clear about how to measure distances when moving.

The rules are pretty clear that a model can not move past its maximum traveling distance. Now, you can argue that pivoting does not reduce the distance traveled by a vehicle, which is entirely true. You can not, however, argue that pivoting is not moving. The rules are clear about when pivoting does and does not count as moving.

So, when you move the vehicle, can you finish the move such that the hull is passed the maximum move? I do not believe the rules allow it. Will you provide some evidence based on rules to prove me wrong?

And my raider is stationary. I pivot about the center axis, and am now 3" forward of where I just was. You now need 4+ to hit me, right?

Not only that, but turning around would take up 6" of movement, apparently.

I've learned to accept this little trick with vehicles, especially Dark Eldar. My current form of protest is to make sure venoms are modeled to the same dimensions as the official GW model. I don't know what those dimensions are, right now, but the model looks a lot more circular in model footprint than the rectangle shape of a raider, so there should be little advantage gained for venoms.

Are you guys purposefully misinterpreting wisdomseyes1? He's well aware that pivoting alone and not moving doesn't count as movement (I got that from reading the thread). You should be, too, by this point in the discussion. At this point it really seems like you're putting words in his mouth to discredit his argument.

I've already said it once, but can we at least *try* for understanding? It makes this whole process more productive.

@dash: That was a pretty lackluster argument.

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

If a vehicle is stationary, it doesn't count as moving. No where in my post do I suggest that it takes up any of the distance you are allowed to travel either. The model itself can not end its move passed the point that is its maximum movement. By pivoting at the end of your move, you put half of the model passed this point. Which is clearly not legal.

I am well aware of how pivoting works. I am well aware of your argument. But the argument has holes in it, that no one seems to be filling.

@commissarkurn:

The rules clearly state pivoting does not count toward movement.

and then from the rules themselves:

BRB pg 56: "Pivoting on the spot alone not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary (however, immobilized vehicles may not even pivot)."

These words are not in the rule because they wanted to make the rulebook bigger. They actually have an impact on how the models interact with the game, by limiting how and when a model does or does not count as moving. In this case, it DOES count as moving if you move and then pivot. It does not reduce the distance you travel, but is clearly stated on the first page of the movement section that a model may not move past its maximum distance.

, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways.

The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model.

This issue with weather you are actually gaining extra distance is more along the lines... which point on the vehicle must be 12" away? Which point on the vehicle can not pass this distance. If it is from the center, then there is no problem. However, movement, like everything else for a vehicle, is measured from the hull. People measure EVERYTHING from the hull of a vehicle, but stop doing this during this childish trick? No.

The rules haven't changed at all for vehicles. You still measure before you move. Your base (aka the vehicles hull) may not pass the maximum movement distance. The center of the vehicle is not mentioned anywhere save HOW you pivot.

Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

commissarkurn wrote:I'm standing 5' from a wall, with my arms outstretched. I pivot 90 degrees. Have I moved toward the wall? No. Are my finger tips closer to the wall? Yes.

The rules clearly state "...a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn, providing it does not exceed its maximum move." (pg 57 BRB), and pivoting does not count toward this movement. This means distance measured from point A to point B has nothing to do with pivoting. The single piece of information I see that keeps failing to show up in these threads is the following: vehicles move FORWARD and BACKWARD, not sideways. So, if you deploy sideways to your opponent and then want to move toward your opponent, you pivot the vehicle so that it is facing toward (or away) from the direction you want to move, then measure from the hull (or center point, as it really doesn't matter), then move the vehicle the distance you choose, near or far. Even if you moved the vehicle backward toward your enemy, when you have finished moving as far as you choose in that direction you may still pivot again to face your opponent. Skimmers have it a bit easier because they can fly over intervening units and terrain, but they must still move FORWARD or BACKWARD, not sideways. Ground bound vehicles, such as Rhinos, must plan ahead in their movement as they cannot move over intervening units or terrain. If they parked sideways behind a low wall, then want to move out toward the enemy, they must pivot in the direction they wish to move (facing forward or backward as is their choice)...but when the vehicle pivots into the wall it must make a difficult terrain test (pg. 57 of the BRB: roll d6 for every vehicle that has entered, left (meaning exited) OR moved through one or more areas of difficult terrain...A result of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilized damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside.) The vehicle is not immobilized slightly atop the wall (as I've seen many people do at my LGS), rather it stops at the point where its pivot brings it into contact with the terrain.

The issue of pivoting is only an issue because people are moving vehicles sideways, and even then the vehicle doesn't "move" any farther than the distance measured. The profile of the hull changes position, nothing more. Additionally, EVERYONE benefits from the vehicle movement rules, so if someone is getting upset about the "free pivot" then they evidently are not moving their own vehicles correctly.
There is a way that the "free pivot" can get a Rhino @ 1.5" extra distance across the board, but that involves moving the Rhino in a zig-zag pattern, each forward (or backward, for that matter) increment being measured at 1", then pivoting 45 degrees, then moving 1", then pivoting the opposite direction 45 degrees, and so on. Is this tactic worth the effort or the time involved? No. Does this tactic benefit everyone. Yes. Why? Pivoting does not count as movement when determining distance. Obvious EDIT: Pivoting a vehicle means that physics are involved; the spacial profile/boundary of a model cannot conform to distance measured or moved without some outside force truncating that profile/boundary. Should I keep a jeweler's saw handy to lop off the offending track guard of my rhino when following the pivoting rules leaves me no control over physics?



Re: wisdomseyes1's quote "The rules do not explicitly state how you move the model." Yes, they do, as indicated in the very first sentence of my post, which is taken directly from the BRB. The rules say I can pivot, I'm gonna pivot. The model's profile sticks out farther, maybe closer to my opponent than he feels it should be, but that's too bad. Physics in this dimension cannot be manipulated like movie magic or fantasy role-playing.

I believe the red sections above prove the free pivot is allowed. The rules for tank shocking also prove the free pivot is allowed. You pivot the model to face the direction it will move to tank shock, declare the number of inches it will tank shock, measure and move the full distance declared. You PIVOT to face, THEN measure, THEN move. If the tank shocking vehicle was a Battle Wagon, which I know is a rare occurence , that is sideways and turns to face the target then moves the full 12 inches to tank shock it has, by the rules for tank shock, received bonus inches from the free pivot. There is your rule granting free pivots the extra inches.

Interestingly enough, just read a thread about DashofPepper doing this at the Alamo GT and people flat out calling it cheating despite it being "officially" sanctioned by GW over the years.

As I said, I have never had a problem dealing with it and no one has ever even raised an eyebrow when I have done it. Granted I have usually done it when I see my opponent deployed that way, so done with a mutual understanding.

Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad