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.

 Happyjew wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
There is nothing saying that vehicles must move 'forwards'.

Except for Zooming Flyers, but that is a moot point in this discussion.

That is a moot point, but does have it's place in this discussion as long as we are still talking about maximum move distance. It's always the furthest distant point of a model from it's origination point. The rules give no other means to measure movement distance.

I just wrote down what the rules say, indeed one of these is that pivoting does not reduce movement. I had decided not to pursue before as this is quite an open statement, and once you get to that line it's for the wolves.

Not reducing movement could mean not reducing the movement distance of the model, or mean does not count towards the movement distance of the model, as its written in the way it is it insinuates it could mean the former.

That point is also repeated in the models facing section

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, that approach gives you an inconsistency in movement distance based on when the vehicle moves.

Example 1: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees, and move 6".

Example 2: My rhino is placed sideways on my deployment line. I pivot 90 degrees. Next turn I move 6".

By your way of doing it, the rhino in example 2 has moved completely legally, while the rhino in example 1 has moved too far. But they have both moved the exact same distance.

That way lies madness.

{Multiple edits because I apparently can't type this morning... :( }

Sorry, quoting from the first page because I hadn't been keeping up with this thread.

But actually you're wrong. There is nothing inconsistent about it. In both examples, the Rhino has moved 6". You're just pointing out that the Rhino that was already facing forward gets to move an inch farther forwards. Of course that's true. It's true because the Rhino is not perfectly square shaped, and thus it doesn't have a perfectly square shaped 6" bubble in which it can end its movement. So you have a slightly larger forwards and backwards zone of movement than you do if you turn sideways at the beginning of your movement.

You could make the exact same argument about units on oval bases as you do here.

I'm just saying this is the way the group of folks I play with has done it. We've had a couple people join the group over the years who've deployed with the "sideways to gain an inch" trick. As soon as they realize they're playing against someone else who doesn't do that, they realize what an asinine trick it is, and they stop. We didn't even TELL them "Hey we play it this way in our group." they just figured out on their own that we weren't a gaming group that used beardy tactics like that. ONE or TWO times over the YEARS we've been playing together we ran into an odd situation with it, so we quickly just said "We'll count 6" from the hull as the bubble you're allowed to move within". It's worked out perfectly well.

Some of the "It's more realistic!" fans in our gaming group actually like it BETTER this way because it means if you turn your vehicle on a 90 degree pivot, you lose a fraction of your movement. It's more "realistic" that a vehicle that is turning a lot won't be able to move as far as a vehicle that just goes forwards in a straight line. So there's that bonus to.

That way does NOT lie madness. We've been playing it that way for years. There's never been a problem. The way we play is so simple we don't have to even explain it to newcomers.

Nem - again, your interpretation leads to pivoting reducing a vehicles movement. This is impossible, meaning your standpipe is wrong.

Rather than rehash this proven point, please search this out. It is pointless to discuss further, as after 16 years this rule is well known.