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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

Yes, it says that it's something that is technically legal, that some players regard as a trick or an exploit, and that others just see as a result of the movement system having to deal with things that aren't all perfectly round, and not a big deal.

The fact that you regard it as somehow inappropriate doesn't make that a universal truth.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

Stop being so obtuse. And stop throwing around acronyms you don't understand.

If anything, you're the WAAC player.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you can at least agree that quite a lot of GW's rules writing is rather ambiguous. So some people are going to interpret things differently.

There are also quite a lot of rules and rules interactions.

And a lot of small, niche things change between editions without GW helpfully pointing it out. Some things just kind of disappears.

Pivoting for extra movement used to be perfectly legal, but is no longer legal in 7th (maybe, unless it is, because it's unclear).

So, for OP's opponent there are three options;
1. He hadn't noticed the change, and kept playing with the pivot-move as it was in past editions (rules mistake due to editions).
2. He interprets the current rules as still allowing it (rules "mistake" due to difference of interpretation).
3. He's a devious slimeball who only cares about winning and will purposefully cheat to accomplish his goal (rules "mistake" due to cheating).


Anyone who's played 40k for more than two weeks knows that 1 and 2 are very common, and pretty much everyone has done it. For myself, as an example, for the last few years I've been playing mostly shooting armies, so I haven't been doing much assaulting. I've also been playing 40k for 16 years. When I, once in a blue moon, multi-assault, there's a hodge-podge of rules from different editions that on several occasions have caused me to make mistakes. It happens. It's happened to you too. It's OK.

And as for difference of rules interpretations, it's happening right now. You interpret a rule one way, someone else in another way. OP and OP's opponent didn't discuss it, OP's opponent just played the way he thought it was supposed to be (or maliciously cheated), and then OP goes on the internet and whines about it. Like a mature adult. But here's where you, and OP, become WAAC. Instead of accepting that these things happen, and just figuring out a solution with your opponent (or, in this case, other posters) you shift the goal posts. You can't win at the game? Don't make it about the game! It's about the moralities! Some rules are more moral than others, right? The spirit of the game! What the developers intended! Luckily, you, in all your superiority, have a monopoly on taking these concepts from the abstract to the concrete, so there can't actually be differences of opinions; there's you being right, and your opponent being a douchebag.

Nah. You can't deal with losing, so you attach morals to rules interpretations. And, I'm assuming, army lists. Which is pretty pathetic.

@OP: Communicate with your opponent. He does something that doesn't seem quite right? Ask. "Uhm, can you do that? I didn't think you could do that." It's literally that simple. You figure out that your opponent was actually wrong later? If he's a friend, mock him relentlessly. If he's just some guy, then remember the rule for the future, and move on with your life. You lost a game of 40k. Life goes on. Don't start moaning about it, and don't start throwing disparaging terms around and drawing in morals, just because someone either made a mistake or interpreted a rule differently. Because, when you do stuff like that, well, you're that guy.

You guys sure write a lot.

Vehicles are supposed to go a maximum of 6" before disembarkment.

Thank you, come again!

Obviously what newblood said is relevant -- we don't want to unfairly penalize a skimmer either. But that is also playing within the spirit of the rules in order to make the game as fair as possible for both parties, rather than trying to eke out some one-sided advantage through the power of sneaky exploits, isn't it?

Contrary to what some think... it's not that hard to figure out who believes in what!

Write a lot huh? Anti-intellectualism and "effort is totes uncool" sentiment on an internet forum for tabletop wargaming? Bold move, Cotton.

And yeah, IMO, you're right about pivoting for extra movement doesn't work in 7th. Congrats. But people can feasibly interpret it differently, and people can get rules wrong. Doesn't make them TFG or WAAC. It does make you TFG, though, for how you attach morality to game rules and appoint yourself the arbiter of what's the spirit of the game.

Also, your condescension just looks sad when you're so obviously strawmanning.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Vehicles are supposed to go a maximum of 6" before disembarkment.

Nobody has argued that point.

Where you're getting disagreement is with the method of determining that 6".

...rather than trying to eke out some one-sided advantage through the power of sneaky exploits, isn't it?

This particular 'exploit' has been widely known about for more than 15 years now. It's been one of the more frequently discussed rules issues in every edition of the game since 3rd edition. By this point, it's 'sneaky' in about the same way as drinking energy drinks is a 'sneaky' way of consuming caffeine.


And therein lies the disconnect. You're seeing it as something that is against the rules, and so anyone who tries to do it is clearly just trying to win at all costs.

Most of the players who do it are seeing it as something that is perfectly within the rules, has been perfectly within the rules and an accepted part of the game for longer than some of the people playing the game have been alive, and is simply how the movement rules work.

'That guy' isn't the one who does something that someone else finds questionable. He's the guy who insists that anyone who has a different viewpoint to his own as to how a game of toy soldiers should be played is wrong and clearly a bad person.

If you can move 6" and pivot 6.124421" then isn't that breaking the rule, as you are not moving 6", where is the ambiguity of that?

 Formosa wrote:
If you can move 6" and pivot 6.124421" then isn't that breaking the rule, as you are not moving 6", where is the ambiguity of that?

The ambiguity comes from the fact that if you apply the 'no part of the vehicle can move more than 6"' literally, movement in anything other than a straight line becomes a nightmare. You can't just pick a point and measure from there... you suddenly have to measure every single point on the vehicle to make sure that no part of it moves further as a result of pivoting. A rhino turning 180 degrees at the start of its movement has suddenly moved around 6" before it even actually moves from the spot. A monolith would be unable to perform a 180 degree pivot on the spot and still move in a single movement phase.

And infantry models on 25mm bases would have to move less than 6" if you want them to finish their movement facing a different direction.


Essentially, in an effort to make the movement rules clearer, GW actually managed to completely break them.


If you go slightly more abstract, and measure from whatever the leading edge is before the movement to whatever the leading edge is after the movement (which is how the people who think that 7th ed killed this tactic think the rules are supposed to work) then there is absolutely no point in the rules dictating that vehicles pivot on their center point. It literally makes no difference whatsoever how the vehicle pivots... You just measure from start point to end point, and plonk the vehicle down facing whatever way you want. So you remove the ability for long, narrow vehicles to 'gain' extra distance by turning to the side and moving in that direction... but you ignore a section of the rules to do so. And you also just reverse the tactic being discussed here... You go from 'gaining' extra distance by turning to the side and moving in that direction, to 'gaining' extra distance by moving directly forwards and finishing your movement sideways.


The logical conclusion, then, is that we're supposed to continue using the movement system that's been working just fine up until now, and that GW just worded it really badly.

Or that we're supposed to use the second method above, and the bit about pivoting on the center of the vehicle is just a legacy of last edition and isn't really supposed to mean anything any more.


Which of those is the best way to go is going to come down to personal interpretation. So it's a good idea to discuss with your opponent prior to the game if you're concerned about it being an issue. From my experience, most people aren't.

the rules spell out exactly how far you can move a vehicle. Before moving the vehicle at all, including turning it, just measure from the hull and mark out the distance, if your opponents says no because what he wants to do is legal, then pack up your little plastic men and tell him to go play with himself. (Pun intended)

Its very easy and the rules say it very clearly. At the start of the movement phase. That's before any pivoting is done. You measure from the most forward part of your vehicle in the direction you are going and you are free to pivot(because it costs no movement) and move as much as you want when you move as long as you do not exceed your vehicle's movement past the distance from that point. Not that hard.

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

So where is the line between "trick" and "thing that I can do to gain an advantage" oh great and wise psychic guru? Since you obviously know the intentions of GW, maybe you can tell me if it's unsporting and WAAC if:

-I position my special weapons always at the back of the squad (how unrealistic!!)

-I try to position my models 2" apart when facing blast weaponry (Don't they like each other??)

-I sometimes move my vehicles sideways to keep the heavily armored sides facing the enemy

-I apply special rules to the unit even when it doesn't make total sense that they would carry over

Is that WAAC behavior? Am I TFG? Or maybe, am I playing a game that has concrete written rules and using common sense to get the most advantage I can out of them? My army includes a vehicle that has three guns, all with 180 degree arcs, one of which faces backwards. You better bet that it crabwalks around most of the time so I get to fire all my weapons, I paid for that freaking thing after all.

People who use the term "WAAC" tend to care about winning and losing way more than the people they're playing against, I find. They have a need to make their losses "not count" in their eyes whenever their opponent does something they don't like. Sure, I kitted out all my tactical squads with the optimum weaponry and loadout, duh, but my opponent fielded TWO RIPTIDES-what a WAAC douche! Never mind the fact that I brought six tactical squads to unlock my 10 free razorbacks-I just like those models and it's fluffy

No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

The vehicle actually ended its movement the exact same distance from where it was, but only because you made another pivot move after the unit disembarked.

You can pivot as many times as you want to right?

 Icculus wrote:
No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

Once you disembark, the vehicle cannot move any more, at all.
The Eldar Vectored Engines upgrade changes that, but generally you move model X, disembark unit Y, and move [onto the next unit].

[Edit: Tidied up bad wordings]

When rules have several loopholes in them people have and will take advantage of them. Until GW learns to write clear rules people will keep taking advantage of them.

Everyone needs to relax, some great points were made about how people may use little things like this to gain an edge but it doesn't necessarily make them bad people.

One of my best friends tried this on me and I just looked at him and said "we are playing games like this now?" And he promptly changed the way he moved his vehicles back to the normal mode. (During 6th) Now in 7th it is rather clear that you can't do that at all anymore.

Sometimes the best response is to just call people out for abusive use of rules and ask them if you honestly feel the game was intended to work that way.

In all honesty I can't stress this enough but do your best to learn all the rules, people do make mistakes, but people also like to use inexperience as an opportunity to cheat.

Even with my own good friends from time to time we double check how rules work to make sure we are having a fair game.

Everyone just chill we are all people here and sometimes things are too serious. That being said the guy is clearly WAAC because he plays harlies and purposely built his entire list to abuse this one mechanic which technically doesn't exist anymore.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
No part of the hull can move further than 6" from where it started.

But what if you start sideways, pivot to gain the 2 inch advantage, move, deploy the units, then pivot the vehicle back to sideways.

Once you disembark, the vehicle cannot move any more. At all.
The Eldar Vectored Engines upgrade changes that, but generally you move model X, disembark unit Y, and move on.

Does a pivot count as a move?

The answer is yes in this case.

Just looked it up. We can move on, my theory was wrong.

 insaniak wrote:
This particular 'exploit' has been widely known about for more than 15 years now.... most of the players who do it are seeing it as something that is perfectly within the rules.

Unfortunately insaniak this obviously wasn't the case between these two players!

Playing rules with a eye towards clarity, consistency and intuitiveness is an attitude. Playing rules with an eye towards eking out non-transparent advantages is also an attitude. The benefits and drawbacks of both should be pretty obvious.

If you plunk down your vehicle facing the direction you want it to face, you will never have these misunderstandings or get into lengthy rules discussions justifying legality. It is an exploit though, even if normalized among the player base. Vehicles aren't supposed to get "extra movement" on turn 1 and that's the functional effect of this action. As you said yourself the only reason someone might anticipate this is experience.

If two players want to play with extra movement by common agreement, that's fine.... but why not just declare a global 2" combat speed buff on turn 1 and reduce all the silliness of spinning around your vehicles? It pretty much works out to the same thing.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Unfortunately insaniak this obviously wasn't the case between these two players!
.

Well of course it wasn't, or we wouldn't have this thread.

That doesn't mean the player who did it was in the wrong, though, just as he wouldn't have been in the wrong if he drew LOS from a model's belt buckle and his opponent hasn't realised you could do that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

If you plunk down your vehicle facing the direction you want it to face, you will never have these misunderstandings or get into lengthy rules discussions justifying legality.

Yes, you will.... Because you'll find yourself having to explain why the rules tell you how to pivot the vehicle if it doesn't actually matter.

And, as I mentioned before, you don't remove the extra movement issue by playing that way... You just change the direction that it works in. So you'll also find yourself having to explain why your vehicle is gaining extra movement when it finishes its move sideways.

The player that did it is clearly in the wrong. Both in rules and in intent.

I'm a bit confused, and I didn't want to necro the ymdc thread, so I'll ask - why is the pivot trick illegal in 7th? I've been trying to read the reason from the thread, but I can't see any specific rules citation that says so.

Furthermore, everyone seems to agree it was legal in 6th, yet the vehicle movement paragraphs for 6th and 7th are, as far as I can tell, almost ver batum identical.

Specifically:

7th edition quote:

" The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons, as described later.

• Stationary. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.

• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.

• Cruising Speed. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible – all of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.

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, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only
pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

End quote

6th edition quote:

" The distance a vehicle moves influences how accurately it can fire its weapons and how easy a target the vehicle will be if
assaulted, as described later.

. A vehicle that remains Stationary will be able to bring its full firepower to bear on the enemy.
. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing
slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower.

. A vehicle that travels more than 6" and up to 12" is said to be moving at Cruising Speed. This represents the
vehicle concentrating on moving as fast as possible - all
of its firepower will be wildly inaccurate.

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, rather than wheeling round. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement. Pivoting
on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary
(however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from
accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models."

End quote

Those blurbs, to me, seems to be completely unchanged from 6th to 7th, with the exception of the 6th edition mentioning how easy it is to hit a vehicle in CC. Why then is it illegal in 7th?

I won't disagree it's a bit cheesy to use such a tactic, but to say that rotation counts as movement means that long vehicles like a ghost ark can rotate like 270 degrees before any point has moved more than 6".

Because in addition to that rule you have to look at these

movement phase section

but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.



from the vehicles section

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.


So you treat the hull of a vehicle like you would the base of an infantry model. And pivoting is part of the movement of the vehicle (you can't pivot THEN move and claim that the pivot was free movement. A pivot is only free movement if you do no other movement during the phase). Therefore, strict RAW is that no part of the hull can move further than the allowed distance.

As insaniak pointed out though, this means you would have to measure each point on the hull separately to follow strict RAW. Some are house ruling that you only need to measure from the point closest to where your vehicle is going but this isn't RAW. Others are just sticking to the old way of moving where the pivot is free even if you move after pivoting.

In the end it's up to the players to figure out how they want to do it because GW can't write clear rules.

Col. Dash wrote:
The player that did it is clearly in the wrong. Both in rules and in intent.

If it was clear, we wouldn't have this thread, or people with disagreeing opinions.

Further, unless you have a written statement from the entirety of the design team as to how the rules is supposed to function with a detailed explanation, or can read minds, you don't know the intent. Even further, intent is meaningless if the practical way of employing said rule is equally muddy and messy.

That seems a bit strict interpretation, but I honestly can't disagree with it.

And like I said, the pivot trick was always a bit cheesy, so I won't defend it.

But to the OP's question, I'd probably file this one under honest mistake based on previously known and legal rules. It does happen. Just learn, understand the rules argument, and be ready next time with a polite correction.

The problem lies in the conflict between three rules:

General Movement:

BRB p.18: "Movement Distance" As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started in the Movement Phase.

Vehicle Movement:

BRB p. 73: "Vehicles in the Movement Phase" 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, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilized vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from moving more than intended or allowed.

(emphasis in original)

Skimmer Movement:

BRB p. 89: "Skimmers and Measuring" Unlike most other vehicles, Skimmers have flying bases under their hull. However, distances are still measured to and from the Skimmer's hull, with the exceptions of the vehicle's weapons and Fire Points, all of which work as normal, The base of a Skimmer is effectively ignored....

Because of the conflict between these three rules, it is either the case that the "pivoting trick" is not legal and pivoting on the spot costs movement which would make the movement phases infinitely more complicated, or pivoting on the spot does not cost movement and the "pivot trick" is therefore legal.

I am inclined to believe in the latter interpretation, at least with regards to vehicles. The line "No part of its base" can be RAI interpreted to mean only the vertical surface, allowing models to pivot freely. Because skimmers measure from the hull of the vehicle, open-topped vehicles treat all of the vehicle as an access point, vehicles may not move more than 6" when disembarking passengers, and pivoting does not count as moving or reduce movement distance, my conclusion is therefore that, in light of there not being an explicit prohibition against doing so, skimmers pivoting to potentially allow for extra distance for passenger disembarkation is legal.

Clear as mud, I know. But it's the only logical interpretation I personally can come to due to the conflicting rules. Is the "pivot trick" a polite move? Arguably no, as there is enough room to argue against doing so, at least in polite company. Is it technically legal due to the conflict between rules? Yes.

Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

So everyone that disagrees with your opinion is a cheater?

Got it.

Great attitude. You'll go far on an internet forum.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

The problem is, as it has been repeatedly pointed out, that in the absence of an official FAQ on the subject or statement from the design team the situation and intent are not clear.

What you see as an intentional work-around of the intent of the rules, I see as rules allowing for the potential for user error in movement and the ability for units disembarking from certain vehicles to gain a small bonus in doing so. The bonus movement does not come from the vehicle moving, but from the unit disembarking in a strategic way.

If the rules regarding the situation are themselves not transparent, the situation cannot therefore have a transparent resolution. HIWPI: it may seem cheesy, but due to poor wording in the rules it is a legal move.

I don't mind ruffling a few feathers.

The minute anyone tells me what value the "pivot trick" adds to the 40k experience in general -- rather than trying to dodge this question by bringing up other "unrealistic" factors or pedantic rules interpretations -- I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion of the motivations behind it.

Good luck with that, though.

@newblood, you might not have perfect 6" movement due to models and gameflow but that's different from a player intentionally leveraging this limitation for advantage. It's not really about user error.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Guys the intent of the rules is very, very clear.

Vehicles are supposed to move 6" at combat speed. If not, you don't disembark.

If you're intentionally trying to work around that limitation on the board through gaming loopholes in the rules, you are not playing in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.

If you don't play in the spirit of cooperation and transparency in order to gain advantage, at some point you will become a spoiler to someone else's game experience. Hence the WAAC and TFG labels.

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I think on that note, we can understand past a certain point discussion isn't valuable and it's time to walk away.

If you've been reading the thread at all, you'd find it is not very clear.

Telling everyone else they're wrong, and calling/labelling them as WAAC/TFG if they don't agree with you, is the very definition of TFG on your part.

Being rude and condescending isn't helping your point. Its only making people think you're the WAAC/TFG in this discussion.

Even if you were to measure from the hull of a raider, it still gains extra movement from a pivot. Couldn't you purchase the Item that makes raiders/ ravagers have that pointy tip? (The DE version of a battering Ram). You would still be able to use it since that piece is now part of the hull and has a function.

It is extremely clear. There is no room for seeing it differently. This isn't 6th edition. Anyone who uses this is cheating if they know the rules have changed, that is clear and simple. Its like calling hits on 3s when your BS is only a 3 or rerolling a reroll. You know that's not how the rule works and are trying to do it anyway.

Measure the hull at the start of the movement phase. That is before anything is done including pivoting. No part of the hull may go past 6" from that point at the end of movement phase. You can pivot all you want in the space between and it costs nothing. The rules say this. Yeah its typical GW putting them all over the place but they have been posted throughout this thread with page numbers. You cant get much clearer from a GW rule book. Thus there is no need for an FAQ.