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.
What you're not getting, I think, is that the movement rules don't actually say what you think they do. They're open to interpretation. All they say is to measure how far the furthest point moved. This can be interpreted one of 2 ways:
1. Measure the straight-line distance between the start and end points of the unit's base, taking the longest distance moved by any point as the movement distance (this is what most people are advocating for here, and how the convention has worked for a long time)
2. Measure the arc of movement while pivoting and move such that the total distance that arc moves is not more than the Movement stat (this is what you're advocating)
The rules don't really say one way or the other. They just tell us to "move" the model, and that no part of the model's base can move further than its Movement stat, but there's no further clarification given as to how to determine this. Your method results in a lot of fiddly messing about with measuring arcs which get progressively more difficult and less accurate the more complex the path is that the model travels. The other method is quick, simple and in almost all cases good enough as an approximation of the potentially more accurate method.
As a side-note, WH Fantasy had very in-depth rules for measuring distances for wheeling units, involving arcs and various simple geometric concepts. Even in that case they were quite often largely ignored because it turns out that the straight-line distance is often a good enough approximation here too.
Slipspace wrote: What you're not getting, I think, is that the movement rules don't actually say what you think they do. They're open to interpretation. All they say is to measure how far the furthest point moved. This can be interpreted one of 2 ways:
1. Measure the straight-line distance between the start and end points of the unit's base, taking the longest distance moved by any point as the movement distance (this is what most people are advocating for here, and how the convention has worked for a long time)
2. Measure the arc of movement while pivoting and move such that the total distance that arc moves is not more than the Movement stat (this is what you're advocating)
The rules don't really say one way or the other. They just tell us to "move" the model, and that no part of the model's base can move further than its Movement stat, but there's no further clarification given as to how to determine this. Your method results in a lot of fiddly messing about with measuring arcs which get progressively more difficult and less accurate the more complex the path is that the model travels. The other method is quick, simple and in almost all cases good enough as an approximation of the potentially more accurate method.
As a side-note, WH Fantasy had very in-depth rules for measuring distances for wheeling units, involving arcs and various simple geometric concepts. Even in that case they were quite often largely ignored because it turns out that the straight-line distance is often a good enough approximation here too.
So based on example 1, if you move the knight 3 feet forward, 2 inches left, and 3 feet back, the knight only moved 2 inches?
I do not think the rule is open for intepretation in the way you describe. Here is the rule from the PDF, unless there has been an FAQ I do not se.
'A model can be moved in any direction,
to a distance, in inches, equal to or
less than the Move characteristic on its
datasheet. No part of the model’s base
(or hull) can move further than this. It
cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls,
but can be moved vertically in order to
climb or traverse any scenery. '
The important part is no part of the model's base can move further then this. Note that this does not use the wording you sugested that was 'All they say is to measure how far the furthest point moved.'. Instead the rule says 'No part of the models base can move further then this.' This would include the whole base.
If you look at the sugested green line measurement in this first picture. All points are 12" within where they started. However, there is no way to magically move it that way, as you can see from the red line in the picture. The red line tracks that one part of the base has traveled much further then 12".
Now the word 'move' seems to imply that you move it. And during that move no part of the base can move further then this. It seems to be this part that you are objecting. My counter is that there is no way to physically move it the way the green line suggest and stil maintain the wording of the rule.
If you look at the lines in the second picture no part of the models base has moved further then 12". This follows the restriction by this rule 'No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this.' It is worth noting that the shortest point between two lines is a straight line, but the legal move in picture two is not a straight line, indicating that you loose some of your 12" when pivoting during a move.
To summarice, in order to move the way the green line suggest on picture one you are breaking the law or physics or the game.
Slipspace wrote: What you're not getting, I think, is that the movement rules don't actually say what you think they do. They're open to interpretation. All they say is to measure how far the furthest point moved. This can be interpreted one of 2 ways:
1. Measure the straight-line distance between the start and end points of the unit's base, taking the longest distance moved by any point as the movement distance (this is what most people are advocating for here, and how the convention has worked for a long time)
2. Measure the arc of movement while pivoting and move such that the total distance that arc moves is not more than the Movement stat (this is what you're advocating)
The rules don't really say one way or the other. They just tell us to "move" the model, and that no part of the model's base can move further than its Movement stat, but there's no further clarification given as to how to determine this. Your method results in a lot of fiddly messing about with measuring arcs which get progressively more difficult and less accurate the more complex the path is that the model travels. The other method is quick, simple and in almost all cases good enough as an approximation of the potentially more accurate method.
As a side-note, WH Fantasy had very in-depth rules for measuring distances for wheeling units, involving arcs and various simple geometric concepts. Even in that case they were quite often largely ignored because it turns out that the straight-line distance is often a good enough approximation here too.
So based on example 1, if you move the knight 3 feet forward, 2 inches left, and 3 feet back, the knight only moved 2 inches?
It would seems that measuring that way is a good method of getting past walls and fences in a way the rules do not suport. I do not think it is what Slipspace is suggesting. But I stil do not understand how he does the move he does within the woring of the rule.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2019/02/27 16:09:24
So based on example 1, if you move the knight 3 feet forward, 2 inches left, and 3 feet back, the knight only moved 2 inches?
No, but I suspect you knew that already.
Having thought about this some more, I'd probably err on the side of measuring the full path of travel, if only because certain units have rules that apply when you move over units. It's therefore strongly implied you're supposed to measure the full path a unit moves. However, the movement rules are a single paragraph long and woefully insufficient to determine how it's supposed to work without making such inferences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/27 16:50:17
Right lets clear tgis up with some long winded mathmatical proof answering
If the knight base is identified asstarting locations of A1left edge B1center and C1 right hand edge and finishing locations of A2 being the top of the base, B2 being the center and C3 beinf the bottom of the base.
The distance between A1 and A2 is 12 inches a fixed variable
A to B is 3 and 3/8th of an inch
A to C is 6 and 6/8ths of an inch
The distance between A1 and A2 is the hypotenues of a triangle made up of A1 B2 and A2 with two known sides A1A2 and A2B2 and an unkown A1B2. The distance between B1 and B2 is not known however if A1B2 is known B1B2 is A1B2-A1B1
The displacement of C1C2 is not known but once again it can be worked out as a triangle C1B2 B2C2. And C1B2 is B1B2-B1C1
As both B1B2 and C1C2 are significantly below the maximum amount of movement allowed, A1A2 can be moved as a straight line and the base pivited in such a way that B and C take non liner paths while point A does take the direct liner path.
Hence their is no requirement to calculate pivot distances etc as the maximum displacement is A1A2
Both B1B2 and C1C2 have sufficient available movement that the required deviation from liner pathing will not be suffixent enough to cause them to have moved in excess of the 12 inch limitation.
I am glad to hear you come around. After having thought about it some more I thought the 3 feet, 2 inch, 3 feet example of deviantduck might not have been so bad after all.
It seems like your innitial suggestion is to move the model until one part of it has moved 12", continue moving it, and after moving it measure if any part of it is 12" away from where it started. This presents a problem as you would have to stop once you move 12", or you could in fact move it 3 feet, 2 inches and 3 feet.
So my follow up question, and I do not know if anybody has an awnser to this but I hope Stux know how. Can we make a formula or just a number for how far you maximum can move 12" with a knight if you want to pivot 90¤ during the move. And then we could just move that far instead of curving the measuring instrument. We might even not curve it in the optimal direction, loosing lenght.
Edit:
Ica_can you are loosing me a bit on the math there. But here is an example where the end position does not violet the 12" move. How ever, as you can see the green line does not trangress the 12" move. But the red line does. As soon as the red line has moved 12" you would need to end the move as part of the base has moved 12" and you can not move it any more. You can try to pivot it before you move instead of after, but that does not help anuthing.
I copied the green line and red line for comparison underneath. Not only does the red line start and end on the further side of the green line, but it also steeper, meaning it is much longer.
If that is not what you are saying by your math I am missunderstanding you. The optimal postion is to make the red and green arrow both move 12". To do that the lines would need to curve as you move it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/27 18:50:49
Niiai wrote: I am glad to hear you come around. After having thought about it some more I thought the 3 feet, 2 inch, 3 feet example of deviantduck might not have been so bad after all.
It seems like your innitial suggestion is to move the model until one part of it has moved 12", continue moving it, and after moving it measure if any part of it is 12" away from where it started. This presents a problem as you would have to stop once you move 12", or you could in fact move it 3 feet, 2 inches and 3 feet.
So my follow up question, and I do not know if anybody has an awnser to this but I hope Stux know how. Can we make a formula or just a number for how far you maximum can move 12" with a knight if you want to pivot 90¤ during the move. And then we could just move that far instead of curving the measuring instrument. We might even not curve it in the optimal direction, loosing lenght.
The hole point of the above maths is that you don't need to know the distance as no other part of the model can move close to it's maximum diatance during a 90 degree turn. Measure furthest point to that point on the bases end point and it's not possibel for any other point to have moved more that 12 inches.
Niiai wrote: I am glad to hear you come around. After having thought about it some more I thought the 3 feet, 2 inch, 3 feet example of deviantduck might not have been so bad after all.
It seems like your innitial suggestion is to move the model until one part of it has moved 12", continue moving it, and after moving it measure if any part of it is 12" away from where it started. This presents a problem as you would have to stop once you move 12", or you could in fact move it 3 feet, 2 inches and 3 feet.
So my follow up question, and I do not know if anybody has an awnser to this but I hope Stux know how. Can we make a formula or just a number for how far you maximum can move 12" with a knight if you want to pivot 90¤ during the move. And then we could just move that far instead of curving the measuring instrument. We might even not curve it in the optimal direction, loosing lenght.
The formula will be a function of the radius of the base (or the furthest point from the centre for oval bases) and the distance the base has moved. Because we're looking for a lower bound for the distance, this is non trivial to calculate.
The argument boils down to whether or not 'movement' in 40 means measuring the path each point of the model takes, or if it means the final displacement.
-For a round base, they're the same measure
-For a non-round base or no base moving in a straight line, or combination of straight lines, it is again irrelevant.
-For a non-round base or hull pivoting, displacement measure is lower than path measure, so displacement means you move more.
Here's the two cases of measuring. In both images, you move from the 12" mark to the end of the tape measure (right to left)
The above image shows measuring only displacement, not the path of the point. The image below measures the path the point took.
There's a difference of 3/4" of forward movement (as seen on the graph paper, each small square is 1/4". Overall the model has still lost movement versus simply not pivoting (2 3/4" of loss).
IMO measuring the displacement rather than the path is the better option. It punishes ovals less, can be measured in a straight line, and if you choose your point correctly, nothing will displace more than your move stat, even if the path of that point is longer. It's simply too complex to measure complicated paths accurately.
John Prins wrote: The argument boils down to whether or not 'movement' in 40 means measuring the path each point of the model takes, or if it means the final displacement.
-For a round base, they're the same measure
-For a non-round base or no base moving in a straight line, or combination of straight lines, it is again irrelevant.
-For a non-round base or hull pivoting, displacement measure is lower than path measure, so displacement means you move more.
Here's the two cases of measuring. In both images, you move from the 12" mark to the end of the tape measure (right to left)
The above image shows measuring only displacement, not the path of the point. The image below measures the path the point took.
There's a difference of 3/4" of forward movement (as seen on the graph paper, each small square is 1/4". Overall the model has still lost movement versus simply not pivoting (2 3/4" of loss).
IMO measuring the displacement rather than the path is the better option. It punishes ovals less, can be measured in a straight line, and if you choose your point correctly, nothing will displace more than your move stat, even if the path of that point is longer. It's simply too complex to measure complicated paths accurately.
I agree that displacement is the measurement to take, but additionally if you can be bothered with this, recreate the first image and then try to move the base while keeping the start point of the measurement on the base on the line of the tape measure and note the odd path that the other end takes between the start and end points, it's a weird path but it's not even close to the 12 inches allowed.
It is the pivoting problem. Or rather, a pivoting problem.
As you can see in picture 1, the green line is how far you measure before and after the move. The red line is how far it actualy moved. In picture 2 we move out of a circle (a pivot) into an oval (pivot + move in one) we stil have a red line that is longer then the green line. In picture 3 we can see all the red lines. None of them can move longer then 12" during the move.
Am I right in understanding that Ice_can only did the math on the green line? I got lost in the math and phrasing there a bit. But if A1 to A2 is 12", then shurly you must have moved part of the base further then 12" in a 90¤ turn.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/27 18:52:20
I agree that displacement is the measurement to take, but additionally if you can be bothered with this, recreate the first image and then try to move the base while keeping the start point of the measurement on the base on the line of the tape measure and note the odd path that the other end takes between the start and end points, it's a weird path but it's not even close to the 12 inches allowed.
Niiai wrote: It is the pivoting problem. Or rather, a pivoting problem.
As you can see in picture 1, the green line is how far you measure before and after the move. The red line is how far it actualy moved. In picture 2 we move out of a circle (a pivot) into an oval (pivot + move in one) we stil have a red line that is longer then the green line. In picture 3 we can see all the red lines. None of them can move longer then 12" during the move.
Am I right in understanding that Ice_can only did the math on the green line? I got lost in the math and phrasing there a bit.
The red line and green line in picture 2 can be the same as that is the point has limit3d movement meaning the rest of the base should take a les direct path to maximise efficiency of movement.
Hece why the redline isn't real it's your assumption of what you should measure.
The true limit is them being equal and what does that allow you to do with the rest of the base. It can be 12 without the rest of the base moving in excess of 12 inches.
So you are saying the green line in picture 2 is longer then any red line in picture 3?
The red lines in picture 3 would then be innacurate in the drawing. At some point there would be a knight base 45¤ degree placed halfway on the green line. And all the red lines would have to transit it. And the green line in picture 2 would be longer then any of those red lines? MS paint is not up for the task I am afraid. I would need some form of graphing paper. I am way out of my league.
And I can not tell if your math that the green line is the longest one is right or not.
Niiai wrote: So you are saying the green line in picture 2 is longer then any red line in picture 3?
The red lines in picture 3 would then be innacurate in the drawing. At some point there would be a knight base 45¤ degree placed halfway on the green line. And all the red lines would have to transit it. And the green line in picture 2 would be longer then any of those red lines? MS paint is not up for the task I am afraid. I would need some form of graphing paper. I am way out of my league.
And I can not tell if your math that the green line is the longest one is right or not.
The only way to actually prove it unequivocally is with a level of mathematical modelling that's would require a computational programme to show the path of the points.
The math was to show that is the green line is 12 the displacement is sufficiently shorter that the amount of path deviation required for the other edges to exceed 12 inches was significantly more than is reasonable to expect.
Unfortunately I leave my engineering paper etc at work so I don't end up drawing things like this out long hand.
But would you not need to calculate using the radius of some of the other points since they are pivoting around the point that is the shortest line? Or are they so far away that it becomes insuficient to alter the outcome?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/27 19:36:50
The true limit is them being equal and what does that allow you to do with the rest of the base. It can be 12 without the rest of the base moving in excess of 12 inches.
Ice_Can seems to know geometry better than the rest of us.
This seems to be a legal move and no point of the base moves more than 12" in any fashion, assuming it's moved as efficiently as possible.
Niiai wrote: But would you not need to calculate using the radius of some of the other points since they are pivoting around the point that is the shortest line? Or are they so far away that it becomes insuficient?
The middle of the base would need to move and additional 3.5(rounded down for safety) inches to move over 12 inches
The end of the base closest to the direction your turning towards would need to go 6 inches further to reach 12 inches of movement. Admittedly if you turn multiple times in a single move it just becomes mathematically impracticable to calculate, your into needing a computational model to do that sort of maths.
Because it sounds like you are describing the green line in picture 3 witch is cheating under the rules as written.
Why would measuring on that line be cheating? as long as that was the furthest distance any part of the model ended up, that is exactly how the rules tell you to measure.
Wheras the curved line in picture 4 is not cheating. Cheating might be a wrong word as it implies intent, but you unknowingly do not follow the rules is a better phrasing.There is nothing in the rules about measuring on a curve or arc.
Niiai wrote: I do not think the rule is open for intepretation in the way you describe. Here is the rule from the PDF, unless there has been an FAQ I do not se.
Spoiler:
'A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery. '
The important part is no part of the model's base can move further then this. Note that this does not use the wording you sugested[sic] that was 'All they say is to measure how far the furthest point moved.'. Instead the rule says 'No part of the models base can move further then this.' This would include the whole base.
Of course it includes the whole base, but the rest of the base does not matter if the furthest point of the model moved less than the "Move characteristic on its datasheet" Because if the furthest furthest point of the model did not exceed that distance, then the rest of the base could not have exceeded that distance.
So while the rules do not directly say "measure how far the furthest point moved." that is all that actually matters as the rest of the base would be less than this distance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/27 22:01:11
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Niiai wrote: Actually the rule is very precise. People just are bad at measuring. And the rule is also very bad from a practicle standpoint. The part of the rule that is clear is that no part of the model can move longer then it's movement caracteristic.
'The convention is to pick up the model and place it in its final position, measuring the longest distance travelled by a point on its base.' Do you mean measure:
- The green line in picture 3.
- The green or red line in picture 4.
Because it sounds like you are describing the green line in picture 3 witch is cheating under the rules as written. Wheras the curved line in picture 4 is not cheating. Cheating might be a wrong word as it implies intent, but you unknowingly do not follow the rules is a better phrasing.
Thing is though you shouldn't really be measuring the green line but instead the orange line start point to orange point end point that is longer moving part than the green line.
Measuring start point and end point from the point that moves longest location is the way to go. Of course technically speaking arching distance would be more accurate but short of custom made templates to measure it the accuracy this way is about same anyway considering measurement errors in arc.
Before I move my bikes, I identify the units that may potentially come into interaction.
I then take a note of how far they are from my bikes and when I move I make sure I didn't get any closer than the 14"/20" my movements allow.
If I had pivoted to gain an extra inch that I needed, then I would have violated my movement as allowed.
My opponent agrees, we move on.
Adding on, I would generally disallow a knight crab walking at me to gain that extra inch. Treat it like how you would with vehicle movement - pivot first then move.
No need to over complicate something so simple to try and gain advantage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/01 18:55:13
skchsan wrote: Treat it like how you would with vehicle movement - pivot first then move.
That isn't how vehicle movement works any more, you cannot move any part of a non-based models hull further than it's maximum movement. You can't pivot a Land Raider for extra movement like in previous editions.
skchsan wrote: Treat it like how you would with vehicle movement - pivot first then move.
That isn't how vehicle movement works any more, you cannot move any part of a non-based models hull further than it's maximum movement. You can't pivot a Land Raider for extra movement like in previous editions.
Yes that was explained quite poorly. The point was that using pivot to gain extra movement is disallowed.
skchsan wrote: Treat it like how you would with vehicle movement - pivot first then move.
That isn't how vehicle movement works any more, you cannot move any part of a non-based models hull further than it's maximum movement. You can't pivot a Land Raider for extra movement like in previous editions.
Yes that was explained quite poorly. The point was that using pivot to gain extra movement is disallowed.
There is no requirement for a vehicle to move ‘forwards’ unless it’s rules state so. A Knight can absolutely ‘crab walk’ as you put it entirely legally.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
