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.

Movement during Tank Shock could help get perspective on RAI:

To perform a Tank Shock, first, turn the vehicle on the spot to face the direction you intend to move it and, after pre-measuring, declare how many inches the vehicle is going to move, up to its maximum speed. The vehicle must move at least Combat Speed. Note that, because pivoting on the spot does not count as moving, this is not enough for a Tank Shock.

This describes a vehicle pivoting and then declaring movement up to its maximum speed. The example picture of Tank Shock in the BRB shows the "aimed" Tank Shocking vehicle measuring from the front of its hull. Further, in this mention of pivoting it simply says pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. The term "alone" is omitted. I'd say this wording and example pictures from the Tank Shock section does supports the RAI to be vehicle movement measured omitting pivoting.

I'd like to see this stupid interpretation applied with big flyers doing their pivots. Not to mention the first time somebody has to turn more than once or twice.

Remember that any and all of the vehicle movement rules are ADVANCED rules. They trump any basic movement rules. Even if pivoting wasn't free, you can legally move vehicles more than 6" because of their ADVANCED rules.
The advanced vehicle rules already allow you to ignore the 6" infantry base distance rule because they can move 12" and have these "speed" rules. That IS RAW. This is an advanced rule that trumps the basic rule. So what is left is a discussion about qualifying for Combat Speed and the effects of pivot on Cruising speed.

If hull facing direction of movement means nothing, you could drive all around an obstacle in 12" and if your final position is within 6" claim combat speed. Pivoting is a change in direction and movement in any direction is measured from a hull/base point closest to the direction you're moving. If pivoting plus 6" makes that combat speed into cruising speed, because a part of the hull is more than 6" from starting points, then moving 12" to a position 6" or less than starting hull positions could be ruled as combat speed? (If you want to make vehicle speed based on final destination distance you're opening up new exploits.)


Now let's also look at the line in question. (It's semantics yes but so is this whole thread.)

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

If this rule was just to allow stationary pivoting without other movement the non-bolded part of the sentence wouldn't be there.

edit- A word
And here is a RAW from the same page you've been quoting:

A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

There you go. RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. Pack it up and go home. Nobody wants to make 20 measurements every time a LR needs to swerve around some terrain anyway. It's silly.

Also, if you apply a bit of common sense you'd see that the "Only" was added to stop the RAW being that vehicles that pivot at the end of their move would now count as stationary.
so a vehicle that pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary would, RAW, be very abusable. If you're a slave to the RAW.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:


I think this is what a vehicles maximum movement looks like.

No part of the vehicle can end outside the line which is 6" away from each part of the hull if you want to remain at combat speed.

You do realize this is an entirely different way of measuring distance moved? Your method would allow that vehicle to run a slalom course of turns and movement ending inside your perimeter and it would only count as Combat Speed? That is the reason why GW has always used pivot and measure movement. It can actually be used in gameplay. Also, again, you're trying to apply that Basic infantry maximum base distance rules of a 6" move when vehicles can move at least 12". We are actually SPECIFICALLY talking about the Combat Speed and Cruising speed advanced rule. Any debate should start there and if the maximum base distance rule applies to it and a vehicle hull. Also, in case you missed it last time:

• A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

That is a very specific statement in the vehicle movement section and it doesn't say only.

So even if we agreed that no part of the vehicle can end its movement more than 12" from where that part of the hull started movement, (which is stupid and annoying measuring of multiple points if a vehicle is long and makes turns). Still, that particular rule has no effect on the advanced rule of Combat Speed but only on maximum distance a model's base/hull may be from its starting point at the end of movement. If you're trying to turn endpoint position into movement then the game no longer measures turns. You could zigzag all around and end up 6" away and say the move is legal.

Now if you want to get into RAW lets see these points:

Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base.

and

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model

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 the Movement phase.

So if you took a Landraider and measured from its side 6", moved it sideways then pivoted at the end there is no requirement to remeasure. No RAW rule about base/hull distances is violated since vehicles can move 12" and Combat Speed is still achieved. Or you could still deploy on the line, pivot, and then measure 6" since there is no rule for measuring points moving on a pivoting hull. The basic rule being cited has no effect on the Combat Speed advanced rule. And instead you are trying to use it as some precedent to measure any and all shifting movements of pivoting hulls. Which it does not cover.

The distance between the Ork Trukk and the furthest point on the most distant Space Marine is 8 inches. The Space Marine unit is therefore wholly within 8" of the Ork Trukk.

Finally, you can see here that GW does have language to cover the kind of all encompassing distance you wish this rule meant. That language is never used. Which would be: A vehicle must end its move wholly within it's maximum movement distance. Or some similar easily added rule.

Because you can choose to change your facing at any time. It is not measured. The correct way to measure distance is to measure from the point closest on the base/hull to the direction moved and then move. What game mechanic do we have for measuring pivoting? That is why pivoting was free. There is no easy way to measure the damn thing. And there still isn't a rule for doing so. Imagine making a 12" move with a vehicle with 6 direction changes. How do you measure forward distance? By measuring from the point of the hull closest to the new direction each time. How do you measure the movement of hull during pivots? Oh yeah, there is no rule for something like that at all.

And the correct method for measuring movement distance is shown in the example picture. You measure from a point of the base closest to the direction the model is moving to. This is an earlier written rule on measuring distance since pivot haters want to ignore how movement is measured

You are saying measuring to your endpoint? Because then I don't think you know how moving in this game works. No, its fine, I'll drive 24" around a wall to get to the other side and say it''s only been 5" from my starting point. Is that your argument?

Kambien I'm not going to get into an Ad Hominem argument with you. I was pointing out an extreme flaw with measuring based on your "planned" destination.

Gravmyr your proposed interpretation of the cost of pivoting is less than what others have said in this thread.There are some who feel if you pivot in place 180 degrees then move an inch you must measure (for instance) the starting position of the rear hatch of the vehicle before move begins, and then after movement is complete.

But here is one the problem with your more moderate measure-pivot-measure approach you describe. Your movement around obstacles is going to be better without pivoting and just sliding sideways. Which most of us will agree will seem stupid.

For example I need to drive my Land Raider around a single enemy model in front of it. If measure one inch to the left and then pivot, I've already now moved more than an inch but I still cannot clear the obstacle. The best solution becomes sideways movement. To move one inch left and one inch up will cost the Landraider two extra inches of movement this way. while slideways sliding become the logical choice.

Anyway, measure then pivot still doesn't actually measure rotational movement. At the risk of being attacked for pointing out how this isn't even part of the current measuring mechanic in the game (measure from point on base/hull closest to direction model is moving or measuring to), I will give a simple example.



The measure then pivot method does not account for pivoting at the end (which is very common and necessary). Nor does a system of measuring final distance moved, cover the basic rules of measuring each move in each direction around the rocks. To satisfy this new proposed interpretation of the rules, all points of the vehicle must be mapped and marked. Then measurements made in the direction moved followed by pivots. Then after moving all points would have to be compared to the original starting points to see how far any "part of the hull" had moved. Then this would be done again after final facing is determined. A simplified ruling would only see the farthest points of the hull measured from the marked closest starting points of the hull.

Meanwhile the other model moves 6", turns and shoots. Nobody is saying points of his base must be tracked after pivoting. In fact no actual rules exist for measuring pivot movement. It is a fabrication of the OP and those who care about vehicles gaining an inch of movement when deployed sideways (something I have never done BTW). The standard method of measurement as laid out is to measure from the closest point on the base/hull, then move. Pivots or changing of facing may be taken as often as wished and at any time during movement. No rule for pivot measurement exists.

This whole discussion hinges on a description of free pivoting if the vehicle does not otherwise move. The premise is that permission is not expressly given to ignore pivoting as part of the measurement of movement. However the rules of measuring movement are clear and give no tool or method for measuring pivoting. Creating some elaborate system to measure it is silly and complicated. And never touched upon in any way in the rules or examples associated. I ask that someone show me rules for measuring end of move pivoting. And please don't quote the basic explanation of moving infantry no more than 6" that is intended to stop cheaters from measuring from the front of the base then placing the back of the base at the 6" line. Pivoting actually has no practical use for infantry anyway, why would they care if it rotaes the back of it's base around at the end of 6" movement? And don't tell me it was a vehicle rule they hid in the beginning of the book disguised as the basics of infantry movement. It's not a treasure hunt.

There is no rule for measuring turns or pivoting in the game. Models on bases are not subject to it. They just don't want you measuring from the front then placing the back of the model past that line and claiming "part of the base is with 6"". If you feel the wording of the pivoting rules in the vehicle section doesn't expressly permit free pivoting, it doesn't mean you now invent a rule for the measurement of pivoting.

There is no rule for measuring the movement of flyers when they leave the table. You could argue that zooming flyers that leave the board after traveling less than 18" are wrecked because no rules are given for measuring distances off the board. You also don't invent a method for tracking flyer movement after it leaves the board. You don't invent new rules to cover gaps in the rules. You use other precedent or default to simplest. I do not have to draw some movement bubble before I move a vehicle, then measure as it moves and compare the two. Pick a direction. Measure from a point closest to that direction. Changing facing or pivoting can be done at any time. No rule exists for tracking pivoting.

Nem you're wrong here:

where you started and where you end are important to determine the distance you can and have moved (In fact these are the ONLY RULES on distance moved, and measuring distance)

If this was the case you could move all around obstacles, enemies and impassable terrain and only be accountable to the final closest distance to your starting point. That is not how movement or the measurement of distances are done in this game. Otherwise you have put up good arguments I just feel there isn't enough of a case to invent new measurement systems and accountability based on whether "Pivoting on the spot alone" is the same as the rest of the line " so a vehicle that only pivots". I think it still implies pivoting doesn't count towards movement which is consistent with how all other models with bases work. Also such a change required addition rules and examples which are noticeably absent.

The basics of measurement in this game are consistent. Look at the rules on measuring distances in the General Principles section. Look at the example of moving a model in the Movement section. Please report back with any bubble of movements, base point factoring or advanced double tape measure systems for tracking starting hull point ranges while simultaneously measuring forward movements/direction changes.