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.

Hi,
I was looking through the brb to see if the old trick of gaining a couple of inches of movement by deploying sideways and then rotating in the movement phase could also be used on bike models.

I came across a line under the movement distance heading in the movement chapter that says that no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6" away from its starting position. This makes the case pretty clear regarding bikes, but also seems to massively nerf the movement of vehicles. The larger and longer the vehicle, the worse it is.

Also, when moving bikes into cc, and say for example you want to move a charging bike around the target unit to engage models at the rear, you need to measure from the front of the model at 6 o'clock to the rear of the model at 12 o'clock after it has moved around to the back of the target unit and rotated 180 degrees. Does that make sense?

This could make a big difference to the number of models you are able to engage in borderline cases and therefore your HoW attacks.

Anyone got any thoughts about this?

There was a quite long threat on this topic a while ago. The basic logic was no part of the base may... combined with instead of base use the hull for vehicles. RAW this may be correct and does away with some crazy moves like power sliding rhinos and ghost arks, but it is indeed impractical for bigger models being required to forgo shooting or limit themselves to turning stationary only which brings up new issues.

HIWPI:

We ignore the "no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6" away from it's starting position". The reason being that if you pivot AT ALL then it makes it almost impossible to actually move a vehicle. While at the same time if you don't pivot then a rhino can still drift to the left or right... after all a vehicle is not forced to just go forwards or backwards. Point is that rule makes absolutely no sense and doesn't appear to actually do the thing it's designed to do anyway.

Honestly, they should errata that out and replace it with something along the lines of "models may pivot once during movement and must move either directly forward or backward."

 pocketcanoe wrote:
Hi,
I was looking through the brb to see if the old trick of gaining a couple of inches of movement by deploying sideways and then rotating in the movement phase could also be used on bike models.

It can not be used anymore, it is now illegal since "no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6" away from it's starting position"


(Though they could alter the rule so it is more clear, even though it might be a change to the rule, by rewriting it to say 'Choose a point on your model before you move it. No part of that model can finish its movement more than 6" away from where that point was before you moved the model.')

clively wrote:
HIWPI:

We ignore the "no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6" away from it's starting position". The reason being that if you pivot AT ALL then it makes it almost impossible to actually move a vehicle. While at the same time if you don't pivot then a rhino can still drift to the left or right... after all a vehicle is not forced to just go forwards or backwards. Point is that rule makes absolutely no sense and doesn't appear to actually do the thing it's designed to do anyway.

Honestly, they should errata that out and replace it with something along the lines of "models may pivot once during movement and must move either directly forward or backward."

How does pivoting prevent your movement?

 pocketcanoe wrote:

Also, when moving bikes into cc, and say for example you want to move a charging bike around the target unit to engage models at the rear, you need to measure from the front of the model at 6 o'clock to the rear of the model at 12 o'clock after it has moved around to the back of the target unit and rotated 180 degrees. Does that make sense?

There's nothing stopping a bike charging backwards right? so maximum loss would be a 90 degree rotation not 180?

wtnind wrote:

 pocketcanoe wrote:

Also, when moving bikes into cc, and say for example you want to move a charging bike around the target unit to engage models at the rear, you need to measure from the front of the model at 6 o'clock to the rear of the model at 12 o'clock after it has moved around to the back of the target unit and rotated 180 degrees. Does that make sense?

There's nothing stopping a bike charging backwards right? so maximum loss would be a 90 degree rotation not 180?

Bikes are not vehicles so pivoting does not apply.

Fragile wrote:
How does pivoting prevent your movement?

A rhino that starts its movement by pivoting 180 degrees has, by that interpretation, moved 4 inches before it even starts moving.

Fragile wrote:

wtnind wrote:

 pocketcanoe wrote:

Also, when moving bikes into cc, and say for example you want to move a charging bike around the target unit to engage models at the rear, you need to measure from the front of the model at 6 o'clock to the rear of the model at 12 o'clock after it has moved around to the back of the target unit and rotated 180 degrees. Does that make sense?

There's nothing stopping a bike charging backwards right? so maximum loss would be a 90 degree rotation not 180?

Bikes are not vehicles so pivoting does not apply.

I don't think you are understanding the OP, read it again carefully and focus on his quote:
"no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6"* away from its starting position" (I actually misinterpreted it too a little).

Here is what I think he means (see diagram):
3 bikes want to charge 3 regular marines. The marine at the back has a power fist so the player (green) wants his lord to be in base contact that model specifically. The minimum charge distance required is clearly A.

When it comes to determining how far is required for the lord to make base contact with the power fist however.

Conventional wisdom is that it is B, the distance the model has actually moved (including the distance around the interveining enemy model). But the OP has fixed upon the phrase quoted above. The furthest distance that a part of the bike has moved is C. Which range is used, B or C or is it the maximum of those two.

I would probably say it is the maximum of those two as the OP has seemed to realise**,

*for the purposes of this example, replace 6" with the charge range.
** in this case there is nothing stopping the lord from zooming up to his destination and spining around on the spot so he is charging in backwards (lol). Were he to do this then the distance traveled (B) would be the same but C (the furthest point any part of the model has travelled) would be reduced by just under the length of the bike (if you can deal with the horror of having your biker lord reversing into a fight).

A ghost ark could barely pivot the full 180.

wtnind wrote:


I don't think you are understanding the OP, read it again carefully and focus on his quote:
"no part of a model can finish its movement more than 6"* away from its starting position" (I actually misinterpreted it too a little).

Here is what I think he means (see diagram):
3 bikes want to charge 3 regular marines. The marine at the back has a power fist so the player (green) wants his lord to be in base contact that model specifically. The minimum charge distance required is clearly A.

When it comes to determining how far is required for the lord to make base contact with the power fist however.

Conventional wisdom is that it is B, the distance the model has actually moved (including the distance around the interveining enemy model). But the OP has fixed upon the phrase quoted above. The furthest distance that a part of the bike has moved is C. Which range is used, B or C or is it the maximum of those two.

I would probably say it is the maximum of those two as the OP has seemed to realise**,

*for the purposes of this example, replace 6" with the charge range.
** in this case there is nothing stopping the lord from zooming up to his destination and spining around on the spot so he is charging in backwards (lol). Were he to do this then the distance traveled (B) would be the same but C (the furthest point any part of the model has travelled) would be reduced by just under the length of the bike (if you can deal with the horror of having your biker lord reversing into a fight).

Yep, spot on. Although what I had in mind was more along the lines of B. The rule has clearly been written with a circular base in mind. The fairest way to treat bikes (if a dispute comes up) seems to be to allow them to move from an approximate central point on the base (rider's head, for example) and making sure that point ends up within the allowed distance including a free pivot. This way you can't be short-changed too much or exploit the pivot too much and the difference should be minimised.

That would have to be a house rule though, and I expect this issue would come up very rarely outside of a key moment in a tournament.

So in your Diagram, is the distance of B greater than C ?

Fragile wrote:
So in your Diagram, is the distance of B greater than C ?

For this example C should be considered longer than B (but mostly what matters is that they are different).

You have C and C**, is it possible to make them more clearly defined by changing C** into D?

wtnind wrote:

Fragile wrote:
So in your Diagram, is the distance of B greater than C ?

For this example C should be considered longer than B (but mostly what matters is that they are different).

C is legal if it is less than 6" and B is 6" or less.

JinxDragon wrote:
You have C and C**, is it possible to make them more clearly defined by changing C** into D?

C** is the same measurement type as C (the furthest distance any part of the model has been moved, relative to it's origin), it is just that in the third picture the bike has opted to charge in backwards. A, B and C are the different types of measurement while C** is simply a different way of moving the model.

Hence no D

I bring it up because the same letter next to two different lines can be a way to indicate the two lines are of an identical, but unknown, length.