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.

Had a Game against a harlequin player.
He was Setting Up so all his Transports Had their side turned to me.
When his turn began he turned them so they faced me, then moving them 6 inches.
He gained approximately 2-3 Inches by the pivot.
Then he disembarked the harlis 6 inches and then declared charge on my units.
8-9 inch movement + 6 inch disembark + Fleet Units Rerolling led to the Situation that he charged 3 units in turn one.
I couldnt find a Rule disallowing this but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

I won't be able to cite any specific page or anything, but I know that this is not allowed at all.
People used to do it with DE Raiders.

Here is a ymdc thread on the subject

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/648682.page#7836116


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aha here it is

Page 73

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 then wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase count as stationary (however immobilised vehicles can't even pivot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.


page 72

As vehicles do not have bases, the normal rule of measuring to and 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.

The centre of the vehicle is only the reference point to use when turning the vehicle in a pivot. For distance traveled you use the hull.

So, its allowed?

I think this is one of those sad things that'll never be FAQ'd.

Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Its gamey but its not a very good tactic because it is really easy to counter. All you have to do is deploy a few inches off the edge of the deployment zone and it doesn't work.

As a BA player:
Man I wish people jumped all the way across the board to me on turn 1!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally. (Barring a special rule from a formation a-la the Skyhammer Annihilation shenanigans).

The turning/pivot move to get an extra 2 to 3" of movement turn 1 is a long standing 'tactic' that sadly is permissible. It makes me raise an eyebrow when I see it but it's the little bunny foo foo of crap I've seen and had pulled on me in tournaments. I don't do it personally, but I don't besmirch those who do it either as it is technically allowed as far as my interpretation of the rules goes.

Just my opinion. He cheated when he assaulted turn 1, be it intentionally or not knowing any better, I can't say.

Hope that helps. Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

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.

this pivot trick worked in 6th, but is not allowed in 7th.

Oooh, good catch.

Yes that pivot tactic was valid in 6th, but the rule changes for 7th means it's illegal now. Pivoting only doesn't count as movement if that's all your model does. So in your example under the current rules, if the transports were 8-9" forwards of their starting position after a pivot & move, then they have moved 8-9".

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yes that pivot tactic was valid in 6th, but the rule changes for 7th means it's illegal now. Pivoting only doesn't count as movement if that's all your model does. So in your example under the current rules, if the transports were 8-9" forwards of their starting position after a pivot & move, then they have moved 8-9".

That's what I thought.
I remember something about a certain part of the hull can't exceed the maximum distance in the movement phase.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally.

As requested, I'm correcting you: There is no rule that says you can't assault turn 1. It's often extremely difficult on the first player turn, but manageable under certain circumstances (i.e. Warlord trait that adds 1" to charge moves).
There are explicit exceptions in certain rules, such as arriving from reserves, scout redeployments, infiltrate, etc.

It can be quite easy if the opponent has moved closer to you, either as the person going second, or as the person going first if the enemy have infiltrated or scouted right next to you.

Harlie vehicles all have bases, so the vehicle comment might not be relevant. As long as the base of the vehicle only moves the allowed 6" (or 12" for fast), it should be fine.

Only Scouting models cannot assault on the turn they scout, which may refer to others, too. Most others can.

 winterwind85 wrote:
Had a Game against a harlequin player.
He was Setting Up so all his Transports Had their side turned to me.
When his turn began he turned them so they faced me, then moving them 6 inches.
He gained approximately 2-3 Inches by the pivot.
Then he disembarked the harlis 6 inches and then declared charge on my units.
8-9 inch movement + 6 inch disembark + Fleet Units Rerolling led to the Situation that he charged 3 units in turn one.
I couldnt find a Rule disallowing this but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

It's been around a while and there's no rule to prevent it. It's cheesy and I wouldn't do it. I'd roll my eyes at you if you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
movement phase section
1.

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
2.

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.

this pivot trick worked in 6th, but is not allowed in 7th.

This doesn't prevent it.

1. Vehicles don't have bases.

2. Even if I don't rotate the vehicle at the beginning of the movement, if I move the vehicle forward and rotate then rotate it 90 degrees, the corner is still going to be more than 6" from the starting point, and this is done with much regularity by IG players looking to get a good shot with their tanks.

Lol, yes it's allowed, and I see a LOT of people doing it at my shop. Just don't deploy on your 12inch line against a chargy army.

The rule is pretty clear even if it uses the word base. A vehicle can not move more than 6" from its starting point. Although in this case the harley vehicle does have a supplied base. All measurement is done from there and since its a round base pivoting it makes no difference. If its a vehicle without a base then distance is measured from the hull at the start of the movement phase, before pivoting.

Your opponent and anyone else who uses this tactic in 7th is clearly cheating and if the player doesn't stop doing it once you catch him then he should be reported to the TO.

You can 'pivot' and gain a few inches to shoot all your weapons but really that's the only thing you can do.

Wouldn't really matter for DE/Harlequins because their vehicles are fast. I think the only thing this pvot would apply for is the Ravager.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Quoting myself from the "Your experiences with "that guy" post;

 Yarium wrote:
Yup, the #1 way to have an enjoyable game is to communicate! If your intention is to "surprise people" with your list, or to take advantage of a largely unknown rule, then that might be where you're encountering problems.

It definitely is a TFG move to find ways to surprise opponents. In a tournament setting this is fine - you're out to win, and you need to use every advantage to do so. But in casual games, surprising your opponent with unknown rules and sneaky tactics is not a winning combination for enjoyable play. You might get a small thrill because you tricked your opponent, but that's a real jerk thing to do. Let's pretend this was money, and you knew a way to trick your friends by making them think that they just got $1.50 for the cost of a buck, when really they lost $0.50 and you made the $1.50 instead. That would be called a scam. Now, it's not your fault that your friends didn't know that you were pulling a trick on them, but I think they wouldn't be your friends for long if you did this. You are setting up a situation where someone loses not because they made a mistake, but rather because their expectations did not match reality, and you did not clarify it for them. Same thing for wargaming. If I put down a Solitaire and my opponent asks what a Solitaire is, then I respond with "he's an infantry model with S3, T3, no ranged weapon, and two close combat weapons", then I may have answered truthfully, but purposefully obscured the information. I left out that he has a 12" move, that his invulnerable save is 3++, that he has Eternal Warrior, and that his attacks, weapon skill, and initiative are off the charts. When I tell people "he's a lightning fast Ninja who can potentially defeat an Imperial Knight in close combat if I've whittled it down a bit first.", then that's a much more helpful description, even if I never said exactly what he does I have clearly communicated his threat level.

I just faced off against Admech for the first time this weekend past, and my opponent clarified for me that his Cognis Flamers always score a 3 for overwatch. Since I was playing my Nids (and a swarm list at that), this was really great of him to do. We had a blast of a game because, despite him playing an army I had ZERO experience playing with or against, we had an absolute blast because we both clearly communicated!

EDIT: By contrast, I had another game with a friend playing Necrons who brought the Deceiver Shard. After he deployed first and I deployed second, where I was saying "I want to make sure my guy is out of line of sight of this thing", he declared "but it was all an illusion!". I didn't realize this was a rule the Deceiver had, but he proceeded to roll the minimum number for re-deploying his units. This was a bit of a downer, and thankfully the rest of the game was on the up and up, but it greatly affected my starting demeanour.

I let a friend borrow my rule book to read up on rules while he learns the game but I am pretty sure there is a rule in there somewhere that says no part of a vehicle may be farther than the vehicles maximum movement from where it began at the start of the turn. I will see if I can get my book back to find it. I was pretty sure they fixed that pivoting gak in 7th.

So a guy using an absolute rock bottom tier army took advantage of a stupid enemy deployment to gain an advantage and his opponent complains about the completely legal maneuver passive aggressively on the internet later?

Yep, sounds like classic TFG behavior right there.

Except in current rules it is not legal as has been said several times this thread. Measured from the start of the movement phase is the key here. Pivoting doesn't cost movement, but you still cannot move any part of the hull farther than your max move from the start point.

It doesn't sound like his list was made to surprise people. It sounds like it was a Harlequin list (you're basically required to have 3 of those transports full of dedicated assault troops-there's very little wiggle room. He sees his opponent deploy like a doofus, and takes advantage of it by going for the turn 1 assault. The legality of the "pivot trick" aside, at most he gained 1" from pivoting a Skyweaver. Those things aren't raiders where you can get like 4" from the base, they're venom-sized.


The standard Harlequin opening move if going first is deploying on the line, then trying to turbo-boost out to behind a piece of terrain to dictate where your opponent must go to attack you. But if your opponent makes a mistake, capitalizing on it isn't a crime. Just last game I explained to my opponent that each of my bikes had a 24" range small blast haywire weapon. He deployed his Superheavy vehicle dead center of the board out of cover anyway. Am I TFG for destroying it turn 1?

the_scotsman wrote:
So a guy using an absolute rock bottom tier army took advantage of a stupid enemy deployment to gain an advantage and his opponent complains about the completely legal maneuver passive aggressively on the internet later?

Yep, sounds like classic TFG behavior right there.

If I pivot and gain 3 inch, then move 6 inch forward, how did the front of my vehicle remain within 6" of where it was at the start of its movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
It doesn't sound like his list was made to surprise people. It sounds like it was a Harlequin list (you're basically required to have 3 of those transports full of dedicated assault troops-there's very little wiggle room. He sees his opponent deploy like a doofus, and takes advantage of it by going for the turn 1 assault. The legality of the "pivot trick" aside, at most he gained 1" from pivoting a Skyweaver. Those things aren't raiders where you can get like 4" from the base, they're venom-sized.


The standard Harlequin opening move if going first is deploying on the line, then trying to turbo-boost out to behind a piece of terrain to dictate where your opponent must go to attack you. But if your opponent makes a mistake, capitalizing on it isn't a crime. Just last game I explained to my opponent that each of my bikes had a 24" range small blast haywire weapon. He deployed his Superheavy vehicle dead center of the board out of cover anyway. Am I TFG for destroying it turn 1?

So you're saying: "It's ok to cheat as long as it's not game-breaking" (which it clearly was here since he got a turn 1 charge)

Also, no one said they were skyweavers. He clearly said he gained 3 inch by doing this so it might have very well been DE raiders that had been allied in.

 Quanar wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but turn 1 there are no charges allowed, just as there is no charge out of outflank,or deep strike normally.

As requested, I'm correcting you: There is no rule that says you can't assault turn 1. It's often extremely difficult on the first player turn, but manageable under certain circumstances (i.e. Warlord trait that adds 1" to charge moves).
There are explicit exceptions in certain rules, such as arriving from reserves, scout redeployments, infiltrate, etc.

It can be quite easy if the opponent has moved closer to you, either as the person going second, or as the person going first if the enemy have infiltrated or scouted right next to you.

I found where my rules hiccup happened. There's no charging on turn 1 for a unit that also used scout movement in that turn. Forgive my cranial flatulence. I was at work when I posted that and didn't have my rulebook with me or a way to check the rulebook online. Thanks for the correction Quanar.

This looks like a case of learning how to not deploy versus a fast army. Though as has been stated above in the thread, this kind of 'trick' to gain a few extra inches of movement by pivoting before movement looks to have been addressed with the 7th edition rules clarifications on any part of the model/base being further than the stated movement profile for that model.

I'll be sure to use this in the future, should someone try to pull this 'trick' in the future.

Take it easy everyone.

-Red__Thirst-

There is that, plus he cheated very explicitly to do it in the first place. The pivot thing was legal in 6th, they changed the wording in the rules to make it illegal in 7th

"The centre of the vehicle is only the reference point to use when turning the vehicle in a pivot. For distance traveled you use the hull."

 Yarium wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Its debatable, I'm slightly leaning towards the camp that it is allowed. Way to counter it - don't set up right on your deployment line. It's not really a TFG move imo to find ways to surprise opponents. People who were unused to facing Flamestorm Baals in the last BA dex often got surprised by the 12" scout, 12" move then the st6 ap3 template right over the unit they felt safe on T1 for example. The circumstance you bring up is more grey though due to the controversial 'rule' or lack thereof that allows/disallows this.

Quoting myself from the "Your experiences with "that guy" post;

 Yarium wrote:
Yup, the #1 way to have an enjoyable game is to communicate! If your intention is to "surprise people" with your list, or to take advantage of a largely unknown rule, then that might be where you're encountering problems.

It definitely is a TFG move to find ways to surprise opponents. In a tournament setting this is fine - you're out to win, and you need to use every advantage to do so. But in casual games, surprising your opponent with unknown rules and sneaky tactics is not a winning combination for enjoyable play. You might get a small thrill because you tricked your opponent, but that's a real jerk thing to do. Let's pretend this was money, and you knew a way to trick your friends by making them think that they just got $1.50 for the cost of a buck, when really they lost $0.50 and you made the $1.50 instead. That would be called a scam. Now, it's not your fault that your friends didn't know that you were pulling a trick on them, but I think they wouldn't be your friends for long if you did this. You are setting up a situation where someone loses not because they made a mistake, but rather because their expectations did not match reality, and you did not clarify it for them. Same thing for wargaming. If I put down a Solitaire and my opponent asks what a Solitaire is, then I respond with "he's an infantry model with S3, T3, no ranged weapon, and two close combat weapons", then I may have answered truthfully, but purposefully obscured the information. I left out that he has a 12" move, that his invulnerable save is 3++, that he has Eternal Warrior, and that his attacks, weapon skill, and initiative are off the charts. When I tell people "he's a lightning fast Ninja who can potentially defeat an Imperial Knight in close combat if I've whittled it down a bit first.", then that's a much more helpful description, even if I never said exactly what he does I have clearly communicated his threat level.

I just faced off against Admech for the first time this weekend past, and my opponent clarified for me that his Cognis Flamers always score a 3 for overwatch. Since I was playing my Nids (and a swarm list at that), this was really great of him to do. We had a blast of a game because, despite him playing an army I had ZERO experience playing with or against, we had an absolute blast because we both clearly communicated!

EDIT: By contrast, I had another game with a friend playing Necrons who brought the Deceiver Shard. After he deployed first and I deployed second, where I was saying "I want to make sure my guy is out of line of sight of this thing", he declared "but it was all an illusion!". I didn't realize this was a rule the Deceiver had, but he proceeded to roll the minimum number for re-deploying his units. This was a bit of a downer, and thankfully the rest of the game was on the up and up, but it greatly affected my starting demeanour.

I don't totally agree. By that logic anybody who runs a Harle army, IKs aside from Paladins or Errants, FW lists or units that are not in IA:2, IA:13 or IA:Vraks, against me automatically becomes TFG because I am completely unfamiliar with the rules.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this game is encountering new rules and combos that you weren't expecting and reacting accordingly imo. It is what would happen on an actual battlefield. If an opponent can't deal emotionally with rules/combo surprises then they are certainly in the wrong game unless they are a millionaire with enough time on their hands to read and consider every dex, imperial armour book, supplement, data sheet, formation etc.
Don't hide anything from the opponent if they ask, that is certainly a douche move, if somebody asks what a Solitaire is, you show them the rules for it and allow them to make their own judgements (maybe pointining certain things out if you wish) also clarify certain subtle rules (like the cognis flamer example you made) before they come up, but if an opponent wants to deploy on their deployment line against an army known for its fast scouting tanks and they happen to have massive flamer turrets on top (my example), then that's a mistake they need to recover from.
People are definitely TFG if you ask for rules/model/unit clarifications and they are deliberatly vague and miss things out. Personally I would ask before a game to have a good read of their dex if im not familiar.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I don't totally agree. By that logic anybody who runs a Harle army, IKs aside from Paladins or Errants, FW lists or units that are not in IA:2, IA:13 or IA:Vraks, against me automatically becomes TFG because I am completely unfamiliar with the rules.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this game is encountering new rules and combos that you weren't expecting and reacting accordingly imo. It is what would happen on an actual battlefield. If an opponent can't deal emotionally with rules/combo surprises then they are certainly in the wrong game unless they are a millionaire with enough time on their hands to read and consider every dex, imperial armour book, supplement, data sheet, formation etc.
Don't hide anything from the opponent if they ask, that is certainly a douche move, if somebody asks what a Solitaire is, you show them the rules for it and allow them to make their own judgements (maybe pointining certain things out if you wish) also clarify certain subtle rules (like the cognis flamer example you made) before they come up, but if an opponent wants to deploy on their deployment line against an army known for its fast scouting tanks and they happen to have massive flamer turrets on top (my example), then that's a mistake they need to recover from.

I think you got the idea. It's about not hiding things, about not purposefully obfuscating them so you can do a "Gotcha!" moment. It's up to both players to communicate is my point. I play a Harlequin army, and I know most of my opponents haven't encountered them before. I make it a point to educate my opponents at least briefly as to what each unit does before the game. When I go against something new, I make sure to ask my opponents what everything does as well. I'm in a good spot, since I'm a veteran of the game and pay attention to what's coming out, so I'm generally pretty well informed, but I know that many others are not so well informed.

Playing something new or unique is not TFG. Playing something new or unique and specifically avoiding informing your opponents what your capabilities are in order to grab an easy win against an unexpecting opponent, is being TFG.

Yeah, doesn't seem that TFG. I would chalk it up as a learning experience and deploy differently next game. I've gotten turn 1 charges before plenty of times,and every time it was because my opponent deployed/moved in a way that allowed me to do it. Nobody likes being charged turn one but they recognize that they left the unit in a vulnerable position.