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.

Is there any rule about what direction vehicles drive?

Example, my rhino drives into terain and is imobolised by a 1.  It must now stop at the edge of terain.  Can I simply say he was going backwords and deploy his rear with its acces hatch pointing to the woods?

Posted By cypher on 07/21/2006 12:37 PM

Is there any rule about what direction vehicles drive?

Only in reference to tank shock and machine spirit AFAIK.

But the situation you describe is a little bit wiggy. When you declared the movement, did you intend for the vehicle to begin moving in reverse? Probably not.

P.61 of the rulebook, under "Vehicle Movement" says;

"...Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move..."

So you could move 12" and then turn 180 degrees to face the opposite direction.

However, also on P.61, under "Dangerous Terrain Tests for Vehicles";

"...If the test is failed the vehicles halts immediately..."

If you changed your facing during the move that would be fine. Once you roll that '1' and fail the test, the vehicle should stop in whatever position/facing it was going. No further turns/pivots would be allowed.

I suspect your opponents would have something to say about a vehicle always moving backwards and pivoting at the end of its move.

Maybedriving backwards could be a new 'Trait'?

"Forever Present Thine *Donkey* To Thine Enemy, Followed By Manly Pirouettes"?

I suspect your opponents would have something to say about a vehicle always moving backwards and pivoting at the end of its move.

Why?

Because most people don't play by RAW and so they would, in my opinion, look askance at vehicles backing their way around the battlefield in order to avoid some of the side effects of difficult terrain.

Frankly I would myself.

Ah, I see.
Just wondering. I've seen people move thier vehicles around in all kinds of ways, especially skimmers, and since you have an unlimited amount of turning ablity it never occured to me to question tanks sliding around sideways and the like.
I always move them around front ways but that's because the better armour is usualy on the front and I want to present that to the enemy.

Because most people don't play by RAW and so they would, in my opinion, look askance at vehicles backing their way around the battlefield in order to avoid some of the side effects of difficult terrain.

Frankly I would myself.

Well, glance askance all you like, but there's nothing in the rules that says they can't, or requires that vehicles move "front-forward". Just because it looks like a tank, it doesn't mean that it behaves like a real tank.

Well, glance askance all you like, but there's nothing in the rules that says they can't, or requires that vehicles move "front-forward". Just because it looks like a tank, it doesn't mean that it behaves like a real tank.

Do you really mean that?

Thats enough ambiguity for me. it shall be done. Just have to remember to say it is happening before I roll the dice.=)

There's no ambiguity, the rules clearly allow you to move the vehicle in any direction you like. Firstly because nothing requires you to move "forwards", secondly because you are allowed to make unlimited turns anyway (except Tank Shock and PoTMS.)

I predict two possible reactions from opponents:

1) Rules-lawyer!
or
2) That's a good idea, I'll do the same from now on!

Of course, if you reverse a tank toward me, and it DOES get stuck, then pretty much anything on the table with more than a lasrifle will be able to blow it up.

Of course. That's the trade-off for being sure you'll have your troops where you want them IF you don't flub a terrain roll. Also, it'll likely mean less chance for any passengers to effectively hide if forced to disembark.

Of course, if you reverse a tank toward me, and it DOES get stuck, then pretty much anything on the table with more than a lasrifle will be able to blow it up.

Only if you are in the terrain it gets stuck in. Otherwise it is on the far side and its rear is forever protected by one tree.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 07/24/2006 4:16 PM
There's no ambiguity, the rules clearly allow you to move the vehicle in any direction you like. Firstly because nothing requires you to move "forwards", secondly because you are allowed to make unlimited turns anyway (except Tank Shock and PoTMS.)

I predict two possible reactions from opponents:

1) Rules-lawyer!
or
2) That's a good idea, I'll do the same from now on!

I can think of another few comments/reactions including.

3) "Play within the spirit of the game not the letter you endless toad".

4) "Do that again and the emperors lump hammer is coming to dinner".

5) "In that case it doesn't say anywhere in the book that I cant balance my tanks on thier side showing their AV 28 special bottom armour to your puny las cannons".

One of the guys has it as his signature I hope he doesn't mind me nicking it.  PLAY THE GAME NOT THE RULES.

The game IS the rules... unless there's some other guide you'd like to provide us poor benighted souls access to?

And those comments bespeak of a poor sportsman, one who enjoys strawman arguments and who throws a tantrum if his idea of the "spirit" is violated. Don't be That F%&*ing Guy.

Posted By cypher on 07/24/2006 7:15 PM

Of course, if you reverse a tank toward me, and it DOES get stuck, then pretty much anything on the table with more than a lasrifle will be able to blow it up.

Only if you are in the terrain it gets stuck in. Otherwise it is on the far side and its rear is forever protected by one tree.

No, because it gets stuck in the terrain, not immediately before it. Therefore, if the terrain is less than 6" deep, people can shoot it.

Actually, I believe you have to stop moving the vehicle 'at the edge of the terrain', ie before entering it. So the one tree does protect the Rhiny Hiny.

Wrong both times,

The game is a lot more than the rule books.  Unless you play with cardboard counters on your kitchen table of course.  The game, for me personally, is the culmination of the thought which goes into the army list and the modeling and painting of the army.

And your second paragraph is complete garbage.  You want to reverse your armoured vehicles around the battlefield showing the enemy your unprotected rear just because the rules don't disallow it and I'm a poor sportsman?  I think not.

Aside from all that what is a strawman argument?

 

Posted By the cabbage on 07/26/2006 7:13 AM

Wrong both times,

The game is a lot more than the rule books.  Unless you play with cardboard counters on your kitchen table of course.  The game, for me personally, is the culmination of the thought which goes into the army list and the modeling and painting of the army.

No, the hobby is a lot more than the rule books. The game itself is simply a set of rules, just as all games are, and the game itself is only a part of the hobby.

And your second paragraph is complete garbage. You want to reverse your armoured vehicles around the battlefield showing the enemy your unprotected rear just because the rules don't disallow it and I'm a poor sportsman? I think not.

As far as I'm concerned, its poor sportsmanship on both sides. If you disallow it, you are forcing a personal opinion on your opponent which is not backed by the rules. If you do it, you are doing it deliberatly in order to gain an advantage that seems ot be against the "real world mechanics" of what the game represents. However, in the end, it is allowed by the rules, and IMO people should not be punished for doing things that the rules allow. I wouldn't hit your soft scores for doing it, but I might call you an idiot.

Aside from all that what is a strawman argument?

From Wiki:
 

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it(see ?]). It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy ?] or a scarecrow argument.

I disagree,

A game for me is a couple of hours which involve the rules and the scenery and the miniatures. I realise the disconnect may be in the difference between "A" and "the" game.

I don't want to disallow or punish I just feel that my personal opinion of an individual performing these kind of tricks would suffer.

It's not just that easy though because if he pulled it in the last game of a GT and it made the difference between win and lose I might even be impressed.

It is essentially a personal thing but you cannot convince me that the use of loopholes like this reflect well on the individual.

This is not an ethics forum. There are much better forums for that.

If someone wants back their vehicles around while making Dangerous Terrain tests I'm all with it. It looks silly I agree but it isn't as big of an advantage as it looks.

Yea, if they happen to have a chimera they have a heavy bolter facing the wrong way. Same with Land raiders. Orks would be weird considering I think they might mean for the things to go backwards half the time...

Most Ork transports are open-topped so backing around the table would be pointless wrt disembarkation (unless it is a looted vehicle that isn't currently counting as open-topped).

On a related issue, since everything is supposed to be wysiwyg, how would this effect vehicles w/ dozerblades?.  I suppose if a vehicle w/ dozerblade failed its DT roll and its re-roll, then it would definitely be stuck w/ the dozerblade facing the terrain and no "after the fact" pivot would be possible iot get the extra disembarkation distance.  Any dissent on that?

Posted By Beast on 08/02/2006 5:21 PM

Most Ork transports are open-topped so backing around the table would be pointless wrt disembarkation (unless it is a looted vehicle that isn't currently counting as open-topped).

On a related issue, since everything is supposed to be wysiwyg, how would this effect vehicles w/ dozerblades?.  I suppose if a vehicle w/ dozerblade failed its DT roll and its re-roll, then it would definitely be stuck w/ the dozerblade facing the terrain and no "after the fact" pivot would be possible iot get the extra disembarkation distance.  Any dissent on that?

There is no rule that specifies a vehicle must move a certain direction in order to gain the benefits of a dozer blade. Again, you're trying to impose real world common sense to game rules. The two aren't necessarily (or often) the same thing.