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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

The vehicle movement rules are a mess.

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

Will you please read my quote from the rulebook before making statements like this. I am tired of repeating myself.

Let me ask you this.

Is a models base allowed to end outside of a vehicles maximum movement range? - Hint: No

Does a vehicle normally have a base? -Hint: No

Does a vehicles hull get treated in the same way as a base for the purposes of how it interacts with the game? -Hint: Yes

Is a vehicle a model? -Hint: yes

-------

Were as people who are arguing in favor of this rule are measuring how far a vehicle has moved from the center of the vehicle, I would like to point out that the rules do not permit this. Never in the movement entry does it specify anything but the hull of a vehicle for the distance traveled. The only time (and correct me with a page number f I am wrong) that the center point of the vehicle comes into play, is when it pivots.

When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point. The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

Will you please read my quote from the rulebook before making statements like this. I am tired of repeating myself.

Let me ask you this.

Is a models base allowed to end outside of a vehicles maximum movement range? - Hint: No

Does a vehicle normally have a base? -Hint: No

Does a vehicles hull get treated in the same way as a base for the purposes of how it interacts with the game? -Hint: Yes

Is a vehicle a model? -Hint: yes

-------

Were as people who are arguing in favor of this rule are measuring how far a vehicle has moved from the center of the vehicle, I would like to point out that the rules do not permit this. Never in the movement entry does it specify anything but the hull of a vehicle for the distance traveled. The only time (and correct me with a page number f I am wrong) that the center point of the vehicle comes into play, is when it pivots.

When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point. The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

No one is missing your point. Your point is just wrong. Pivoting is not movement and therefore the inches pivoting may add to movement does not count toward the total allowance allowed. Please see my post on page 3 regarding tank shocking to see yet another example of how pivoting to "gain movement" is allowed.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

Ironic statement, given you misread the bolded, underlined phrase above.

Your misreading of the rules does, and if you'd had the courtesy to read the thread you would know this, result in pivoting reducing movement. Which it CANNOT DO.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

I think of this like an RC tank: one stick for forward/back, one for turning, and an extra stipulation that you can only use one at a time. Only the forward/back control counts toward your movement distance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your first and second posts have already been covered in the other thread, which h you cannot be bothered to read.

To summarise: your misreading of the rule results in pivoting reducing movement. Which it cannot do.

Not once did i say it does reduce movement. Read more carefully.

Ironic statement, given you misread the bolded, underlined phrase above.

Your misreading of the rules does, and if you'd had the courtesy to read the thread you would know this, result in pivoting reducing movement. Which it CANNOT DO.

This is just confusing me... maybe change the sentense so that others beside yourself can understand the point you are trying to make?

DarknessEternal wrote:

insaniak wrote:The best you will ever get is half of the difference between the width and the length of the vehicle, by starting sideways, pivoting, and then moving directly forwards. (Or by Dash's trick of moving sideways and pivoting at the end, although that one will earn you some raised eyebrows, since while the rules don't specifically require it (other than for tank shocks and rams) there's a general assumption that vehicles are supposed to move in a generally forwards or backwards direction rather than drifting sideways.)

It's not an assumption. Pg 57, vehicles can only move forwards or backwards.

Nowhere on page 57 does it state that vehicles can only move forwards or backwards. It says that they can combine forwards and backwards movement, which is a different kettle of squig entirely.

I can combine apples and oranges. That doesn't mean that apples and oranges are all that I can put in my fruit salad, when other rules already allow me to use whatever fruit I like. If no specific movement direction is specified, then no specific movement direction is required. All the bit about combining forwards and backwards does is explain that you can reverse direction as you move.

Having said that, as I said earlier, it's generally assumed that vehicles do only move forwards. That's certainly how I play it, and how it's always been done where I have played.

Of course, this changes the end result in no way; you get the same result moving it sideways then pivoting it as you do pivoting first and then moving it forwards.

Indeed. The only real issue with the sideways movement comes where the vehicle would be blocked from pivoting by some obstruction.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:When moving a vehicle, as per the rules, you move from forward point to forward point.

Exactly right. But that forward point that you're measuring to has to be the same forward point that you started measuring from. And along the way, you pivot the vehicle without that factoring into your movement distance.

The model itself may not pass this maximum range. You do not involve the center of the vehicle under any way of logic unless you chose to because you believe "it doesn't matter". When in fact it does. The hull is the only point that the rulebook allows... not the center of the vehicle.

The reason people are stating that it doesn't matter is because it doesn't. If you use a consistent measuring point, it makes no difference where that point is.

If I want to move, say, six inches, moving around the corner of a building halfway through as I go, I measure three inches from the front of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the front is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the front of the vehicle, with the front of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the centre of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the centre is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the centre of the vehicle, with the centre of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the rear of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the rear is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the rear of the vehicle, with the rear of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

Alternatively, I measure three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle and move the vehicle so that the third rivet down the right hand side is at that 3" mark, pivot 90 degrees, and then measure a further three inches from the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle, with the third rivet down the right hand side of the vehicle finishing on the 6" mark. The vehicle has moved 6".

The moral of the story being that so long as your measurement point is consistent, it makes absolutely no difference what point you use for your measurement.

A point that you didn't just pull out of your ass! THANK YOU!

Though i do have an issue with this.

You measure the distance before you move correct? To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go. Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

*Also, a common sense argument that has very little relevance to my point and doesn't validate it any more or less. What was intended in this rule? Did the writers of the rulebook (who in my opinion better not be making the 6th edition book) intend for vehicles to gain extra movement in this case? Or was it intended just to allow you to face freely as you wish without having a complex system of measuring?

Scenario: Raider is facing forwards. You move Raider 12" forwards from the rearmost point on the model. After completing that move, you pivot the Raider 180 degrees.

Query: How far has the Raider moved and why?

wisdon- read the other thread.

Your premise leads to an invalid result, namely pivoting reducing movement. If you had read the other thread, as was suggested at the start, you would have seen this.

I don't believe this can be brought to a conclusion. Wisdomseyes1 is clearly not going to change his mind no matter how much evidence is provided. Several people have already proven you can pivot and gain distance but he has ignored those posts, nor is he going to check the other thread as has been suggested numerous times.

Just curious, which "other thread" should be read? I don't think anything has been linked. I'd appreciate a link if there's one that's being refered to (which it sounds like there is).

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You measure the distance before you move correct?

You can measure potential movement before you move. Personally, I measure the actual movement as I move the model. I don't believe the book specifies one way or the other.

To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go.

That's because your initial movement wasn't taking the vehicle's turns into account. That's why you (or I, rather) measure as the vehicle moves rather than beforehand.

Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

You'll find any number of people who will argue that the Trygon will work exactly the same as the vehicle because of the shape of its base. For myself, though, I would say simply that it is different for vehicles because vehicles have different rules.

Here's a different way to look at it: If the vehicle's pivoting is supposed to simply be accounted for in the vehicle's movement, and all that actually happens is that you measure out your distance and place the vehicle at the mark facing whichever way you want, there would be absolutely no point in the vehicle movement rules specifying how the vehicle turns. Whether you pivot the vehicle on its centre point, wheel it on its side, or perform a multiple barrel roll in a reverse pike position by rebounding it off the wall would make no difference whatsever to the vehicle's final position.

The fact that your interpretation renders a portion of the rules meaningless should be sufficient reason to stop and re-think your assumptions.

That explanation of how to pivot a vehicle would still apply if it remained stationary, and only turned.

Yad wrote:Ugg, this again. Wisdomeyes1 you couldn't be more wrong in your approach to Movement.

If my Rhino is parallel to your long table edge, I am perfectly within my rights to measure 12'' (toward your edge) from the side (or center) of the hull and move the Rhino. That constitutes the vehicles Move and is completely legit.

I am also completely within my rights to then Pivot the vehicle thus gaining an extra couple of inches. What you are missing here is that these 'extra' inches are not categorized as Movement.

1. I have moved the vehicles full Movement allowance.

2. I have then pivoted the vehicle which, as you've repeatedly (and correctly) stated, does not count as Movement. Because this pivot does not count toward movement it is not factored against the vehicle's movement allowance.

-Yad

But you cannot Pivot after you move. Which, having moved the vehicle the maximum allowed distance, means you can't pivot after moving. If you pivot before moving, there's no problem, unless you measure the distance to be moved after pivoting, except that after that first pivot, you haven't moved yet, so must now measure for movement.

The pivot only counts as 'not moving' when you haven't moved, either.

ElCheezus wrote:That explanation of how to pivot a vehicle would still apply if it remained stationary, and only turned.

Sure, except that it's specifically talking about turning as the vehicle moves. Pivoting while remaining stationary is mentioned afterwards.

insaniak wrote:

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You measure the distance before you move correct?

You can measure potential movement before you move. Personally, I measure the actual movement as I move the model. I don't believe the book specifies one way or the other.

To make the 12" mark irrelevent in terms of the base (hull in this case) doesn't make sense- That is, your base is moving past the maximum movement that you were able to go.

That's because your initial movement wasn't taking the vehicle's turns into account. That's why you (or I, rather) measure as the vehicle moves rather than beforehand.

Similarly, a Trygon would not be able to gain extra movement due to the shape of its base, because it is a base. Why would this be any less true for vehicles?

You'll find any number of people who will argue that the Trygon will work exactly the same as the vehicle because of the shape of its base. For myself, though, I would say simply that it is different for vehicles because vehicles have different rules.

Here's a different way to look at it: If the vehicle's pivoting is supposed to simply be accounted for in the vehicle's movement, and all that actually happens is that you measure out your distance and place the vehicle at the mark facing whichever way you want, there would be absolutely no point in the vehicle movement rules specifying how the vehicle turns. Whether you pivot the vehicle on its centre point, wheel it on its side, or perform a multiple barrel roll in a reverse pike position by rebounding it off the wall would make no difference whatsever to the vehicle's final position.

The fact that your interpretation renders a portion of the rules meaningless should be sufficient reason to stop and re-think your assumptions.

You will have to explain this to me, as I do not understand what you are saying.

Not a single time did i render a rule useless. Rather I am advocating that a vehicle in terms of movement must still follow the basic rules of movement. That is, that its base does not pass the farthest point that it is allowed.

I have already established that a vehicle does count as moving when pivoting, even if it does not take up any distance.

Now, your method of measuring the vehicles move is one way, and is completely valid, as there is no real way the book tells you how to start and finish your move. All it says is that the base may not pass the vehicles maximum distance, which then becomes my problem.

You have some very valid arguments :-) I hope games-workshop will FAQ this to finally put the topic to rest...

wisdomseyes1 wrote:You will have to explain this to me, as I do not understand what you are saying.

The point I was making was that if all you have to do to move the vehicle is measure out the distance it can move and place the vehicle down at that point, the rule telling us how to pivot the vehicle as it moves is meaningless. It would be like the rules telling us that in order for a model to turn and face its opponents in close combat, you can't make the model do a somersault, you have to instead turn them around 360 degrees on their centrepoint... which gives us a set procedure for doing something that we simply never, ever have to do, because once models are in assault, the rules don't care which way they are facing. Likewise, you would never have to worry about how to pivot the vehicle if you don't actually pivot the vehicle as it moves.

That's what your interpretation is doing. It's taking a part of the rules for vehicle movement, and rendering it completely meaningless.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of folks who have not encountered it (or at least thought of it), but it is legal.

I'm one of these guys. Nobody's ever really done it in a way that feels abusive in our FLGS, though. It sounds like BS to me, but I've never really looked into the rule. Is it all on pg 57, or are there other references I should know?

I peronally just measure from the leading edge when I start to the leading edge when I finish, so all of the pivoting and turning is accounted for during the move. Maybe I've been missing out on some tricks, but it seems like the straightforward way to do it.

Just wait until you get assaulted on Turn 1 by 16 Hammernators.

It's a blatant abuse of the rules, but it's legal, and we have to understand that we're playing a board game, not a military simulation game.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:It's a blatant abuse of the rules, but it's legal, and we have to understand that we're playing a board game, not a military simulation game.

It's only a 'blatant abuse' if you assume that it's not the way the game is supposed to be played. They've had three editions now to sort this out, and given how much 4th and 5th did to tighten up the bigger issues, the fact that they haven't revised the rules for vehicle movement does strongly suggest that GW don't see it as an issue.

There actually is a good arguement that vehicles can only move forward and backwards...but if vehicles can only move forward and backwards than of course we can only "use up" movement when we are actually moving the vehicle. Which would be forward and backwards so pivoting cannot be movement.

On pg 56 it tells us that vehicle rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here. It then on pg 57 details that vehicles can move forward and backward. Since 40k is a permissive rules set we then find that we can move vehicles forward and backwards, but thats it.


Which actually is a very good thing, since if vehicles *could* move in other directions there are loopholes in the tankshock/ ramming rules.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:On pg 56 it tells us that vehicle rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here. It then on pg 57 details that vehicles can move forward and backward.

That's not actually what it says. I already covered this a while up the thread.

I find it interesting that Yakface's poll http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page was almost exactly one year ago, and no new points are being raised in this thread.

Take a vehicle that can tank shock (DE Raider with shock prow, or an SM/CSM/whatever land raider, any of the numerous skimmer tanks) and put it parallel to the deployment zone. Then declare a tank shock perpendicular across the deployment zone line. The rules clearly tell you to pivot the vehicle in place (thus moving the front of the vehicle across the deployment zone line) and THEN measure forward the declared distance. The procedure outlined in the rules says explicitly to measure after pivoting the vehicle.

So do you prefer for your opponent's tank to move with a "pivot and move 12 inches in the new direction" using a regular move, or would you prefer that your opponent say the words "tank shock" first?

But here's the scenario that I would like the side that feels that it's unfair to measure while moving to explain to me. I have a vehicle that I'm going to drive around a corner.
1. A vehicle is facing East initially.
2. It turns to face North.
3. The vehicle moves straight forward 6".
4. It then turns to face East.
5. The vehicle then moves straight forward another 6".

How far did the vehicle move after each step? Because if my vehicle has a top speed of 12", I'd like to know where you expect me to stop and the rules to say anything about how to measure vehicle turns except the part about "pivoting on the spot alone doesn't count as movement".

Anvildude wrote:
But you cannot Pivot after you move.

Oh, but I'm not. I'm pivoting 0.000000000000000000001 inch before my movement ends.

Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

A: Because you don't measure distance from the base. BRB page 71, skimmers and measuring distances, "Unlike other vehicles, skimmers have transparent 'flying bases' under their hull. As normal for vehicles, distances are measured to and from the skimmer's hull...".

@ Insaniak Im pointing out that there is an interpretation that DOES indicate that vehicles move in this manner.

"their rules differ from other modles in a number of ways, detailed here." from pg 56.

This tells us that the vehicle rules are different from the more general rules in a number of ways, and the vehicles section will then go on to explain the details of how they differ.




"vehicles may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn" from pg 57. Its important to also examine the surrounding contextual rules regarding wheeling / pivots here as well.

This section gives us rules for how vehicles may move, and how pivoting doesnt affect the movement limit. If vehilces can move in any orientation then the more specific phrasing for moving forward and backward doesnt make any sense. Its not a redundant rule since it is more limiting than the standard unit movement rules.



These rules tell us that movement (for vehicles) only occurs when the vehicles move forward and backwards. They also tell us that the pivot does not reduce movement, further clarifying that the while pivots may happen during the movement phase they are not actually movement.




If vehciles can move in any orientation, then we have problems with tank shocks/ rams.

Sliggoth

Foo wrote:Q: If I measure from my Raider's base every turn, how can pivoting have gained it movement?

... the point is you never gain extra movement. Ignore the vehicle for a moment. I turn 90' move 12" forward I have moved 12". Now we put a vehicle in place and we have to deal with fact that the vehicle is not a point it has a width and hight; same as above but with a raider (6.3" by 2.5" approx) I turn the raider round its centre and move it 12", i have still only moved it 12" but since its rotated it seems like 14".

And all that is fair as that's how the game works. It wasn't always this way in the past vehicles had a limit on how far they could turn as they moved (40K-RT-Vehicle-Manual) GW has removed this. End of the day its a small improvement that happens once.