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.

Why not solve the problem with a "disembark/shooting distances of crew measure from skimmer base, not hull" house rule and call it even?

I can't believe people still support this company when they charge so much for such gak rules writing.

Col. Dash wrote:
It is extremely clear. There is no room for seeing it differently. This isn't 6th edition. Anyone who uses this is cheating if they know the rules have changed, that is clear and simple. Its like calling hits on 3s when your BS is only a 3 or rerolling a reroll. You know that's not how the rule works and are trying to do it anyway.

Measure the hull at the start of the movement phase. That is before anything is done including pivoting. No part of the hull may go past 6" from that point at the end of movement phase. You can pivot all you want in the space between and it costs nothing. The rules say this. Yeah its typical GW putting them all over the place but they have been posted throughout this thread with page numbers. You cant get much clearer from a GW rule book. Thus there is no need for an FAQ.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that it isn't clear due to conflicting rules about general movement and vehicle movement. The problem with measuring from the hull is that it leads to pivoting costing movement, as the lateral movement could cause a part of the vehicle to move more than 6". For example, the Necron Monolith has a base about 6" long. Pivot on the spot while ensuring that no part travels more than 6", and the Monolith cannot move any farther forward. Another example: a Raider pivots 90 degrees, and moves 6" to disembark its passengers. Because of the design of the Raider's hull, the pivot has gained about 2"-3" of extra movement. It doesn't matter when the pivoting occurs, as the result is still the same.

I will agree that the "pivot trick" relies on poor and ambiguous wording. I tried it in my last game, and my opponent disagreed with my doing so. In the interest of not having a lengthy rules discussion, I pivoted and then made the move. The result was still the same, but didn't look like I was blatantly exploiting a loophole in the rules.

@lustigjh: In this case I don't blame GW.

First things first. It's a wargame. You set the forces up on their axis of advance as such time as they make contact.

This might be sideways in a scenario where there's a linear ambush on a convoy, which carries a lot of implications in terms of ranges, who goes first, so on so forth. I don't care about 2" of extra movement in this situation; that's completely besides the point.

The kind of people to argue sideways deployment to gain a 2" advantage are the same kinds of rules lawyers who were going on for days inventing fluffy reasons why Immobilized Skimmers should jink. GW should never have had to write a FAQ for that; 40k players should have the self-respect not to abuse loopholes and take on some responsibility for their own experiences playing the game. We usually blame GW in part because it's easier to trash a distant corporation than get into it on the guy across the table from you.

My opinion aside, "should" is obviously irrelevant, human nature will never change, and this will keep happening until the 40k rules are airtight. Unfortunately without monitoring and rapid correction of the shady yet ingenious tricks, this is hard to fix. GW needs a real-time digital ruleset and a hard-ass uncaring bad guy to immediately step on creative rules exploits.

Ironically, this would be appreciated by competitive players because it makes the game more fair for everyone. Everyone wants rules that are clear and intuitive. WAAC players (who are not necessarily cheaters) simply don't place that priority above winning; and they will fight against corrections unless there's a 3rd party with absolute authority applying them impartially to both players.

Yoyoyo wrote:
40k players should have the self-respect not to abuse loopholes and take on some responsibility for their own experiences playing the game.

People that disagree with my opinion of how a rule works lack self-respect.

Jesus, dude. Come down off that high horse before you get a nose bleed.

Obviously, that's a complete misinterpretation of what I said.

Do you care to argue what I quoted at face value?

I'm sorry...but what? I'm not going to forgo shooting my Gretchin's gun at a space marine because there's no "legitimate Wargame simulation reason" that a flintlock pistol could harm a superhuman in power armor... Because the rules say it's a S3 weapon, he's T4 and has a 3+ save, so I can kill him.

This isn't a simulation Wargame. It's an abstraction. Fluff reasoning for basic stuff in the game makes absolutely zero sense. I'll tell you why a skimmer could Jink when immobilized pre-FAQ: because Jink is a 4+ cover save conferred by a special rule applied to models of the Skimmer type.

Now you tell me why:


-Models that cross a certain line in the field are dead forever

-my army's objectives are totally random and can include capturing the thing they're already on 3 times in a row, or trying to kill a psyker when the entire race of the enemy army I'm facing contains no psykers?

-A 20-ton tank can be immobilized by crossing a bush

-After a certain length of time both armies declare a winner, pack up and go home even if they're still locked in mortal close combat

-My psykers and warlord aren't exactly sure what they can do before each battle starts

If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff, then I'll make the equally valid claim that my psyker is an Invisibility master who has trained specifically that art since birth so I should always get that power, and furthermore the objective I have placed right here on my side of the table is a priceless STC and my army cares for nothing besides holding that objective so all my cards automatically become hold that objective.


Orrrrrr, we could agree to play by a third party's established rule set to theoretically keep things fair.

to try and find a middle ground someone tell me if I'm wording/understanding this correctly: (in casual games) Positioning your models in a way where you intend to gain the extra 3" of movement, regardless of the edition, is a fairly gaky move to make, being that it goes against the intended use of the rules. However, if you rotate your model around to go a different direction, to maintain an idea of immersion, make the table look cool, or other similar situation, and happen to gain a few inches due to pivoting rules, it's less of a slap to the face, as it's for the sake of the battle, not for the sake of squeezing out a few more inches. Yes?

As an example: Why would an Eldar force start facing all of their weaker side armor to the opponent, to only turn around and rush them? However, if the "fluff" behind the battle is a surprise attack on a convoy, it makes more sense.

In my personal opinion, even when it was allowed by the rules, it wasn't an action you should have ever taken in a casual "for fun" game, since it's just bending/abusing the rules in your favor.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me explain, if you care to keep an open mind.

Nothing in games is more important than consistency in rules.

Games frequently attempt to model real-life situations. In these games, we typically draw on real-life as a common reference point by which to intuit actions and consequences.

By insisting that our intuitive conclusions from real-life do not apply, and that the game is in fact an abstraction rather than an imperfect model set in a fantastic world, we destroy the value of intuitive conclusions and place greater value on understanding the finer details of the abstract ruleset.

This gives an advantage to those players who may understand highly counterintuitive details of the ruleset, and a disadvantage to those players who could never expect it or are playing 40k as a model.

That is why a lot of players, when faced with a "common sense" argument, try and defend this advantage by immediately expanding the scope of the issue into "well if X doesn't make sense, why should anything make sense?"

This attitude encourages conflict as both players now lack a common reference point to resolve issues, and now selectively argue or counter-argue whether the game is a model or an abstraction (primarily based on which interpretation gives them to greater in-game advantage).

Sounds a little familar, doesn't it?

If we agree to play as close to our shared reference point, being real-world cause and effect, the more we both understand the game intuitively and the more consensus we will possess in resolving rules disputes. This is an attitude that doesn't imply advantage -- its goal is transparent and intuitive rules.

If you value winning over clarity of gameplay for both parties.... well, what kind of player do you think you'll be seen as?

Yoyoyo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you claim rules shouldn't apply because of fluff...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me explain, if you care to keep an open mind.

Nothing in games is more important than consistency in rules.

Games frequently attempt to model real-life situations. In these games, we typically draw on real-life as a common reference point by which to intuit actions and consequences.

By insisting that our intuitive conclusions from real-life do not apply, and that the game is in fact an abstraction rather than an imperfect model set in a fantastic world, we destroy the value of intuitive conclusions and place greater value on understanding the finer details of the abstract ruleset.

This gives an advantage to those players who may understand highly counterintuitive details of the ruleset, and a disadvantage to those players who could never expect it or are playing 40k as a model.

That is why a lot of players, when faced with a "common sense" argument, try and defend this advantage by immediately expanding the scope of the issue into "well if X doesn't make sense, why should anything make sense?"

This attitude encourages conflict as both players now lack a common reference point to resolve issues, and now selectively argue or counter-argue whether the game is a model or an abstraction (primarily based on which interpretation gives them to greater in-game advantage).

Sounds a little familar, doesn't it?

If we agree to play as close to our shared reference point, being real-world cause and effect, the more we both understand the game intuitively and the more consensus we will possess in resolving rules disputes.

Yes, exactly this.

The common reference here is how special rules work. If you've got a special rule, you've got it unless something specifically says it's gone. If I attach a mega-armored character to my Mek Gunz, they can move and fire because the rule confers to any unit containing a SnP model. This makes no objective sense but if we disallow it, we have to change how a lot of special rules work that could make objective sense.

Like you just said, it's about having a consistent rule set to avoid confusion. What is "intuitive" to you is maybe not "intuitive" to me-and that doesn't make me an donkey-cave, it makes me a person with a different opinion. Which means if we take "intuitive judgement" as a rules interpreting criteria, we will never stop having pointless arguments.


Yes, someone who understands how the system works might gain an advantage because of that. That's how game systems work. There's no "moralistic" bearing on that. Me moving my guns and shooting with slow and purposeful is the same as you placing a special weapon at the back of a squad. It's just playing the game.

So... The argument now is that playing by the rules gives an unfair advantage to players who know the rules better then their opponent?


I think we've wandered far enough afield here. The original issue had been thoroughly hashed out, and we're just having a rules argument in a thread that was never intended for one, so I think it's time to move on.