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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If it sounds truly dumb to a new person then I dont do it.

"Why is the tank sideways?"

"to squeeze in extra movement."


That to me sounds really really silly so I wouldnt do it. Nor would I be pleased if my opponent did it. Tanks have movement values for a reason, keep to it in my opinion. Otherwise why not give everything else extra movement. Its the same thing.

To be fair, you could say the land raider was driving in that direction until the enemy appeared on their sensors. I understand what you mean though.

To those who are against it, why? It is not like its a whole lot of extra movement and it probably wont alter the course of the game. Is it the principle?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
To those who are against it, why? It is not like its a whole lot of extra movement and it probably wont alter the course of the game. Is it the principle?

It's just silly, exploiting a hole in the rules. Not illegal, not cheating, just feels against the spirit of the rules.

If they are gonna bend the rules for a few inches on movement, what else are they gonna do in the game?

They also have the wrong attitude if they are behaving this way. They dont seem fun to play against at all.

You can tell a lot about your opponent in the movement phase.

I have seen it done with landspeeders. Its situation dependent, as in they have first turn and there are meltas on the landspeeders. Also deployment type aids or hampers this tactic huge. that extra inch can mean the difference between 1 or 2 dice for a possible pen with melta.

RAW, Its not cheating, but it does tell you the type of player you are about to throw down with.

It pretty much only nets bonus movement on the first turn, but is indeed silly.

Sometimes I wish you measured movement of models from their center and not the edge of their base...but then people would argue over where the center is.

I've done this a few times, and really don't see the issue.
In my case it was to use the Devilfish with Pathfinders and recon drone. With the pivot, scout, and flat out move it gets you within 6" of the back table edge turn 1.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue. It's a small movement increase due to planning out a movement. Would you also declare someone to be abusing what's allowed by shooting a FMC with a skyfire weapon first to try and knock it down? If someone can show me how it's unsportsman like or against the rules, I'd change my mind. Nobody in my area has ever had an issue doing this and it comes up pretty frequently.

Stormbreed wrote:
If someone did this to me, I would pick up their model and throw it as hard as I can against the wall.

No you wouldn't

Totally legal, and known to the studio since 1998.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've done this a few times, and really don't see the issue.
In my case it was to use the Devilfish with Pathfinders and recon drone. With the pivot, scout, and flat out move it gets you within 6" of the back table edge turn 1.

Again, I'm not seeing the issue. It's a small movement increase due to planning out a movement. Would you also declare someone to be abusing what's allowed by shooting a FMC with a skyfire weapon first to try and knock it down? If someone can show me how it's unsportsman like or against the rules, I'd change my mind. Nobody in my area has ever had an issue doing this and it comes up pretty frequently.

Shooting down a creature and then shooting it on the ground while having an easier time makes sense. Turning your vehicle to GET EXTRA (HUGE EMPHASIS ON EXTRA) movement is rediculious.

The FMC is more like a tactic, the pivoting tank is more shady.

I dont see why its so hard to move your tanks normally like most people do.

Move normally? You mean like pivoting in place and then moving forward?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Move normally? You mean like pivoting in place and then moving forward?

That is not normal. Infact its freakishly anti normal...

Its pretty clear where i satnd on this. If someone did this at my club id give them one warning to be sensible or leave. The hobby doesnt need people like this

So you can go to your next game feeling smug as a bug, but at the end of the day, doing this makes you a jackass in my books...

That's fine. If I saw anybody trying to move flat out with a vehicle I'd tell them I never want to play against them either. Just because it's in the rules and perfectly allowed doesn't give them the right to do it. The nerve of some people. Doing things within the confines of the rule set.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
That's fine. If I saw anybody trying to move flat out with a vehicle I'd tell them I never want to play against them either. Just because it's in the rules and perfectly allowed doesn't give them the right to do it. The nerve of some people. Doing things within the confines of the rule set.

Just because you can doesnt mean you should...

I wouldn't be happy using this, it kinda reeks of people patting themselves on the back and feeling smug about how they'v "beat" the system.

I doubt its intended... i mean a tank that pivots shouldn't move farther in fluff reasons if im understanding what we are talking about....

Being said if someone did it i wouldn't like it but from a rules standpoint if its legal then , what can you do? i would ask them not but if they refused id have no choice but to let them.

Why not then? You're willing to agree that it's legal, but I've yet to see someone explain why you shouldn't do it. I'm exposing side armor on a vehicle with a skimmer base. I pivot on that base as I'm allowed and then move forward.

Can anyone explain to me what I'm doing wrong? Is it wrong to do it because it's giving me an advantage? If I have a Bike Chapter Master with the Eternal shield leading bikers, and I use terrain to block LOS to the CM and kill off the bikes, that's giving me an advantage? Should I not use the rules to play for advantage? It's kinda cheap, isn't it? I'm completely ignoring the expensive bike model that is meant to tank wounds, isn't that unfair to my opponent?

It's probably wrong because it hurts the "narrative being forged" when you see tanks taking a left turn before hurling forth into battle.

"If they are gonna bend the rules for a few inches on movement, what else are they gonna do in the game?

They also have the wrong attitude if they are behaving this way. They dont seem fun to play against at all.

You can tell a lot about your opponent in the movement phase. "

If you are willing to bend the rules ("it doesnt say I cant... so i can do it") then clearly you are gonna do a lot more than just that. It also is like taking rediculious ally combinations "because you can" and so forth. There is no skill or tactics involved. All you are doing is reducing the game to a bunch of loopholes and shenanigans which contributes nothing to the game.

There are many ways you can loophole the rules im sure, but just because you can doesnt mean you should. Its a very childish way of looking at things.

The tactic you mentioned to me is legitimate, the pivot movment is not legitimate.

If you cant see the lead biker you cant hit him. Sounds about right.

If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

No i said abusing the rules "because you are allowed" takes no skill. Yes i think ill of you for your method of play. I think its wrong.

At the end of the day its up to you and your opponent. I wouldnt stand for it. Nor would I ever do it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Wouldnt get as far as the tank that pivots before it starts its forward movement, because the moment the tank that started the race/match facing forward begins moving forward, is the moment it has started to cover distance, while the front end of the tank that pivoted ends up being a tad bit further without it even having begun to move forward. And as long as the centre of gravity of both tanks remains on the same spot, you can't accuse the pivoting tank of having moved forward

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes but in your example, add another tank, one that starts facing forward. How much further ahead would the tank starting foward be over the one that needs to pivot?

Wouldnt get as far as the tank that pivots before it starts its forward movement, because the moment the tank that started the race/match facing forward begins moving forward, is the moment it has started to cover distance, while the front end of the tank that pivoted is a tad bit further without it even having begun to move forward.

but you are ignoring time as a factor. the tank that doesnt pivot overall will move a greater distance than the one that pivots. Because it takes time to pivot.

To be honest i think the writers of the rules would have the same answer as Swastakowey, theres a whole section on this before they even go into the nitty bitty rules in the book.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you pivot your tank you get extra movement derp herp derp derp . Doesnt make sense does it. Infact it sounds stupid saying that out loud.

Common sense is still needed when following rules. its easy. We all have it. So try excercise it.

Actually it would make sense even in real life.


A tank that is parked at a racing line and can only move 10 meters will get further it if places its side hull alongside said startling line, pivots, and then travels 10 meters

Presumably a race also involves time. The time taken to turn is time lost to move forward.

All of which is immaterial. Since this isn't a discussion about real life, and even the slowest tanks in 40k can turn on a dime in 0 seconds.

I'm in the "it's legal, but you're still a dick" camp. For some vehicles, there is literally 0 disadvantage to this.

One of my armies is Space Marines, and because I am bad at 40k, I tend to run land speeders with 2 multimeltas. By deploying sideways, I give up nothing. My front and side armors are both 10. But deploying sideways and turning gives me the extra half inch I need to be in melta range on turn 1 for both multimeltas.

Can I do it? Sure. Like many things, it's RAW. Should I do it? No. It clearly goes against the intention of the neutral space of deployment. Would I do it? Heck no.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Right. So you think that me doing something that is perfectly allowed like pivoting a vehicle or taking a Battle Brother ally means I'm a cheater that has no skill. I think that's very telling.

It's silly, and immersion-breaking, because tanks turn more slowly than they drive.

I miss the days when turning took up movement on tracked vehicles (and turning wheeled vehicles needed a template!)

So, Swastakowey, do you think that Flying Monstrous Creatures that have their bases in a crater should be allowed to have the 5+ cover save? It makes far less sense than pivoting a tank to get extra movement, and is also totally within the rules. Would you refuse to play someone who did that?

How about allocating flamer wounds from a tactical squad farther away than the template would reach? Some people consider that silly even though the rules expressly allow it.

There is always going to be a breakdown between perfect realism and the game. I think that refusing to play people who utilize said breakdown to their advantage is less desirable behavior than actually utilizing the gap. I'd prefer to play a game against someone who is just trying to play a game and have a good time rather than someone who is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about how you're supposed to play the game. It's a big game, and there's room enough for casual, competitive, fluff, and experimental players to all have a good time. I prefer a variety of opponents with a variety of playstyles, and think it's a little elitist to condemn people who don't play the game "my way."

I do this frequently with Raiders, the long models do make a difference. But I also use it as a defense. if you have the models sideways, they can block line of sight to things behind them. So if you have say six raiders, you can put two sideways in front of four normal ones, the enemy has to target the front two before he can take care of the rest.

Maybe raiders are a bad example as it can be easy to remove them but if you have a ton of rhinos behind a land raider, it would help them stay in the game longer. As the tougher vehicle is taking more hits.

The idea of a skinny skimmer hovering 10 feet off the ground blocking line of sight to a bunch of elves standing behind it is just silly though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
So, Swastakowey, do you think that Flying Monstrous Creatures that have their bases in a crater should be allowed to have the 5+ cover save? It makes far less sense than pivoting a tank to get extra movement, and is also totally within the rules. Would you refuse to play someone who did that?

How about allocating flamer wounds from a tactical squad farther away than the template would reach? Some people consider that silly even though the rules expressly allow it.

There is always going to be a breakdown between perfect realism and the game. I think that refusing to play people who utilize said breakdown to their advantage is less desirable behavior than actually utilizing the gap. I'd prefer to play a game against someone who is just trying to play a game and have a good time rather than someone who is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand about how you're supposed to play the game. It's a big game, and there's room enough for casual, competitive, fluff, and experimental players to all have a good time. I prefer a variety of opponents with a variety of playstyles, and think it's a little elitist to condemn people who don't play the game "my way."

Depends what mode FMC's are in , if its behaving a a JMC then it would get cover from a crater, don't know the details of the flamer one but just have to ask yourself whether your playing as the game was intended to be played.

It's in the rules saying that if a base is in area terrain then you get a cover save. You can't say that the writers actually intended something completely different for FMC if there is no actual rule against it.

With the flamer, if you have a flame template that causes something like three hits then three wounds, but have them take saves from other weapons first so the first 4 models are removed and leaving the remaining models out of reach for the flame template. However the rules and FAQ states that you can apply those three wounds up to the range of the longest ranged weapon.