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.

That's silly.

Roll for the flamer wounds first. Problem solved. The only time it becomes a big headscratcher moment is when you have four flame templates and one bolter in the squad doing the shooting, and get sixteen hits against four models, then can use the flamer wounds against the rest of the squad because of the bolter when you deal seven unsaved wounds.

Savage, are you seriously trying to say that it makes logical sense because it's in the rules? That's a fallacious argument at the best of times. What's your answer to my explanation as to why it's silly?

Anyway, I thought you ignored the base on skimmers and fliers except for assault purposes.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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?

If there's a "starting line" and both tanks are nose or side-edge along side it, the tank that is side-edge to it will actually gain half its length when it pivots to then drive forward (assuming 0 true forward motion). In reality, it will actually gain probably twice the length of its hull as it loops forward in its pivot to go nose-forward towards the enemy.

The tank that does not pivot does not gain any extra distance "off the line".

... and determining how the game was "intended to be played" is... well, that's a mine-field.

I'm saying that if the rules say you can pivot, measure, then move then for some odd reason I'm assuming you can pivot, measure and then move. Some how and some way it's possible. I know it's possible because the rules tell me how to pivot and move.

I can't show up to a poker table and tell them that my three of a kind beats a full house simply because I'm sure the intent was in there that my specific combination of cards is in some way superior.

And you don't have to roll for flamer wounds first. It's in the rule that the firing player gets to pick the order and the FAQ says to apply wounds to the maximum distance.

I know you don't have to. I'm just questioning why you wouldn't.

You still didn't answer my actual point about tanks.

Well its not so much intent its more like if you put a slightly nerdy hat on and pictured if the battle was happening in (40k) reality what would happen. Like say with the flame weapon thing if it was an actual battle a weapons range couldn't be extended like that.

 Elgrun wrote:
Well its not so much intent its more like if you put a slightly nerdy hat on and pictured if the battle was happening in (40k) reality what would happen. Like say with the flame weapon thing if it was an actual battle a weapons range couldn't be extended like that.

If it was an actual battle the sides wouldn't take turns shooting at each other.

Rules don't need to make sense on what would really happen, they only need to make sense in their ruleset. Look at the changes a ruleset goes through during edition upgrades, people change their view on what makes sense to accomadate new rules. I remember people saying the 4(5) toughness on bikes not protecting from Str 8 instant death makes sense because the bike armour wouldn't protect them from that. Now those same people have changed their tune coming up with new reasons to justify the rule change.

I could list off dozens of rules and actions in 40k that wouldn't actually work in reality but they work within the ruleset and that's what matters.

On the matter of vehicle movement I agree that it doesn't make sense within the ruleset that a vehicle can gain extra movement by doing this but that is how the rules are written and how I play it. To all the people who disagree with this, what about beyond turn one when there is no deployment line? Pivoting your vehicles on turn 6 still gives you that extra movement.

 Madcat87 wrote:
Pivoting your vehicles on turn 6 still gives you that extra movement.

What kind of a sick bastard would turn his vehicles!?! That's like a straight Hitler-maneuver right there!

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Savage, are you seriously trying to say that it makes logical sense because it's in the rules?

It doesn't make sense that poison weapons wound a Riptide on a 4+ but do nothing to a Drednaught.
It doesn't make sense that I can bring a MC down to one wound but never knock a weapon off like I would with a Walker.
It doesn't make sense that a character on a bike can now take multiple lascannons to the face just because he has a bike, when a tank would be destroyed in one shot.

Rules don't always make sense. But they are rules. I can't get mad at my opponent for expecting poison weapons to wound my Riptide on a 4+, no matter how sure I am what the actual intent is. If it's not in the designer notes, FAQ, or rules then I am just making something up with no justification. If I try to argue that my Helbrute is basically a mechanical monstrous creature and I'm sure the intent is that I can not get shaken/stunned and will never lose a weapon, then I am making something up.

However I am not making something up with the pivot movement. It says clearly in the rules on how to pivot a vehicle. Some vehicles are longer than they are wide.

Now can someone please cite something somewhere that tells me the intent on pivoting a vehicle somehow does not involve pivoting the vehicle? Can someone explain to me how this is a TFG thing to do? I even gave an example of how I use it to get a clear advantage on turn 1 for outflankers on turn 2. Please tell me how I'm violating the intent or being an overall cheating jerk by doing this.

I think it's in the apocrypha or the covenants or something.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you you need to stop doing it, I'm just trying to help you understand why other people are doing so.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
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.

To pull that off it would first have to be possible to deploy your speeder 24.01" away from the tank you want to fry, i.e. after your opponent has deployed, and then you would also have to seize the initiative, which only accounts to a 16% chance. Then you would have to deploy the Speeder sideways, swivel, gain 0.5 extra inches, move 12" and then be able to fire both your MMs at melta range.

Something far easier to do is dropping in a MM Dread or Ironclad Dread w. Meltas + 2 HK missiles and frying the enemy tank on turn 1 as well

I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

sonicaucie wrote:
I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

That's kind of how the pivoting thing works. You have half the length of the vehicle from the center point forward that is closer to the enemy than it was pre-pivot... and you're freely allowed to pivot when moving. If you have some guns on that forward section, it just gained a few extra inches towards the target, and may now be able to fire, or have enhancements/bonuses to its firing, depending on specifics.

sonicaucie was saying that he sees people pivoting around, say, a corner, rather than pivoting around the center. (At least I thought that was what he was saying.)

Oh, yeah, that would be some BS, IMO. Pivot around the center point of the model, not the left-forward corner (or whatever).

 Psienesis wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
I do think that a tank should move from the point it pivots around and I will call it out if I see it, which I have before.

Like my ghost ark, I will generally measure my movement from the skimmer base and then pivot it on the skimmer base. I believe all players with vehicles should keep in mind a "center" of their vehicle for them to move and pivot from. I don't mind that if you deploy on the edge of the deployment line on your side that you may gain an additional 3" of deployment. That's just something that can't be helped.

But if I see a player who is exploiting rotate regularly to move his models more than their standard movement, I do call it out. I've seen a fellow necron player rotate his ghost ark and move from the front of his ghost ark. If you would call that out, then you shouldn't be doing this.

That's kind of how the pivoting thing works. You have half the length of the vehicle from the center point forward that is closer to the enemy than it was pre-pivot... and you're freely allowed to pivot when moving. If you have some guns on that forward section, it just gained a few extra inches towards the target, and may now be able to fire, or have enhancements/bonuses to its firing, depending on specifics.

I guess I should have explained a little bit more. It's kind of dependent on how the vehicle has been pivoted and moved. The ghost ark example, the guy was moving it into a street. He turned it to face the street, measured into it from the front and then dropped it into the street in its new position. I.E: Pivoted it while it was moving.

I've seen a few tanks do this as well. Sometimes I doubt people are really thinking about it when they do it, because it's easy to forget about the additional distance you're gaining from the vehicle facing and you may just want to make it face the target at its new position.

However, if you're always just measuring from the centre, then you're never going to make a mistake.

I'm still not sure you're explaining it correctly. Is what your saying he pivoted and measured to gain the extra distance, then while moving the model he is pivoting in the air so that the side facing is now at the mark that the front facing measured to? If so than that is wrong.

A vehicle can pivot or move but not both in the same "action" if that makes sense.

Also I'd say that measuring from the centre is worse as you're always guessing where the centre is. Vehicles are box so take advantage of the fact that you always know where the edge of the vehicle.

Some kid tried it on me with a land rader and my hammerhead one shotted it. It was unable to move for the rest of the game, i don't mind people doing it but served him right for trying to pull a fast one!

This one pops up from time to time as it has been part of the rules for several editions.

The most epic thread on it is from almost 4 years ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

The upshot of this is that we can see schools are still doing a poor job at teaching geometry.

Seems like it would be more effective on skimmers starting hidden behind LOS blocking terrain.
Of course, I've heard of but never actually seen the 2 foot long battlewagons and land raiders doing this fir the first turn assault (well, not it would be bottom of the first turn).

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
If people do this just to gain an advantage. Why do people put the sponsons at the rear position.
Meaning the tank sticks out over 50% to shoot to the side.?

One day we're going to see a land raider with both sponsons on the same side to make this tactic more powerful...

interesting. But it didn't answer my question

Could you rephrase your question? I can't understand it, I'm sorry.

If people will go to tricks to gain an advantage.

Why put the guns at the back? Exposing more of the tank to fire, surely they would want the best cover save.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, people do everything they can just to gain an advantage. Some people will model their Wraithknights/Riptides to be squatting/kneeling for LOS bonuses and whatnot. This is usually called MFA and is frowned on though not against the rules.

There is some debate whether putting the Land Raider guns on the front is okay or not. I don't really understand it myself since if GW didn't want us to they wouldn't make it so easy to model it that way. I suppose people just don't like it when you give yourself an advantage before the game even starts.

Just to make sure you are away, a kneeling riptide is far, FAR from modeling for advantage, heck-its one of the official poses on the GW site and in the box.
modeling it kneeling is no more MFA then modeling the scouts who came with kneeling legs as kneeling.

But you WILL find players who will claim it as such. Facts never stop such players from trying to gain an advantage over you by trying to outlaw your models that they have not learned to play against effectively. (not any player in particuler, just the generic player who cries MFA over any "difference" whether it be a different number of rivets or a 30 inch las cannon barrel.)

 EVIL INC wrote:
But you WILL find players who will claim it as such. Facts never stop such players from trying to gain an advantage over you by trying to outlaw your models that they have not learned to play against effectively. (not any player in particuler, just the generic player who cries MFA over any "difference" whether it be a different number of rivets or a 30 inch las cannon barrel.)

Because that actually happens?

You might find that people will take your arguments a bit more seriously without the Hyperbole For Effect.

Yes, players WILL indeed make barrels longer and we have actually had a member here say flat out that the number of rivets can affect a gameso would not allow a difference in the # of them. No hyperbole (beyond the exaggeration on the actual barrel length extensionbecause when it is done, it is usually not that obvious).
In making examples, you HAVE to take into account TFG who will go to those extremes such as caling MFA for rivets or the 30" barrels. Because if you do not, players will quibble. You know this as well as anyone else.
This is why I am glad that I play with a decent and fun group who dont do that. They are just as happy as I am to see cool looking models done up for the sole purpose of looking cool or matching their army without ay advantages being looked for and no assumptions that others are doing the same.

Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Clearly I'm missing something here...

I bolded the 'rivets' part because it is a ridiculous statement.

Now you're telling me he's actually trying to say that someone claimed "MFA" on the number of rivets on a conversion?

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.

Says the person who uses the same technique with his mawloc and tervigons.....

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Simple factwe had a poster here who flat out said it (not naming names to avoid him being offended and to keep it polite. Dont complain to me. Im not the player calling MFA over it.

But as I said, players will quibble. If you dont use the extreme examples, people will quibble over a centimeter and say it is ok, then on the next tank, it will be 2 inches and so forth until you complain and then they will say " you were ok with the other conversions, why this one?" That is why my gaming group doesnt worry about it and each sticks to the rule of cool systom and obvious MFA are simply not done and we dont assume MFA over any little variation. However, as we have seen here, different strokes for different folks. The almighty win is more important to some than fun.

HFE for the loss here though!

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Oh dear gork the RIVETS.Really evil Inc?This bullgak again?

Simple factwe had a poster here who flat out said it (not naming names to avoid him being offended and to keep it polite. Dont complain to me. Im not the player calling MFA over it.

Still trying to propagate this lie?
Quote it. Please. With context, of course.
You'll refuse to and claim I'm being off-topic and trolling and trying to get the thread locked, and still refuse to give proof.

No. Not a single person would ever call a missing or added rivet, by itself, modeling for advantage.