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.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Op is incorrect for the reasons I clarify above.

You are incorrect for the OP's reasons as stated above.

Wow, it's easy when you do it that way!

It's pretty specific that pivoting doesn't count as long as that's all the vehicle does. Once it moves, it's also pretty specific that no part of the vehicle can be more than 6inches from where it started. NO PART - FROM WHERE IT STARTED.

Those are pretty non-negotiable terms.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The model may pivot at any point of movement. Pivoting does not count as movement. Ergo, pivoting does not technically increase the distance traveled since the model has not moved any distance gained. Despite being further away, it has not actually counted as moving that distance.

Also:

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rules of measuring distance to or from a base CONNOT BE USED. Instead, for the distance involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull.

The section then describes movement for vehicles. Vehicles that TRAVEL more than 6" are counted as moving at Cruising Speed, but:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

These are two statements in and of themselves, just simplified into one sentence to save page space and sound more comfortable on the ears.

Pivoting DOES count as movement. The ONLY time it does not count is when that is all you did in the movement phase. That is the change made between 6th and 7th ed, and the whole point of the OP that you seem to have missed.

Thunder you do realize that it started its movement when it acctually moved.


Pivoting isnt a move. The center of the vehicle did not move anywhere. If you can pivot, and it not count as a move (by not moving the tank any further), how is the pivot itself a move? Hint: it isnt.


It only started its movement when it acctually moved its center point from where it was at the beginning of the movement phase.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Thunder you do realize that it started its movement when it acctually [sic] moved.


Pivoting isnt a move. The center of the vehicle did not move anywhere. If you can pivot, and it not count as a move (by not moving the tank any further), how is the pivot itself a move? Hint: it isnt.


It only started its movement when it acctually [sic] moved its center point from where it was at the beginning of the movement phase.

(Emphasis mine) The underlined is false for these reasons:

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" (Vehicles section, Vehicles in the movement phase sub-section).

Therefore if the vehicle only pivots and does not move that phase the vehicle will be stationary when it comes to determine how many weapons it can fire.

However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting.

So you count the movement from where the vehicle started the movement phase, as the pivoting needs to be actually taken into account since the vehicle is moving.

And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section).

So what matters is where the vehicle was when it started the Movement phase. This means you take the pivot into account if you are doing more than pivoting.

The rules are finally clear on this.

While I understand the reason for a healthy debate on this topic, I think one's reading of the rules needs to converge with common sense at some point.

The rules in 7th edition clearly state that if a vehicle does more than pivot, the distanced pivoted is not free. Period.

Enter common sense: A Vehicle is capable of moving at a given speed. Lets assume for sake of argument this vehicle can magically conserve energy and all movement is equal - the distance it can travel is calculated from it's starting position.

No justification or exception is provided in 7th edition that allows the vehicle to magically change it's starting location via a free pivot.

Does this stop you from rotating a vehicle 180 degrees to dump troops out? YES!

Why? Because troop transports can't actually do axle spins on command if they want to rotate.

God forbid the rules of the game actually resemble the real world.

znelson wrote:
God forbid the rules of the game actually resemble the real world.

They never will, but that is because we are talking about a sci-fi setting where Lasguns, Imperial titans, Space ships, Drop Pods, Dreadnoughts, Tyranids, Eldar, Psychic powers exist, and genetically engineered space marines riding oversized wolves, not only exist, but they have the same movement rate as the same guy on a motorcycle...

P.S. Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Znelson,
While it isn't good to bring in real world examples, I would recommend taking a look at what Vehicles with treads can actually do.
The reason it can't do this in the Rules is because the Rule "simulating" it is gone, no more reason to it all then that.

IF Nem's assertion is correct, wouldn't that make many transport vehicles, such as Raiders, the Tantalus, and the big long Necron job (Ghost Ark?), severely weakened if not nigh on useless? That rules alteration would take these transports (when serving in their transport capacity) from nimble, graceful, acrobats of the motorpool to slow, lumbering sky-canoes.

Or am I over estimating how detrimental this interpretation would be to long, thin vehicles?

It seems like there is more going on here than that...

I think a Rules Writer at GW was murdered!

Here is why. The Victim was writing the vehicle rules entry, and he had a very specific idea in mind. He wanted to keep people from using the free pivot to gain an extra few inches of firing range. Rightly so because while it's legal to do so, you shouldn't be able to fire as if you had only moved 6", and so with that in mind he set out to rewrite the vehicle movement rules in a clear concise manner. He was probably at the office late, striving to find that perfect wording that would erase all doubt as to the intention of the rules. That was when he was brutally murdered. Probably by someone seeking to keep the rules vague and hard to understand, for mysterious reason we shall never know. Perhaps it was the Devil, or maybe it was Matt Ward. Or maybe it was someone who was a pivot move fire 1 at full BS kind of guy and didn't want to lose his secret weapon?

We shall never know the truth about the tragedy that unfolded that night. At least we may find solace in this thread, what may well be the final resting place of an unknown soldier. May the gods have mercy on his soul, should it have ever existed in the first place. The rule entry as it stands today was probably a hodge podge backwards, how-can-we-fix-it-so-no-one-will-know-it's-fixed sort of patch job slapped in place by a generic monkey/typewriter servitor.


Although, kudos to the OP for doing the deciphering for us! Maybe you could take a look at Grav weapons and vehicle cover saves for me? That's another one that seems like a hieroglyph of muddled intentions!

I think the biggest problem people have is the belief that transports should be turned around and deposit you a handful of inches away from your target. They should be there to get you across most of the way not doorstep to doorstep. Why would you ever logically present the rear of your vehicle with open access to the interior to the enemy?

Looking at the current rules and what Nem has put fourth, most of the time, unless there is bunch of strange things going on, you should be able to simply measure out 6" from the furthest point and put your rear there, if going for the prob me here look. It's simple, straight forward, and prevents any of the pivot shenanigans from happening.

The GA for the Crons is open topped so no it doesn't affect them and they would be the one that would be able to take advantage of the pivot crud the most.

 Jimsolo wrote:
IF Nem's assertion is correct, wouldn't that make many transport vehicles, such as Raiders, the Tantalus, and the big long Necron job (Ghost Ark?), severely weakened if not nigh on useless? That rules alteration would take these transports (when serving in their transport capacity) from nimble, graceful, acrobats of the motorpool to slow, lumbering sky-canoes.

Or am I over estimating how detrimental this interpretation would be to long, thin vehicles?

Losing 3 inches of movement at best is hardly going to take those transports from good to useless.

darkcloak wrote:
Although, kudos to the OP for doing the deciphering for us! Maybe you could take a look at Grav weapons and vehicle cover saves for me? That's another one that seems like a hieroglyph of muddled intentions!

There is nothing unclear about vehicle over saves and Grav weapons...

I would disagree about the Grav thing, unless wording for vehicle cover saves has also changed. If so please fill me in.

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting. Nobody has actually made a justification for why this would be so? Nothing says or implies that pivoting having moved counts as movement.
And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section). I already clarified that it is specifically stated that the normal rules for movement cannot be used, and that vehicles have their own rules for movement. The cruising speed could be argued, but this section of the book is not applicable and would imply that a vehicle can never move more than 6" and flyers automatically crash.

Also, 3" of movement in a game where models move 6" is a 50% change. So it is a big deal.

Gravmyr wrote:
..., you should be able to simply measure out 6" from the furthest point and put your rear there,...

That would result in you moving 6" plus the length of the vehicle.

The GA for the Crons is open topped so no it doesn't affect them and they would be the one that would be able to take advantage of the pivot crud the most.

Er... if they're the vehicle that would be able to take advantage of the free pivot the most, then surely this interpretation does affect them... ?

Ventiscogreen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if it does more than Pivot on the spot, and actually moves in the movement phase, the rule that says "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving" does not apply as they are doing more than just pivoting. Nobody has actually made a justification for why this would be so? Nothing says or implies that pivoting having moved counts as movement.
And we know "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." (The Movement Phase section, Movement Distance sub-section). I already clarified that it is specifically stated that the normal rules for movement cannot be used, and that vehicles have their own rules for movement. The cruising speed could be argued, but this section of the book is not applicable and would imply that a vehicle can never move more than 6" and flyers automatically crash.

Also, 3" of movement in a game where models move 6" is a 50% change. So it is a big deal.

Pivoting only does not count as movement when the vehicle Pivots on the spot. Otherwise "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." so while pivoting is not explicitly movement, you can not end with the vehicle's Hull further than 6 inches from where it started. (Since we measure to and from the Hull instead of using the base as vehicles usually do not have bases).

Vehicles do have their own movement rules, but the basic rules still apply when talking about combat speed (Which is 6 inches the same as infantry movement). This is because the Vehicle section, Combat speed sub-section says "• Combat Speed. A vehicle that travels up to 6" is said to be moving at Combat Speed. This represents the vehicle advancing slowly to keep firing, albeit with reduced firepower".

If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

and in all reality two or three inches does not matter much, the vehicle could just move flat out the turn before to gain twice that in movement.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

If the normal movement rules don't apply, measuring more than 6" is still measuring more than 6".

The movement rules don't define some special way of measuring that only applies to Warhammer 40K.

Vehicle movement rules apply, and any vehicle that TRAVELS more than 6" is counted as moving cruising speed.
That would be an entire turn of snapshots.
During a vehicle movement you can pivot ON THE SPOT and then continue to expend movement. It is sometimes required to get around sharp corners in city battlefields.
A vehicle that has both pivoted and moved may only fire one weapon at full ballistics skill unless other rules trump said factor.
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the normal movement rules do not apply you could measure from the front of the vehicle, move 6 inches and place the vehicle at the far end of the tape measure, something that is specifically disallowed in the rules

If the normal movement rules don't apply, measuring more than 6" is still measuring more than 6".

The movement rules don't define some special way of measuring that only applies to Warhammer 40K.

Except that if the normal movement rules do not apply then this does not apply either: "It’s a common mistake to measure the distance and then place the model on the far side of the tape measure. This is incorrect, as it adds the entire length of the model’s base to the distance moved."

However the rules for Moving vehicles does not override "How to measure movement"

Under the heading 'Movement distance' we have a diagram and the text I quoted earlier in this post.

darkcloak wrote:
I would disagree about the Grav thing, unless wording for vehicle cover saves has also changed. If so please fill me in.

My best suggestion here is for you to read the entirety of the 7e rulebook, specifically BRB 77, bullet-point #4.
There, I've even done all the work for you!

Gravmyr wrote:
I think the biggest problem people have is the belief that transports should be turned around and deposit you a handful of inches away from your target. They should be there to get you across most of the way not doorstep to doorstep. Why would you ever logically present the rear of your vehicle with open access to the interior to the enemy?

Well, if said open access to the interior was blocked by 10 super humans with chainsaws, I could see why you'd want to.

-Matt

But the book is all the way over there!

But seriously though, that rule got cleaned up? At least there will be no more fighting about it either way.

Not that I used grav guns very much, it just seemed like a nice added bonus to an otherwise mediocre weapon.

So they removed the sentence that says rotating does not reduce your movement... so the question is, if it now does how much does it reduce... and how do you measure that. if you are allowed to rotate before you move, how do you rotate and then measure 6" movement accurately? Or are we somehow expected to know the exact length and width dimensions of every vehicle we put on the field so we can now how much shorter the movement is if we rotate?

I see where the op is coming from, but given the way the rest of vehicle movement is worded... there is little way to enforce this rule. And if a vehicle moves the full 12", it is then allowed to pivot which would but it closer, if the OP is correct it would also somehow turn a series of completely legal maneuvers into something illegal...

So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

3.5" fwd as I measure it, although from the center front of the tank, to the furthest travelled corner it's just over 4"

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.

You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.

Sorry wasn't very clear in that was I? What I meant is moving as below.
RF------l
So you end.
------FRl

In the end you would have moved as far as you need to / want to but not past using the pivot. Just as your last post insaniak.

 Happyjew wrote:
So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

Also, how do we measure pivoting by non-square vehicles in a meaningful way? I'm not up to complex maths every time I move and pivot my Wave Serpent.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Interesting.

Would that mean that a razorback that move forward 6", and does a 180 to unload cargo can no longer unload?
The rear access has ended it's move ~10" from the starting location (while the front has ended only 2"). If this counts as more than 6" of movement, it pretty much kills most transports.

-Matt

This is pretty much the best example "against". All comments in favor of "no part of the vehicle can be more than 6inches from where it started" would move their transport 1" before rotating to unload. Feel free to play it that way...

I think that whatever your starting position is, as long as the center point has not moved more than 6", you are fully within RaW, even if you prow was facing left, and is now facing forward...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
So question then.

I move my tank (3" wide by 4" long) 4" forward and then pivot left 90 degrees. How far have I moved?

4", as you have measured.

 insaniak wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Pivoting is not only used to abuse transports. I've set up some dense cities that required a lot of pivots to get around a corner.

The thing is, if the interpretation being presented here is correct, there is absolutely no need to pivot the tank as it moves. If all that matters is how far the front edge of the tank has travelled from where it started, you would just measure your movement distance from the tank's starting position, pick it up, and put it down facing the appropriate direction against the measured point.

You would need to make sure that there is a wide enough path for it to travel from start to finish, but there would be no need to push it along the table, pivot it around the corner, and then push it along some more. How it gets around the corner becomes completely irrelevant... specifically, the rule that says that you pivot on the centre point instead of wheeling around a side edge would be redundant, because it would never actually come into play.

Ya, but there are some moves that aren't physically possible you can accomplish if you don't move the vehicle along a path when we are talking about dense terrain and when there are a bunch of models up close. I have always treated vehicles as moving along their path of movement rather than measure and place. Simplified example using infantry of why that is a problem, measure out 6" from a infantry model at a corner, you wouldn't say it can be place anywhere within 6", since that disregards the need to move around the corner. I just physically tested that with a fire warrior and bought myself 2 free inches of movement around a corner. I started the models in the same spot, moving one 4" and then 2". The next model was placed within 6" of the original position and was 2" farther along the other wall of the corner. The corner was 90 degrees, since a sharper angle would result in even worse move distance difference.

 Leonus wrote:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in
the Movement phase counts as Stationary

Pivoting DOES count as movement.

nope. 'Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving' thats a direct quote from the rulebook.

that is pretty clear. its a simple statement of the book, but still its somehow open for debate.

if the rule would say:
Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, IF a vehicle only pivots in
the Movement phase.
then i would agree. but how its acually written.... there is no wiggle room. it explicitly says: Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving.