A Vehicle that move 6 inches and then pivots has moved at Cruising Speed - Wall of text alert

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.

**Dracos**

JinxDragon wrote:
I hate when I have to quote whole chunks of Rulebook like some sort of preacher....

Permission to Move:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

At this point I have permission to move any of my Units, it also creates the requirement that the entire Unit is declared as having 'moved' before I start to adjust Models within different Units. Now there is a lot of Game Workshop sloppy writing within this paragraph, such as Unit's having a 'maximum movement' or that it is actually individual Models which are being moved but we can understand enough of their intent here. No matter which direction the unit moves, all the Models within can not be further away from their allowed movements and further Rules to enforce this idea. However, at this point it is clear we have one thing, Permission to move Models until the entire unit has finished it's movement.

It is perfectly fine to measure a unit’s move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all. As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but 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.

This paragraph you know fairly well already, it has been quoted and mis-quoted many times. However I would like to bring you to the very last part of it, where it informs us how we go about measuring if the Model's individual Movement is legal or not. This re-enforces the above quoted paragraph as well, creating a Restriction that makes sense as it is individual Models which have movement rates and not Units. However this informs us of one very important thing, that we measure from the starting position to the front of the model, ensuring it is not outside of it's movement allowance.

If you believe the above conclusion, with Rule quoted backing, is incorrect then you will need to provide quotes of your own from this point forward to support your stance as well.

We're on the same page as far as I can tell. I just don't see how that means you can pick up a model, put it down, and then pick it back up and put it in the general area of where it originally was (please don't try to tell me you will be putting it "exactly" back in place - especially if you have moved more than one before trying to replace them) in order to change where you are moving that specific model. It's that 'takesies backsies' that I am not seeing room for in those rules.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the OP's assertions regarding the small change to the wording is correct. The resulting system is a pain to deal with though.

**JinxDragon**

I really hate the lack of reliable page numbers on these things...
This line: no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. Defiantly creates a problem as it also runs counter instruction informing us how we go about measuring Distances within this game. This has created a situation where the Vehicle can be both said to have it's hull wholly within X of it's starting point, by the Rules telling us how we measure these things, while certain parts have indeed travelled more then X.
*Slow Clap*

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos,
Because Permission to move the Model exists until the entire Unit has finished Moving.

**Dracos**

So you are drawing [outlining] their original position on the board to make sure they are replaced in the <exact> same position and not exceeding the 6" with any part of their base?

**A Town Called Malus**

Dracos wrote:
So you are drawing their original position on the board to make sure they are replaced in the <exact> same position and not exceeding the 6" with any part of their base?

That's what the rules say.

We're not arguing that it is advisable or even sensible. Just that the rules say you can.

**Dracos**

So then, we can agree that the rules permit you to do so, so long as your follow a requirement that is practically impossible?

Ok

edit: Putting aside the fact that there is no permission to mark the board in this fashion...

**JinxDragon**

Dracos,
Please read one of my earlier posts where I pointed out that it is best to avoid this situation, to measure and decide in advance of moving any Model, because of how easy it is to be accused of cheating.
That is still irrelevant to the fact the Rules allow you to do it.

However, I am backing away as I have encountered one of the 'head explodey' interactions that sometimes happen within Game Workshop Rules if you try and treat them as boolean....

**Dracos**

No worries Jinx, while I see what you guys are getting at, the practicality makes it moot imo.

To each their own.

**JinxDragon**

Agreed,
For while I have no problem with the occasional re-evaluation in the middle of moving a Unit, if a player is constantly doing it even I will start to wonder what they are trying to pull.

**DarknessEternal**

JinxDragon wrote:
I really hate the lack of reliable page numbers on these things...
This line: no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. Defiantly creates a problem as it also runs counter instruction informing us how we go about measuring Distances within this game. This has created a situation where the Vehicle can be both said to have it's hull wholly within X of it's starting point, by the Rules telling us how we measure these things, while certain parts have indeed travelled more then

That line implies no current 40k vehicle model can be turned in any way, ever, during Movement, and still have the model come close to moving 6". There are no vehicles that are perfect spheres, which is the only shape that can follow that restriction.

**Ventiscogreen**

So let me go back. It was brought up in the changed system that it could be interpreted that no part of the vehicle may move further than 6" or the model has moved at cruising speed. This means that I would not be able to, for the most part, turn anything of large size. Further more, you are applying non vehicle movement rules on to a vehicle. I have repeatedly quoted the line stating that standard movement rules for non vehicle models "...CANNOT..." be applied to vehicles. They have their own listed rules that are clearly stated and explained less than a page after said line.

The "I adjust" argument is not relevant to this discussion.

PIVOTING ON THE SPOT HAS NO IMPACT ON MOVEMENT, AND IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS DISTANCE TRAVELED. The original premise for this entire discussion is that infantry model rules apply to vehicles replacing the word "base" with "hull". This is not stated in the book, and to assume it is to a assume that NO VEHICLE MAY EVER MOVE FURTHER THAN COMBAT SPEED.

Sorry for the caps, but I have made some valid arguments that barely got addressed which debunk half of this tomfoolery that has developed at the bare minimum and in all honesty refute the argument of the OP.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
So let me go back. It was brought up in the changed system that it could be interpreted that no part of the vehicle may move further than 6" or the model has moved at cruising speed. This means that I would not be able to, for the most part, turn anything of large size. Further more, you are applying non vehicle movement rules on to a vehicle. I have repeatedly quoted the line stating that standard movement rules for non vehicle models "...CANNOT..." be applied to vehicles. They have their own listed rules that are clearly stated and explained less than a page after said line.

The "I adjust" argument is not relevant to this discussion.

PIVOTING ON THE SPOT HAS NO IMPACT ON MOVEMENT, AND IS NOT COUNTED TOWARDS DISTANCE TRAVELED. The original premise for this entire discussion is that infantry model rules apply to vehicles replacing the word "base" with "hull". This is not stated in the book, and to assume it is to a assume that NO VEHICLE MAY EVER MOVE FURTHER THAN COMBAT SPEED.

Sorry for the caps, but I have made some valid arguments that barely got addressed which debunk half of this tomfoolery that has developed at the bare minimum and in all honesty refute the argument of the OP.

Except the rules regarding vehicles pivoting are, word for word, the same as the rule in the general movement section with an added caveat about an immobilised vehicle. It says that pivots do not count as movement when the vehicle only pivots in the movement phase.

That is not the same as saying pivots never count as movement.

Your argument is flawed.

**Ventiscogreen**

The rules regarding pivoting and the rules regarding turning a model are not the same at all. Please see the vehicles section of the 7th edition codex if you do not believe me. Furthermore, feel free to read the entire section front to back while you are at it.

**PhillyT**

It clearly says pivoting doesn't affect the distance the model can move.

Pivoting doesn't affect status.

**A Town Called Malus**

Directly from the rulebook (italic and underlining emphasis mine):

Vehicles In The Movement Phase wrote:Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary (however, Immobilised vehicles cannot even pivot on the spot). Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed. Just like other units, vehicles cannot move over friendly models.

Now let us look at the pivoting rules from the movement section (again, italic and underlining emphasis mine):

Pivoting on the Spot wrote:If you choose not to move a model in a unit, you can instead choose to turn it on the spot to face in any direction, provided that the pivot does not bring the model within 1" of an enemy model. A model that only pivots on the spot in the Movement phase counts as being stationary for all purposes, including subsequent shooting attacks.

You claim these rules are not the same?

They both require that for pivoting to not count as movement the model must only pivot.
They both say that a model that only pivots in the movement phase is counted as stationary.

The only difference is the inclusion in the vehicle section that, despite a model which only pivots counting as being stationary, immobilised vehicles cannot pivot.

You are wrong.

**Eihnlazer**

Well i give.

The original argument is correct.

However, it changes the game in such a way as to make vehicle movement overly complex and thus is pointless.

I fail to see how getting rid of pivot inch's was so important that making it impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase was necessary

Needless to say, I wont be following or advocating the use of such an interpretation even if RAW correct..

**DeathReaper**

It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

**extremefreak17**

DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

**DeathReaper**

extremefreak17 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

**Ventiscogreen**

The key part of that one sentence is this "," friend here. Sentence can be split as such with same meaning.

"Pivoting on the spot does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

**DeathReaper**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The key part of that one sentence is this "," friend here. Sentence can be split as such with same meaning.

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not constitute movement. Because pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement, vehicles that only pivot in the movement phase are technically stationary."

Fixed that for you by adding the word in a different colour to reflect what the rules actually say. Which of course is "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving,..."

**Ventiscogreen**

DeathReaper wrote:
extremefreak17 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

Last I checked, the Baneblade suffered from the same lack of mobility as a Leman Russ. I don't own Astra Militarum, so can somebody please clarify?

**DeathReaper**

I do not see the Baneblade in the Astra Militarum codex.

**Ventiscogreen**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
extremefreak17 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
It is not impossible for large vehicles to turn and move in the same movement phase...

They can accomplish this easily.

What about a baneblade?

what about them, they can move 12 inches just like any other vehicle.

Last I checked, the Baneblade suffered from the same lack of mobility as a Leman Russ. I don't own Astra Militarum, so can somebody please clarify?

Gah. Does anyone own the rules for one here?

I can pivot my Hammerhead on the spot as many times as I want during my movement. Move an inch, do a spin. Move an inch, do a spin. So long as I maintain rotation around the center point of the model, this will not impact my traveled distance. Sadly, I think some of my friends would slap me in the face if I spun my Devilfish transport for no apparent reason for each inch of their movement that turn.

**DeathReaper**

Keeping in mind the rule that "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase." and you can spin it all you want.

As long as no part of the hull finishes more than 6" (or 12 inches if cruising speed) away from where it started the Movement phase, then you have made a legal move.

**Ventiscogreen**

Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

So?

Rules as written are rules as written.

**Ventiscogreen**

If I remember correctly, rules as written would also have the inability to prevent perils via rerolling psychic tests, but we all agreed that said aspect would be asinine.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Again, by that wording larger models will be lucky to make a full rotation in their movement phase. Pretty much anything longer than 6" is going to have part of the hull end up at least 6" away from where it started if you turn the vehicle more the a few degrees.

Also, you can turn those vehicles as much as you want. If you only pivot then the distance from starting point doesn't come into play as the vehicle counts as stationary.

However you can't pivot then drive (or at least not very far).

**DeathReaper**

Ventiscogreen wrote:
If I remember correctly, rules as written would also have the inability to prevent perils via rerolling psychic tests, but we all agreed that said aspect would be asinine.

You do not remember correctly.

**Naw**

How we play vehicles and we assume this is the intent:

From starting point measure where you want to go, put the vehicle in place (rotate, if you want) and ensure the distance traveled is not more than 6"/12".

After all, it is just a game