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.

Naw wrote:
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

It is just a game, with rules and everything!

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
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

It is just a game, with rules and everything!

We agree that the rules are not clear and the ability to pivot any possible way just adds to that. What I tried to explain but did not feel like trying to "draw" with a mobile device is following:

This is my vehicle, 4 characters/inches in length. I decide to move the vehicle to the right. One dot equals one inch. So I move 6 inches.

---|..---|

However I want to face the enemy
........--
---|....|
........|
........|

Yes, it's a bad drawing

My point is that if I pivot, I make sure I do not pass the 6" mark from the point where I left, any point of my hull that is closest to the place where I end up to. If I am now gaining a couple of inches for my next move I read it as being supported by the rules as was explained already many times.

Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

So gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

So gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

The rules were perfectly clear before... which made that rotation perfectly legal. And given the amount of explanation and logic the OP needed to put into the matter to come up with this new interpretation, the wording is anything put clear now. However, despite the ambiguity of how to enforce the new interpretation, it does appear to be accurate.

This is silly. You lose distance when you pivot after moving, not gain. Of course it's not moving at cruising speed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

Why are we having this discussion then?

gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

But I am not gaining distance. My vehicle has moved a maximum of 6 inches from the starting position. Would it make you feel better if I first pivot the vehicle and then move it 6" sideways?

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually no, the rules, are finally clear, as Nem has pointed out in the OP.

Why are we having this discussion then?

Because people didnt read the OP?

Naw wrote:

deathreaper wrote: gaining distance because of a pivot is not allowed anymore in 7th ed.

But I am not gaining distance. My vehicle has moved a maximum of 6 inches from the starting position. Would it make you feel better if I first pivot the vehicle and then move it 6" sideways?

But if a part of the vehicles base (Well Hull because it is a vehicle) finishes the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase, then it is no longer moving at combat speed, and if a part of the vehicles base (Well Hull because it is a vehicle) finishes the move more than 12" away from where it started the Movement phase, then that vehicle has moved too far.

I have read the original and I do not agree with it. The rule even says that for vehicles with no base this rule can't be used, and tells to calculate from hull to hull. Exactly what I have done in my example.

Let's use a bike as an example, as it has a long base. I move it forward 12" and rotate it 180 degrees. To satisfy the rules I would make sure the back end of the bike is not further than 12" from the starting position where the front end of the bike used to be.

I would use similar way of measuring the distance with a vehicle.

As pivoting does not count as moving, the front of the vehicle will NOT have moved more than 6 inches no matter what way it turns assuming the player does the correct thing and turns around the very centre of the vehicle.

 Nem wrote:

"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."

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving"

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

By your reasoning a vehicle that pivots WILL have moved and therefore counts as moving, this is not the case. Pivoting does NOT count as movment, vehicles that pivot and move 6 inches or move 6 inches and pivot are at COMBAT speed, NOT crusing speed.

Please read the explanation as well as the relevant rules before posting as well as posting relevant rules quotes for your arguments. As the OP pointed out, the rule about pivoting does not say that pivoting never counts as movement. Anyone that is claiming that pivoting never counts as movement needs to back that up with a rule quote.

Anyone claiming that you measure from the center point due to being where a base would be needs to present a rule allowing you to do so. If you cling to the measure from the base rule and your model does not have a base then you have no way to actually measure. Therefor I ask how you can legally move?

So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

So pivot at the center to keep from moving too far is the same as pivoting doesn't count to you? Interesting.

The basic rules all work off the box vehicle shape which makes it a closer measurement. For further proof they were never written to take into account non-box shapes please tell me how you measure corner to corner on the elder falcon or necron nightshroud.

The point of the pivot point line is so you don't pivot at a corner stop then pivot at another to walk it across the board while being able to say that it only pivoted and get to fire full bs with all weapons.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

"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."

If you move your vehicle in the movement phase then pivoting IS part of the movement. It ONLY not moving if you are only pivoting in the movement phase.

While GW managed to fix that they broke something else at the same time by saying that no part of the model (or hull) can end it's movement further than 6" away (or 12" at cruising speed). This is what leads to issues with measuring because now you have to pay attention to where each part of the vehicle starts and ends it's move.

HIWPI: I'm just going to ignore the part about paying attention to each part of the hull. Measure the distance (before pivoting) and move the vehicle so that no part of the hull is further than where I measured, allowing me to pivot whichever way I want while not gaining extra movement from pivoting.

Pretty sure that's exactly how most people will play it Zimko, minus the people that believe they deserve that extra move.

Gravmyr wrote:So pivot at the center to keep from moving too far is the same as pivoting doesn't count to you? Interesting.

It's a quote from the rulebook, so yes, it is.

Zimko wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
So by your way of thinking if a vehicle needs to turn it has to count that towards the movement?

Show me exactly where it says this is how vehicles measure the distance they move.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

This rule quote alone should be enough to convince you that it doesn't make you move further than intended.

The sentence that was removed from the 6th edition rules said, "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." It didn't say "Turning does not count towards the vehicle's movement." Which are two similar but different sentences.

"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."

If you move your vehicle in the movement phase then pivoting IS part of the movement. It ONLY not moving if you are only pivoting in the movement phase.

While GW managed to fix that they broke something else at the same time by saying that no part of the model (or hull) can end it's movement further than 6" away (or 12" at cruising speed). This is what leads to issues with measuring because now you have to pay attention to where each part of the vehicle starts and ends it's move.

HIWPI: I'm just going to ignore the part about paying attention to each part of the hull. Measure the distance (before pivoting) and move the vehicle so that no part of the hull is further than where I measured, allowing me to pivot whichever way I want while not gaining extra movement from pivoting.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed"

That's pretty black and white to me. You can move 6" and turn. You have to turn on the centre point to prevent yourself from moving further than intended or allowed.

Ok, what are you trying to say? Yes that is a rule in the rulebook... and yes you pivot by rotating around the center point so that you can't pivot over and over again to move a vehicle...

I think someone posted a diagram on this tread about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
found it.



This is what the rulebook is telling you not to do with that rule.

Yeah, that's not a legal pivot.



Scrappy work, but shows what a legal pivot would be. The front isn't actually 6" away any more which is what is intended from a pivot after moving.

What part of that statement actually tells you specifically not to measure to the final position Timmy? It does not say not to count it, it says to prevent you from moving too far. There is a difference. You would need a specific statement that says it does not count for movement. Anecdotal or implication does not counter rules.

Ah, so you're advocating that you should actually get even less movement from pivoting by moving first, then pivoting.

Sure I can buy that... except what if the vehicle starts sideways and then chooses to pivot after or before moving?

The rules tell us that you pivot at the same time as moving the vehicles, so there isn't a before or after. Thus my interpretation is you measure before pivoting or moving, then pivot/move all you want so long as you don't cross that line. While that does kind of gain extra movement with the 1 scenario you pointed out, it prevents extra movement that could result in a turn 1 assault from Assault transports.

This is also why you shouldn't measure from the center of the vehicle. You should measure from the furthest edge of the hull towards which you are moving.

Gravmyr wrote:What part of that statement actually tells you specifically not to measure to the final position Timmy? It does not say not to count it, it says to prevent you from moving too far. There is a difference. You would need a specific statement that says it does not count for movement. Anecdotal or implication does not counter rules.

If you look above you can see that the final position on a legal pivot is actually less than 6 inches from it's starting position. This is why you turn on the centre of the model, and why pivots are legal. The hull is not more than 6" away, it is less.

Zimko wrote:Ah, so you're advocating that you should actually get even less movement from pivoting by moving first, then pivoting.

Sure I can buy that... except what if the vehicle starts sideways and then chooses to pivot after or before moving?

The rules tell us that you pivot at the same time as moving the vehicles, so there isn't a before or after. Thus my interpretation is you measure before pivoting or moving, then pivot/move all you want so long as you don't cross that line. While that does kind of gain extra movement with the 1 scenario you pointed out, it prevents extra movement that could result in a turn 1 assault from Assault transports.

This is also why you shouldn't measure from the center of the vehicle. You should measure from the furthest edge of the hull towards which you are moving.

Yeah a turn one start sideways, move 6" disembark 6" and assault 10" to their line is out of the question now.

But I can't accept that you cannot move and then pivot to in fact go less distance.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

But I can't accept that you cannot move and then pivot to in fact go less distance.

Well, RAW we're both wrong. The aboive is just how i would play it.

The RAW interpretation is that no part of the hull can go further than 6", so in the above diagram the back-right rear armor is further than 6" than where the back-right rear armor started and thus the vehicle moved too far... according to RAW.

But again, I think using that particular rule is unwieldy and too much of a hassle in game.

In fact, in the diagram I'd play it that you can pivot sideways and place your rhino right against the 6" line.

I posted the same earlier in the thread. I was misunderstanding your statement and assumed you were pivoting for more distance. Less if fine but in the end I advocated doing just as Zimko has put fourth measure and place as you want. It is demonstratively true that it can be done if you take your time to get your model to that position in most cases.

I'll check the rulebook when I get home so I don't have to use quotes from the OP see if I can spot anything, because this essentially make vehicles wheel like in WHFB which is what the rule specifically states it is not.

We'll have to wait for an FAQ I guess.

This thread makes me laugh. There isn't even an argument here. The base on skimmers is not the hull and on vehicles you measure from the hull after turning. It's blatantly obvious in the rules.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
I'll check the rulebook when I get home so I don't have to use quotes from the OP see if I can spot anything, because this essentially make vehicles wheel like in WHFB which is what the rule specifically states it is not.

We'll have to wait for an FAQ I guess.

Why would it need an FAQ?

If a person takes the time to actually look at all the relevant rules it is clear what the RAW is. (The OP indeed outlines the rules and the RAW, pretty clear if you ask me).

Shingen wrote:
This thread makes me laugh. There isn't even an argument here. The base on skimmers is not the hull and on vehicles you measure from the hull after turning. It's blatantly obvious in the rules.

Except... you're wrong? You might have read the thread but you didn't comprehend it.

I think that's a bit of cross speaking actually. I believe Shingen means after the final pivot you measure. If they mean before you move you pivot then no it is wrong.

The problem is that a lot of what is being supposed would have us measure a distance for any model and then place within that distance. This gets dicey around corners very fast, especially with infantry. Models are not simply placed within a distance, they have to travel that distance. Pivoting on the spot can be done at the start, beginning, or end of moving a vehicle. Adding the aspect of not being outside of a certain distance from original position for each part of the hull makes things insanely complicated, and is not RAW or RAI.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
The problem is that a lot of what is being supposed would have us measure a distance for any model and then place within that distance. This gets dicey around corners very fast, especially with infantry. Models are not simply placed within a distance, they have to travel that distance. Pivoting on the spot can be done at the start, beginning, or end of moving a vehicle. Adding the aspect of not being outside of a certain distance from original position for each part of the hull makes things insanely complicated, and is not RAW or RAI.

Except for the part where it is RAW.

And you cannot say it isn't RAI.

Just so I'm clear. Since the Monolith is approximately 6" side to side, and since it is a Heavy vehicle, it can never pivot and move in the same turn?