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.

Strict raw, yes.

RAW that is correct happy.

RAI its obviously not.

Eihnlazer wrote:
RAW that is correct happy.

RAI its obviously not.

Prove it isn't intended.

Nah, thats ok, i'll pass.


If you cant see the clear intent then you never will.

Orientation of the vehicle irrespective, if any part of the hull is further away then six inches at the end of its move. Then the vehicle has gone too far. Move it back.

Yes Happyjew. Your monolith may not pivot and move in the same turn as per their assumptions.

Is this not the whole issue? being that any part has moved more than 6"?

Strict RAW yes that is the issue. Several of us have put fourth that we believe you should simply measure out from and place the model down there at the orientation you would like, so long as the furthest measurement done not exceed that distance. Which if done that way is between the next to nothing movement of all spot to spot measurements and the 3.5cm extra movement of a pivot at the end with a Landraider.

 Happyjew wrote:
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?

It can move and pivot, it just can not move 6 inches and pivot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
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?

It can move and pivot, it just can not move 6 inches and pivot.

According to one side, you cannot move and pivot (or pivot and move) as that would force you to have part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point, meaning it can either pivot in place or move, but not both.

You can not move 6 inches (Combat speed) then pivot as that would force you to have part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point, and at that point you would be going cruising speed.

But a 3 or 4 inch move with a little pivot that does not bring any part of the hull more than 6" away from its starting point is perfectly legal.

Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Why, Large vehicles are fine, they work within the RAW.

If pivoting count as movement you can't pivot for free at the end of your move, so you just don't pivot at the end of your move.

You can obviously still pivot during your movement you just cannot gain free movement by pivoting at the start or very end of your movement as pivoting = movement now unless you only pivot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
Simply put, under these rules don't bring any large vehicles. Just take a fortification.

Why, Large vehicles are fine, they work within the RAW.

I think that poster was meaning that this new method of movement for vehicles severely hampers their speed, to the point of making them poor value. They function, but not with the same efficacy.

Look at it like this

A vehicle is 6" long from front to back. It pivots 180 degrees. It now has effectively moved 6" because the front and back are now 6" away from their starting position. It doesn't count as moving though because it just a pivot

If it moves any distance at all it will automatically count as having move cruising speed. even it moved only 0.1" inches its now gone cruising speed and only moved 0.1" foward

Even if it isn't 6" long, pivoting 180 degrees functionally subtracts the vehicle's length from how far it can go each speed. So a 4" long vehicle can only move 2" and retain combat speed.

It basically ruins transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc)

 CrownAxe wrote:
Look at it like this

A vehicle is 6" long from front to back. It pivots 180 degrees. It now has effectively moved 6" because the front and back are now 6" away from their starting position. It doesn't count as moving though because it just a pivot

If it moves any distance at all it will automatically count as having move cruising speed. even it moved only 0.1" inches its now gone cruising speed and only moved 0.1" foward

Even if it isn't 6" long, pivoting 180 degrees functionally subtracts the vehicle's length from how far it can go each speed. So a 4" long vehicle can only move 2" and retain combat speed.

It basically ruins transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc)

Not really, just means you have to think a bit more tactically with them rather than drive forwards, vehicle does a 180 then everyone piles out.

CrownAxe, transports with access points in the back (such s the rhino and the chimera, etc) were already ruined with 6th ed.

Hull Points made them not so great, so they can be fun, but they are not usually very effective regardless of pivoting.

There is a difference between "not very effective" and "completely non-functioning". Also those aren't the only two vehicles suffering from it. Wave serpants and Heavy vehicles are also screwed by this.

I don't see how this is a better alternative to before where some vehicles get a few inches at the start of the game.

Wait i though all vehicles just disembark from any point on the hull and only when embarking does the points matter. (at least i thought that was what i read)

 Desubot wrote:
Wait i though all vehicles just disembark from any point on the hull and only when embarking does the points matter. (at least i thought that was what i read)

Pretty sure that's just open topped.

If the exit point is blocked you can do an emergency disembark which allows you to leave from any point on the hull where there's space. But that has more restrictions on further actions than a normal disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:
There is a difference between "not very effective" and "completely non-functioning". Also those aren't the only two vehicles suffering from it. Wave serpants and Heavy vehicles are also screwed by this.

I don't see how this is a better alternative to before where some vehicles get a few inches at the start of the game.

They are still functioning. They can move, they can pivot, they can disembark. They're just no longer getting an extra couple of inches.

They are losing A LOT OF INCHES, making walking a faster option. In fact, this would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for CSM.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
They are losing A LOT OF INCHES, making walking a faster option. In fact, this would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for CSM.

Except it won't be. Walking you can move 6" right?

In a vehicle the rear access hatch will end up 6" from where it started. They then get to disembark 6". So in one movement phase they have doubled their movement.

It's just no longer the case that they get double movement and then a little bit extra.

Ya, but you will have to move the vehicle forward first, potentially around terrain. Keep in mind that a vehicle under said suppositions would have maybe an inch of move distance if not being forced to remain stationary on the turn it wants to spit out models, unless you start facing backwards. At the end of the day, since you won't be assaulting anyway first turn as an infantry model, you lose maybe an inch by not taking it, while having more mobility around terrain and not paying for the transport means more points elsewhere. When you lose 1-2" average a turn mobility and need to get across a hammer and anvil battlefield, you are losing a lot.

Remember that most vehicles can utilize flat out movement as well, so 1st turn you can move 18 inches (24 if it is a fast vehicle).

This should be enough to dump the guys out 2nd turn where you need them to be, not that you can assault, but it will get you where you need to go and can shoot a high priority target.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
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.

Do you see that section that you conspicuously didn't bold? this part:

...so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

If you move then pivot, or pivot then move, you are not ->only<- pivoting.

Combine it with the first part of the sentence:

Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

Pivoting does not count as movement when it is the ->only<- thing a vehicle does.


I see this deliberate change by GW trying to eliminate the deploy-sideways-then-pivot-for-extra-movement technique. Furthermore, I feel that it is perfectly in line with GW's general thinking that also preventing the 180 degree E-brake disembark with the same rule change would be intended.

Does this create a number of problems elsewhere in the game? Sure, of course it does, but this is GW we\re talking about.

Edit: due to a display error, this post is actually 6 pages behind the discussion, and may no longer be particularly relevant.

Yes, you read, but not understand it correctly.

Did I only pivot? If yes, then I remained stationary.
Did I move and pivot? If yes, then I am not stationary, but my pivot does still not count as movement.

And the more relevant rule of models not having any part of them further from the starting position, that is just bad. Infantry does not have facing, I like to have my models looking at certain direction. So after moving 6" and pointing them elsewhere I am breaking this rule??

Of those agaist pivoting how many would play it the way you preach it?

Naw wrote:
Yes, you read, but not understand it correctly.

Did I only pivot? If yes, then I remained stationary.

Correct.

Did I move and pivot? If yes, then I am not stationary, but my pivot does still not count as movement.

Correct, but remember that no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

And the more relevant rule of models not having any part of them further from the starting position, that is just bad. Infantry does not have facing, I like to have my models looking at certain direction. So after moving 6" and pointing them elsewhere I am breaking this rule??

Since most bases are circular, not at all. With non circular bases, yes you are clearly breaking a rule if any part of its base finishes the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase. As per the rule.

Of those agaist pivoting how many would play it the way you preach it?

I am not against pivoting, but I realize the rules now say that the Pivoting Trick is dead and gone.

I'd like to see this stupid interpretation applied with big flyers doing their pivots. Not to mention the first time somebody has to turn more than once or twice.

Remember that any and all of the vehicle movement rules are ADVANCED rules. They trump any basic movement rules. Even if pivoting wasn't free, you can legally move vehicles more than 6" because of their ADVANCED rules.
The advanced vehicle rules already allow you to ignore the 6" infantry base distance rule because they can move 12" and have these "speed" rules. That IS RAW. This is an advanced rule that trumps the basic rule. So what is left is a discussion about qualifying for Combat Speed and the effects of pivot on Cruising speed.

If hull facing direction of movement means nothing, you could drive all around an obstacle in 12" and if your final position is within 6" claim combat speed. Pivoting is a change in direction and movement in any direction is measured from a hull/base point closest to the direction you're moving. If pivoting plus 6" makes that combat speed into cruising speed, because a part of the hull is more than 6" from starting points, then moving 12" to a position 6" or less than starting hull positions could be ruled as combat speed? (If you want to make vehicle speed based on final destination distance you're opening up new exploits.)


Now let's also look at the line in question. (It's semantics yes but so is this whole thread.)

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

If this rule was just to allow stationary pivoting without other movement the non-bolded part of the sentence wouldn't be there.

edit- A word
And here is a RAW from the same page you've been quoting:

A vehicle that remained Stationary can fire all of its weapons (remember that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving).

There you go. RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving. Pack it up and go home. Nobody wants to make 20 measurements every time a LR needs to swerve around some terrain anyway. It's silly.

Also, if you apply a bit of common sense you'd see that the "Only" was added to stop the RAW being that vehicles that pivot at the end of their move would now count as stationary.
so a vehicle that pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary would, RAW, be very abusable. If you're a slave to the RAW.

How would this apply to a vehicle like the Manta? It'll hardly be able to move I suspect. I suppose it can move in a straight line.

Once it pivots though, checking every point of the hull fr movement will likely take quite a while. Definitely not for Aocalyose.