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.

Booklooker, you are correct "RAW that pivoting on the spot does not count as moving."

However pivoting on the spot means the vehicle has not moved. once you move the vehicle you are no longer pivoting on the spot, you are pivoting, but you are not doing it on the spot.

 Booklooker wrote:
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.

I spoke about advance and basic rules at a fair length. If you think one mention on an advance rule takes away everything none specific of the basic rules then sorry, that is wrong. It isn’t an interpretation and I can't gloss over the fact or make it prettier, it's just wrong.
There is a lot contained in the basic movement rules. Advanced rules trump basic where they conflict. An example of this is the rules for basic movement say you cannot move a model off the board. Flyers have a rule saying they can. The flyer rule is more specific.
Can vehicles move off the board? No, because they do not have any rules allowing you to override the restriction. Or according to your interpretation, yes because we just ignore whole sections of a book because vehicles have a whole 2 paragraphs covering some items specific to vehicle movement.

 Booklooker wrote:

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.

‘Only’ was not added, only has always been there, the issue is there was a line before that previously that read turning did not count as moving (without the only), this line was removed. I never saw anyone trying to claim it was stationary after moving before. Never seen any sneaky tactics suggesting you could, I’ve never seen a YMDC post on dakka suggesting if you pivot at the end of your move you didn’t move… and we see a lot of kak. Fixing a paragraph based on a far out interpretation that didn’t exist is not very economic.

About common sense, I think this would not actually be an issue if the old rules were treated with common sense and not ‘abused’. After 7 pages I see people who feel strongly about this in both ways. A lot of people didn’t like being gamed by the system before, a lot of people are wondering how this will affect their vehicles. Arguably, the vehicles that have benefited the most from the previous rules now stand to lose the most once the table turns – that will always be the way. What this may do more is people have to think more about their vehicle facings rather than always able to face forward with ease.

But I would always advocate people play with common sense. Under the old rules, if anyone started sideways or anything like at my FLGS the whole club would be onto you making fun and beating you down, With this if someone turns a bit then moves no one’s going to be trying to measure if part went more than 6inches.


[edit] It effects mostly transports (Monolith's that want to do a 180 aside.). If your access point is on the back and you want to disembark immediately, deploy with back facing and move it backwards. This is a risk, but it also gives point to the benefits of open topped and vehicles which have high armor on all sides, that previously could be circumvented by the vehicle movement rules. As I said, it was very easy to just keep front facing forward.
As for flyers, effects them less with their limited pivoting capabilities.

 milkboy wrote:
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.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
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.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Think there is a difference in reading on

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

Rather I read it no part of its base can finish the more more han 6in away from where that part of the base started in the movement phase.

It's not a exact science as we don't go around circling where models started or pin pointing parts of the base, it's stopping obvious move problems.

 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?

Raw, it can pivot and move as long as no part of the monolith moved more than 6". So you won't be able to pivot 180 and move.

But I doubt many will play it that way, just measure 6" from the edge of the model and move/pivot to your heart's desire as long as you don't cross the line.

 Desubot wrote:


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

This is incorrect, you take the base as a whole so you take the hull as a whole. Not individual points as you have done here.

I think this is where the confusion has come from in this thread.

Any model or vehicle can move 6 inches as long as any part of it's base or hull is not more than 6 inches away from where any part of the hull started the movement phase.

The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

 Nem wrote:
Think there is a difference in reading on

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

Rather I read it no part of its base can finish the more more han 6in away from where that part of the base started in the movement phase.

It's not a exact science as we don't go around circling where models started or pin pointing parts of the base, it's stopping obvious move problems.

That is how I read it, too. And now the rule works. You move 6" and pivot if you want, just don't have any part of the hull more than 6" from where the vehicle started.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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..

Gravmyr wrote:
The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

I'm not gaining additional benefits from loopholes. The rule is:

''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.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

We can all agree that this means any model can move 6" and turn.

However by the logic shown above, any model that turns is adding to it's movement. I.e. a space marine that moves 6" and turn is actually moving nearly 7" as the back of his base is further than 6" away. This is not the case.

You take the base as a whole, just like you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole.

Gravmyr wrote:
The actual question I run into with the differences between old and new is startlingly simple. Can you act like an adult and with sportsmanship? They are trying to correct a problem from older editions. Stop trying to gain additional benefits from loopholes. If you can do that then GW wouldn't rewrite sections and make them overly strict RAW.

Except it wasn't actually a problem. Were some vehicles able to gain displacement? Sure. Sometimes it was even relevant.
By attempting to change it they've gone from an artifact of the simplicity of the movement rules to some sort of bastardized bad rules halfway between wheeling and what we had before.

OK so you got that the vehicle as a whole is measured. The question in the end is when do you measure? The reading we are putting forth is that before any pivot to begin with and at the final position including pivots. In the end if you are advocating that the pivot doesn't count then you are advocating that any additional distance gained is not part of movement. That is the loophole they are trying to close and people continue to try to use.

Edit: @rigeld2: In other words GW GW'ed their rules...... who would have thought. Again play as an adult with a sense of sportsmanship and it wouldn't have mattered.

Gravmyr wrote:
OK so you got that the vehicle as a whole is measured. The question in the end is when do you measure? The reading we are putting forth is that before any pivot to begin with and at the final position including pivots. In the end if you are advocating that the pivot doesn't count then you are advocating that any additional distance gained is not part of movement. That is the loophole they are trying to close and people continue to try to use.

I must've missed that part of the quoted rules - could you repeat it?

Edit: @rigeld2: In other words GW GW'ed their rules...... who would have thought. Again play as an adult with a sense of sportsmanship and it wouldn't have mattered.

Slow down with the insults bro. I literally haven't played a single game with a vehicle until 2 weeks ago. Ever. And playing with Ghost Arks I didn't pivot them - I used the broadside most of the time.
But that said, I fail to see why this is an issue. The extra displacement was rarely relevant (so didn't matter) and was around long enough that saying "Sure the rules allow it but it's unsportsmanlike." is just silly.
And yes, GW GW'd their rules - which means they may have tried to "fix" this, or they may have just screwed up again. Who knows?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
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.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Yes. I did not include any movement, only pivoted in turn three.
Where is the problem? Clearly the thing is too big to nimbly scuttle around.

I think this is what a vehicles maximum movement looks like.

No part of the vehicle can end outside the line which is 6" away from each part of the hull if you want to remain at combat speed.

 Stephanius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
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.

Very simple. Fly in at corner. Shoot whatever you like with amazing range. Pivot if needed, shoot again. If you ever get to turn three that is

If it pivots it can't move because as big as it is even a tiny pivot will leave parts of it out of 18" from where it started.
Same with the Thunderhawk.

Yes. I did not include any movement, only pivoted in turn three.
Where is the problem? Clearly the thing is too big to nimbly scuttle around.

If it doesn't move, it crashes. Being a massive Flyer and all (and I don't think it has Hover, but it might).
It's not "nimbly scuttling around" it's doing anything other than moving in a straight line.

I wasn't saying it to you, it was a general observation. If pivoting is part of movement, when done with moving the vehicle, then that is how measuring is done. Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

Gravmyr wrote:
I wasn't saying it to you, it was a general observation.

And one that doesn't belong anywhere.

If pivoting is part of movement, when done with moving the vehicle, then that is how measuring is done. Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

So your assertion is that once movement starts you cannot measure?

No my assertion is that you start measuring before you do any part of movement, including pivoting, and stop once all movement is finished, including pivoting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition with the new rules for ranged weapons an additional 1" can make the difference between loosing your HQ or Tank.

Gravmyr wrote:
No my assertion is that you start measuring before you do any part of movement, including pivoting, and stop once all movement is finished, including pivoting.

I'm confused by what you meant when you said

Otherwise you are moving then measuring so you are not measuring a total of how far the model moves you are only measuring part of it.

Because they seem to contradict each other.

Since pivoting is part of movement if you measure only after you pivot you are not taking into account the distance you gain via the pivot. Therefor you are only measuring part of the movement you have done. You need to measure from the model starting before you pivot or move and finish your measurements after it has stopped and you pivot if you do so.

Am I understanding this correctly, I am probably not so I will apologise beforehand



If I have got the just of it, then X is incorrect and mainly what is being discussed.

So what would be the correct way of doing movement if you wanted to pivot and move combat speed, a, b or c? c being that I have missed the point entirely

As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

 Pilau Rice wrote:
Am I understanding this correctly, I am probably not so I will apologise beforehand



If I have got the just of it, then X is incorrect and mainly what is being discussed.

So what would be the correct way of doing movement if you wanted to pivot and move combat speed, a, b or c? c being that I have missed the point entirely

In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

This is wrong as shown above.

''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.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board.''

We can all agree that this means any model can move 6" and turn.

However by the logic shown above, any model that turns is adding to it's movement. I.e. a space marine that moves 6" and turn is actually moving nearly 7" as the back of his base is further than 6" away. This is not the case.

You take the base as a whole, just like you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.

Sorry, it's my artistic skills, but the arrow on X represents the way you would be traveling so in B you would stop before you reached the 6 inches and then pivoted so you would be on the 6 inches line

Edit: This might be clearer

Edit: I meant below the 6 inch line. This is why I stay out of YMDC

 Pilau Rice wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
In your diagram I pick option B. The front moves just past 6 inches and as it pivots is no longer more than 6" away.

Sorry, it's my artistic skills, but the arrow on X represents the way you would be traveling so in B you would stop before you reached the 6 inches and then pivoted so you would be on the 6 inches line

Yeah that's what I thought it was Still option B so the side is not more than 6" away from where the front of the vehicle started.

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

Oh yeah good shout...
But yeah, severely limiting.

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
As you can see from my hastily drawn monolith below, a monolith can only pivot 90 degrees, ever, under this interpretation. If it wants to move, it must pivot even less.

Pivoting ALONE does not count as movement. So it can pivot as much as it likes, but if it wants to move even .01" then your interpretations is accurate imo.

No it isn't, you take the hull of a vehicle as a whole NOT any particular point as some people are interpreting.

Which effectively means nothing changed then.