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.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 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.

It's also my reading comprehension failing me as well I was reading A as B, the X confused me

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.

If you hadn't noticed, the point of my post was to demonstrate the negative implications of the interpretation presented in the OP, not to take sides.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

The only difference is you cannot pivot then move forward 6" as you will have moved more than 6" from where that facing was.

''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.''

So the pronoun "it" (bolded above) could refer either to a model or no part of its [a model's] base . I think the structure of the sentence lends itself the the bolded "it" refering to no part of its base, meaning that no part of its base can move more than 6" from where that part of its base started the Movement phase.

When vehicles come into play, you replace the word "base" with "hull" for obvious reasons.

That is why this interpretation exists. The wording is not entirely clear though, as it "it" may be meaning "a model" given the sloppy writing.

I think the author intended as I interpret, but I can agree to disagree on that. Could use an FAQ imo.

No it means that you have to now count the extra distance gained via the pivot.

Well reasoned.

At that point, still no point of the hull can be beyond 6'' from the starting point of the whole hull, if you like. We know the first only part is required, second is more vague.

That would still stop for say, my DE raiders from deploying sideways, then turning and -then- moving 6 as part of the hull is outside 6 of any other part of the hull before it moved, or vise versa.

And things.

Though my original reading is as Dracos as pointed out.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

The only difference is you cannot pivot then move forward 6" as you will have moved more than 6" from where that facing was.

Why are facings relevent but not all individual parts of a model? Citation needed.

 Dracos wrote:

''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.''

So the pronoun "it" (bolded above) could refer either to a model or no part of its [a model's] base . I think the structure of the sentence lends itself the the bolded "it" refering to no part of its base, meaning that no part of its base can move more than 6" from where that part of its base started the Movement phase.

When vehicles come into play, you replace the word "base" with "hull" for obvious reasons.

That is why this interpretation exists. The wording is not entirely clear though, as it "it" may be meaning "a model" given the sloppy writing.

I think the author intended as I interpret, but I can agree to disagree on that. Could use an FAQ imo.

The "it" simply refers to the base. I.e.:

''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 the base started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board."

Except for vehicles you use the hull so it becomes:

''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 hull can finish the move more than 6"
away from where the hull started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board."

That is functionally identical to the way I have read it, as far as I can see. And it seems possible as "it" could be many of the nouns in that sentence. Sloppy writing indeed.

 Dracos wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

The only difference is you cannot pivot then move forward 6" as you will have moved more than 6" from where that facing was.

Why are facings relevent but not all individual parts of a model? Citation needed.

This is because you use the base for non vehicles and the hull for vehicles, so you use the edges of the hull, i.e. the facings.

But you still have to make sure no part of its base[hull] ends more than 6" away from where that part of the base[hull] started its movement phase.

Anyways, no point going in circles, seems like everyone has articulated quite well how they are reading the passage, and the use of the pronoun "it" there really allows for a few ways of reading the sentence.

Needs FAQ imo.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:

 Dracos wrote:

''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.''

So the pronoun "it" (bolded above) could refer either to a model or no part of its [a model's] base . I think the structure of the sentence lends itself the the bolded "it" refering to no part of its base, meaning that no part of its base can move more than 6" from where that part of its base started the Movement phase.

When vehicles come into play, you replace the word "base" with "hull" for obvious reasons.

That is why this interpretation exists. The wording is not entirely clear though, as it "it" may be meaning "a model" given the sloppy writing.

I think the author intended as I interpret, but I can agree to disagree on that. Could use an FAQ imo.

The "it" simply refers to the base. I.e.:

''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 the base started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board."

Except for vehicles you use the hull so it becomes:

''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 hull can finish the move more than 6"
away from where the hull started the Movement phase.
Models cannot voluntarily move off the board."

Wrong.

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.

From the moment the rule starts to talk about specific parts of the base, the subject of the sentence (and hence any uses of "it") switches to that part of the base, not the base as a whole.

I'm not sure English Grammar requires that to be the case. [but its how I read it too]

TimmyIsChaos wrote:


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.

yup this is how I read it too, It's awesome that they cleaned the rules with this

"Cleaned" You keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
"Cleaned" You keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

He has used that word once, and that word appears one other time all thread not including your post or this one...

He does not "keep saying that word"

You may want to rethink your statement.

TimmyIsChaos wrote:


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.

You do realize this is an entirely different way of measuring distance moved? Your method would allow that vehicle to run a slalom course of turns and movement ending inside your perimeter and it would only count as Combat Speed? That is the reason why GW has always used pivot and measure movement. It can actually be used in gameplay. Also, again, you're trying to apply that Basic infantry maximum base distance rules of a 6" move when vehicles can move at least 12". We are actually SPECIFICALLY talking about the Combat Speed and Cruising speed advanced rule. Any debate should start there and if the maximum base distance rule applies to it and a vehicle hull. Also, in case you missed it last time:

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

That is a very specific statement in the vehicle movement section and it doesn't say only.

 Booklooker wrote:

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

That is a very specific statement in the vehicle movement section and it doesn't say only.

It doesn't need to as that rule is already talking about a vehicle remaining stationary.

We were told earlier in the rules that a model that only pivots counts as stationary.

We were also told that no part of a models base (and so, hull) can end the movement phase further than 6" (or 12" with special rules) from where it started if it moved.

So even if we agreed that no part of the vehicle can end its movement more than 12" from where that part of the hull started movement, (which is stupid and annoying measuring of multiple points if a vehicle is long and makes turns). Still, that particular rule has no effect on the advanced rule of Combat Speed but only on maximum distance a model's base/hull may be from its starting point at the end of movement. If you're trying to turn endpoint position into movement then the game no longer measures turns. You could zigzag all around and end up 6" away and say the move is legal.

Now if you want to get into RAW lets see these points:

Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base.

and

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model

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.

So if you took a Landraider and measured from its side 6", moved it sideways then pivoted at the end there is no requirement to remeasure. No RAW rule about base/hull distances is violated since vehicles can move 12" and Combat Speed is still achieved. Or you could still deploy on the line, pivot, and then measure 6" since there is no rule for measuring points moving on a pivoting hull. The basic rule being cited has no effect on the Combat Speed advanced rule. And instead you are trying to use it as some precedent to measure any and all shifting movements of pivoting hulls. Which it does not cover.

The distance between the Ork Trukk and the furthest point on the most distant Space Marine is 8 inches. The Space Marine unit is therefore wholly within 8" of the Ork Trukk.

Finally, you can see here that GW does have language to cover the kind of all encompassing distance you wish this rule meant. That language is never used. Which would be: A vehicle must end its move wholly within it's maximum movement distance. Or some similar easily added rule.

 Booklooker wrote:
So if you took a Landraider and measured from its side 6", moved it sideways then pivoted at the end there is no requirement to remeasure. No RAW rule about base/hull distances is violated since vehicles can move 12" and Combat Speed is still achieved. Or you could still deploy on the line, pivot, and then measure 6" since there is no rule for measuring points moving on a pivoting hull. The basic rule being cited has no effect on the Combat Speed advanced rule. And instead you are trying to use it as some precedent to measure any and all shifting movements of pivoting hulls. Which it does not cover.

so what your saying is measure exactly 6 inches , place the model , the move it some more ?
Then in the next example move the model and then measure the distanced you want to move , then move it again ?
Why are you not measuring from before you touch the model to where the model is not going to move any longer ????

 Booklooker wrote:

Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base.

Irrelevant as you are not measuring between two objects.

 Booklooker wrote:

So if you took a Landraider and measured from its side 6", moved it sideways then pivoted at the end there is no requirement to remeasure. No RAW rule about base/hull distances is violated since vehicles can move 12" and Combat Speed is still achieved. Or you could still deploy on the line, pivot, and then measure 6" since there is no rule for measuring points moving on a pivoting hull. The basic rule being cited has no effect on the Combat Speed advanced rule. And instead you are trying to use it as some precedent to measure any and all shifting movements of pivoting hulls. Which it does not cover.

You're missing the point that without an overriding portion you use the basic rule. There is nothing in the vehicles section that overrides the basic rule about measuring. You need something that specifically tells you this is how you do it instead of the normal way for it to be more specific or to be a conflict.

Pivoting at the end is part of the move, you are advocating people move further after placing the model and stating that you use the original measurement.

Because you can choose to change your facing at any time. It is not measured. The correct way to measure distance is to measure from the point closest on the base/hull to the direction moved and then move. What game mechanic do we have for measuring pivoting? That is why pivoting was free. There is no easy way to measure the damn thing. And there still isn't a rule for doing so. Imagine making a 12" move with a vehicle with 6 direction changes. How do you measure forward distance? By measuring from the point of the hull closest to the new direction each time. How do you measure the movement of hull during pivots? Oh yeah, there is no rule for something like that at all.

And the correct method for measuring movement distance is shown in the example picture. You measure from a point of the base closest to the direction the model is moving to. This is an earlier written rule on measuring distance since pivot haters want to ignore how movement is measured

 Booklooker wrote:
Because you can choose to change your facing at any time. It is not measured. The correct way to measure distance is to measure from the point closest on the base/hull to the direction moved and then move. What game mechanic do we have for measuring pivoting? That is why pivoting was free. There is no easy way to measure the damn thing. And there still isn't a rule for doing so. Imagine making a 12" move with a vehicle with 6 direction changes. How do you measure forward distance? By measuring from the point of the hull closest to the new direction each time. How do you measure the movement of hull during pivots? Oh yeah, there is no rule for something like that at all.

You mean other than putting the tape down and measuring the distance you have just moved it in the direction you plan to go?

You are saying measuring to your endpoint? Because then I don't think you know how moving in this game works. No, its fine, I'll drive 24" around a wall to get to the other side and say it''s only been 5" from my starting point. Is that your argument?

 Booklooker wrote:
You are saying measuring to your endpoint? Because then I don't think you know how moving in this game works. No, its fine, I'll drive 24" around a wall to get to the other side and say it''s only been 5" from my starting point. Is that your argument?

I don't believe you understand the rules of 40k , or perhaps you are not that well at articulating your argument with rules support however with the extremely low post count and the unabilitiy to understand what other people are posting with rules quoting them your almost a full blown troll with this statement

For skimmers or in open areas that works fine but now pivots during a move are not free. You have to take into account the distance you gain during the pivot. Put your tape measure down at the hull of the vehicle advancing in the direction you are going to move, pivot and then move. If you are going to stop there with no pivot you have your distance moved if you are going to pivot more and move more, remember how much you have moved. Put the tape down again and start measuring again.

Kambien I'm not going to get into an Ad Hominem argument with you. I was pointing out an extreme flaw with measuring based on your "planned" destination.

Gravmyr your proposed interpretation of the cost of pivoting is less than what others have said in this thread.There are some who feel if you pivot in place 180 degrees then move an inch you must measure (for instance) the starting position of the rear hatch of the vehicle before move begins, and then after movement is complete.

But here is one the problem with your more moderate measure-pivot-measure approach you describe. Your movement around obstacles is going to be better without pivoting and just sliding sideways. Which most of us will agree will seem stupid.

For example I need to drive my Land Raider around a single enemy model in front of it. If measure one inch to the left and then pivot, I've already now moved more than an inch but I still cannot clear the obstacle. The best solution becomes sideways movement. To move one inch left and one inch up will cost the Landraider two extra inches of movement this way. while slideways sliding become the logical choice.

 Booklooker wrote:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:


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.

You do realize this is an entirely different way of measuring distance moved? Your method would allow that vehicle to run a slalom course of turns and movement ending inside your perimeter and it would only count as Combat Speed? That is the reason why GW has always used pivot and measure movement. It can actually be used in gameplay. Also, again, you're trying to apply that Basic infantry maximum base distance rules of a 6" move when vehicles can move at least 12". We are actually SPECIFICALLY talking about the Combat Speed and Cruising speed advanced rule. Any debate should start there and if the maximum base distance rule applies to it and a vehicle hull. Also, in case you missed it last time:

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

That is a very specific statement in the vehicle movement section and it doesn't say only.

I don't think you understood the drawing at all.

is placing the measure tape before pivoting that hard to do?

Measuring all those times is Raw. What it isn't is how any of them is going to play it.