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 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.

The line represent the boundary to which a vehicle could move to not move more than 6" from where the hull started and if you read my post I did mention Combat speed. As long as the forward movement is less than 6" and you not past that line you're at combat speed.

I don't get why you're trying to tell me what I've been telling people for several pages either.

kambien wrote:
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

This sort of comment adds nothing constructive to the thread. Please confine your comments to addressing the argument rather than insulting the poster.

Anyway, measure then pivot still doesn't actually measure rotational movement. At the risk of being attacked for pointing out how this isn't even part of the current measuring mechanic in the game (measure from point on base/hull closest to direction model is moving or measuring to), I will give a simple example.



The measure then pivot method does not account for pivoting at the end (which is very common and necessary). Nor does a system of measuring final distance moved, cover the basic rules of measuring each move in each direction around the rocks. To satisfy this new proposed interpretation of the rules, all points of the vehicle must be mapped and marked. Then measurements made in the direction moved followed by pivots. Then after moving all points would have to be compared to the original starting points to see how far any "part of the hull" had moved. Then this would be done again after final facing is determined. A simplified ruling would only see the farthest points of the hull measured from the marked closest starting points of the hull.

Meanwhile the other model moves 6", turns and shoots. Nobody is saying points of his base must be tracked after pivoting. In fact no actual rules exist for measuring pivot movement. It is a fabrication of the OP and those who care about vehicles gaining an inch of movement when deployed sideways (something I have never done BTW). The standard method of measurement as laid out is to measure from the closest point on the base/hull, then move. Pivots or changing of facing may be taken as often as wished and at any time during movement. No rule for pivot measurement exists.

This whole discussion hinges on a description of free pivoting if the vehicle does not otherwise move. The premise is that permission is not expressly given to ignore pivoting as part of the measurement of movement. However the rules of measuring movement are clear and give no tool or method for measuring pivoting. Creating some elaborate system to measure it is silly and complicated. And never touched upon in any way in the rules or examples associated. I ask that someone show me rules for measuring end of move pivoting. And please don't quote the basic explanation of moving infantry no more than 6" that is intended to stop cheaters from measuring from the front of the base then placing the back of the base at the 6" line. Pivoting actually has no practical use for infantry anyway, why would they care if it rotaes the back of it's base around at the end of 6" movement? And don't tell me it was a vehicle rule they hid in the beginning of the book disguised as the basics of infantry movement. It's not a treasure hunt.

 Booklooker wrote:
Meanwhile the other model moves 6", turns and shoots. Nobody is saying points of his base must be tracked after pivoting. In fact no actual rules exist for measuring pivot movement..

Actually, it's worse than that.

If you take the line about no part of the model's base moving beyond the 6" as applying to every individual point on that base (or hull, in the case of vehicles), then an infantry model would not be able to move a full 6" and then pivot, as this would result in parts of his base ending their movement more than 6" from where they started.

You move your 6"... then as you pivot, the part of the base that is moving towards the model's direction of travel is moving further.


So the idea that pivot distance has to be factored into vehicle movement will have just as much of an impact on infantry movement... And that's going to be a right nuisance to enforce.

I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.

Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.

This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.

Seems like the best of both worlds...?

 Nem wrote:
I actually agree with TimmyIsChaos around the sentence and the RAI of it.

Reason being it makes the most sense. When I originally posted I didn't account for spins and such, I think its more likely no part can be more than 6'' (assuming speed..) from any part of the hull where started.

This would allow more freedom with the 180 turns, but would stop side on > 90 Pivot > move deployment, as part of the hull would be outside 6 of any starting position.

Seems like the best of both worlds...?

But this way is also open to "abuse", by the same vehicle that could "abuse" it in the previous method of measuring. Ghost Arks will increase their Gauss Flayer range by this new method.

I put abuse in quotes because I think the abuse is imagined. Under the old rules interpretation, if you start sideways then turn straight, you "gained" distance. If you go from that straigh direction and turned sideways the next turn (to fire broadside for example), you "lost" distance. Basically, it evens out in the end.

@milkboy Other than Ghost arks who broadsides? How would Ghost Arks increase their Gauss range?

@insaniak Other than certain models with non-circular bases, like bikes, why would you rotate infantry at all?

@booklooker Which is why nearly everyone that has looked at it seen that the RAW is broken has put forth the final move measurement and left it there. I'm working on a video I'll be posting to show exactly how easy it is to take all of it into account. In the end if you are honest with yourself and your opponent you can measure distance easily enough.

@booklooker: You measure, pivot and when placing the model do not move any part of its hull further than 6" from the starting position.

Not that hard

Gravmyr wrote:
@milkboy Other than Ghost arks who broadsides? How would Ghost Arks increase their Gauss range?

Gravmyr, it was mentioned previously on page 3. I have quoted them again.

 milkboy wrote:
Hi guys,

Starting position: Ghost Ark facing forward, towards the enemy

It moves 6 inches forward, then pivots 90 degrees.

Then, because of the pivot, the biggest distance moved from the original position is <6 inches, so I get to shift it sideways, closer to the enemy unit.

This gives additional range to the gauss flayers at the side of the Ghost Ark, no? As compared to the other way of moving it (pivot and move model 6 inches.

With the nice graphical explanation from BlackTalos thankfully, because I'm pretty poor at even drawing.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Nem, here is Milkboy's example:


For our position: It has moved forward 12", then Pivoted on the Green dot "central axis".

If we were to follow your argument, the Red line shows that no part of the Hull is 12" away from the original position of the Hull.

Would you not say that the Positioning of the second Ark (following the Rules as you've interpreted them) is closer in Range to the enemy?

As for which other Vehicles broadside, I do not think there are any. But other non-broadside skimmers can abuse this. Hammerheads can show it's side and rotate it's turret 90 degrees, gaining a few inches from the side shuffle and the turret length. Fire Prisms can do the same as well.

@milkboy How is that a gain from every other model? You can literally put any other model in it's place and get it to the same position. How is that an actual increase in range? Via the old rules I could have done the same and ended in the same spot.

Via the old interpretation, the Ghost Ark would have ended up at the spot with the green dot and done its pivot. Via the new interpretation, as mentioned by the OP, as long as any part of the hull is within the 6 or 12 inches (depending on combat or cruising speed), the actual position brings it closer to the enemy than pivoting on the green dot. Thus, the Gauss Flayers have a higher chance of being in range to fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Fire Prism can do so as well but probably less than what the Ghost Ark can do, as it is still longer than it is wide I think. The Hammerhead, maybe not so much.

If the old interpretation allowed people to move vehicles up sideway then rotate around to gain inches how would that have not equated to the same distance?

So in the old interpretation: If you started out sideways, you stand to gain distance. If you started out straight, you stand to lose distance.

In the new interpretation: If you started out sideways, you stand to lose distance. If you started out straight, you stand to gain distance.

So my overall point is: there is no real benefit to change from the old interpretation, if it was merely to prevent "abuse".

There is no rule for measuring turns or pivoting in the game. Models on bases are not subject to it. They just don't want you measuring from the front then placing the back of the model past that line and claiming "part of the base is with 6"". If you feel the wording of the pivoting rules in the vehicle section doesn't expressly permit free pivoting, it doesn't mean you now invent a rule for the measurement of pivoting.

There is no rule for measuring the movement of flyers when they leave the table. You could argue that zooming flyers that leave the board after traveling less than 18" are wrecked because no rules are given for measuring distances off the board. You also don't invent a method for tracking flyer movement after it leaves the board. You don't invent new rules to cover gaps in the rules. You use other precedent or default to simplest. I do not have to draw some movement bubble before I move a vehicle, then measure as it moves and compare the two. Pick a direction. Measure from a point closest to that direction. Changing facing or pivoting can be done at any time. No rule exists for tracking pivoting.

 Booklooker wrote:
There is no rule for measuring turns or pivoting in the game. Models on bases are not subject to it. They just don't want you measuring from the front then placing the back of the model past that line and claiming "part of the base is with 6"". If you feel the wording of the pivoting rules in the vehicle section doesn't expressly permit free pivoting, it doesn't mean you now invent a rule for the measurement of pivoting.

There is no rule for measuring the movement of flyers when they leave the table. You could argue that zooming flyers that leave the board after traveling less than 18" are wrecked because no rules are given for measuring distances off the board. You also don't invent a method for tracking flyer movement after it leaves the board. You don't invent new rules to cover gaps in the rules. You use other precedent or default to simplest. I do not have to draw some movement bubble before I move a vehicle, then measure as it moves and compare the two. Pick a direction. Measure from a point closest to that direction. Changing facing or pivoting can be done at any time. No rule exists for tracking pivoting.

Turning or pivoting can only be done during movement. It can be done as you move.

The diagram shows front part of base to front part of base. While this isn't worded - it's logical to assume you can do this side on etc. If you pivot after measuring 6 part of the hull is over that 6inch imaginary line as diagrammed. Pivots are not measured, but where you started and where you end are important to determine the distance you can and have moved (In fact these are the ONLY RULES on distance moved, and measuring distance), as pivoting is part of movement it is very much liable to be measured as with everything else in that imaginary line.

Nem you're wrong here:

where you started and where you end are important to determine the distance you can and have moved (In fact these are the ONLY RULES on distance moved, and measuring distance)

If this was the case you could move all around obstacles, enemies and impassable terrain and only be accountable to the final closest distance to your starting point. That is not how movement or the measurement of distances are done in this game. Otherwise you have put up good arguments I just feel there isn't enough of a case to invent new measurement systems and accountability based on whether "Pivoting on the spot alone" is the same as the rest of the line " so a vehicle that only pivots". I think it still implies pivoting doesn't count towards movement which is consistent with how all other models with bases work. Also such a change required addition rules and examples which are noticeably absent.

The basics of measurement in this game are consistent. Look at the rules on measuring distances in the General Principles section. Look at the example of moving a model in the Movement section. Please report back with any bubble of movements, base point factoring or advanced double tape measure systems for tracking starting hull point ranges while simultaneously measuring forward movements/direction changes.

 Booklooker wrote:
Nem you're wrong here:

where you started and where you end are important to determine the distance you can and have moved (In fact these are the ONLY RULES on distance moved, and measuring distance)

If this was the case you could move all around obstacles, enemies and impassable terrain and only be accountable to the final closest distance to your starting point. That is not how movement or the measurement of distances are done in this game. Otherwise you have put up good arguments I just feel there isn't enough of a case to invent new measurement systems and accountability based on whether "Pivoting on the spot alone" is the same as the rest of the line " so a vehicle that only pivots". I think it still implies pivoting doesn't count towards movement which is consistent with how all other models with bases work. Also such a change required addition rules and examples which are noticeably absent.

The basics of measurement in this game are consistent. Look at the rules on measuring distances in the General Principles section. Look at the example of moving a model in the Movement section. Please report back with any bubble of movements, base point factoring or advanced double tape measure systems for tracking starting hull point ranges while simultaneously measuring forward movements/direction changes.

Yes, the examples and the fact of moving around is implied in the rules through the use of the diagram. The diagram shows the 6 inch movement and how to at which point the front is stopped, I would point out I doubt many people measure their vehicles on a line, more commonly they move a bit, pivot and then start measuring from the front again which has no basis in any of the rules - as that would archive the same effect of no extra movement.

On the diagram, Imagine that movement line around a corner instead, you have measured 6 inches out do you..
A. Measure Model movement 3 inches, pivot to the proper direction then move 3 inches from the front there // Measure vehicle movement 3 inches, pivot to the proper direction , and then move 3 inches from the front there.
B. Move the model from the starting point of the tape measure, and place it at the end point having turned in the correct direction // Move the Vehicle from the starting point of the tape measure, and place it at the end point having turned in the correct direction.

^ That's where there are no rules, there are no rules stating exactly A or B, we are basically guessing, the only textual rules concerning movement is based on the start and end point, AKA while your moving you can turn as long as no part of the base is more than 6 from where it started. Again, we know were suppose to move around things, but there's no textual rules as to how, and if A or B apply.

Now knowing how far parts of the base are are required in the rules - these measurement rules you say are made up are only as made up as exactly in depth 'how' of moving in the first place, and they are being made for the purpose of fulfilling the rules. Even if this had nothing to do with vehicles these measurement gaps would still exist as not all non vehicle model bases are round.


On the RAI side I would agree, except as I've stated that sentence around ''pivoting alone'' was there in 6th. What isn't there is the outright statement that turning is not movement <period> - this sentence came directly before the ''pivoting alone'' one. This sentence was removed from the middle of a paragraph.

It seems that essentially what this does is prevent people from pivoting less than 360 but more than 1 at the start of their move, or the end of their move to gain distance.

ie if you pivot at the start then move 6" you will be past 6" if your base is not square/circle.

If you move 6" then pivot you have moved part of your your base past 6".

If you move and pivot during your move, but not at the begining or end, and your end point is 6" away from your start point= ok?

One thing that you can do, is you can pivot 180" and move 6" or move 6" and pivot 180" as no part of your base will be further than its start point by more than 6" if you pivot at the center of the vehicle. in essence if you move in a straight line and flip backwards you can go the full 6" and have your back at the front and your front at the back and the models base would still be only going 6"

I think the statement "a vehicle can pivot as they move" means that you may not pivot at the start of end of your move, because that's not as it is moving it is before it has moved and after it has moved.

@milkboy The abuse most people are speaking about is starting your vehicle sideways moving it toward the enemy, sideway, then pivoting after you have moved so your guns are closer or access point is closer or bikes for that matter.

Edit: No matter what way I do it my range is still the range of the weapon. My main weapon with GA should always be the ability to return models to Warrior units. The arrays are basically there for chance firing. Looking at a standard game the distance apart is always going to be one where I will be more worried about getting popped more then getting a glance on another vehicle with a GA. I digress.

Is there a rule that requires you to move forward?

Its a minor abuse that is much simpler to account for than the major pain in the ass of the new movement method.


As i said earlier, I agree with the RAW of Nem's proposal now that ive looked at it, but its simply not practicle to apply it to the game. It slows things down too much and cripples assault transports more than it fix's the pivot abuse from previous editions.

If you think loosing an inch crippled your assault transports I have to ask if you were playing with glances in your game?

Gravmyr wrote:
If you think loosing an inch crippled your assault transports I have to ask if you were playing with glances in your game?

I think it's more the 3+" you lose because you can no longer pivot 180.

Gravmyr wrote:
@milkboy The abuse most people are speaking about is starting your vehicle sideways moving it toward the enemy, sideway, then pivoting after you have moved so your guns are closer or access point is closer or bikes for that matter.

Nobody was moving their vehicles sideways. Although technically allowed (or at least not specifically ruled out by the mechanics of the movement rules) it would have garnered too many raised eyebrows.

But you achieve the same distance by starting sideways, pivoting and then moving. In the case of enclosed transports, then also potentially including a 180 at the end to bring the rear access to bear.

@insaniak When I'm home I'll look but I have seen it put forth in practice as well as on this forum IIRC. It's one of the main reasons I don't play with the most well known local 40k group, too many WAAC players.

@Tact As I think everyone has agreed just keeping within the measured bubble on the straight aways should be good enough for most games.

Gravmyr wrote:
@insaniak When I'm home I'll look but I have seen it put forth in practice as well as on this forum IIRC.

It's been mentioned on this forum as being technically legal. I have yet to see anyone seriously suggesting it actually be done without adding the caveat that it's likely to make you unpopular.

Particularly when, as I said, you get the same result by not moving the vehicle sideways, which saves the potential argument.

I have actually been seeing more and more abuse within this topic in regard to oval bases on things like large MC's and most recently with an Imperial Knight shimmying sideways to get past difficult terrain. Also MC's rotating to cheat extra movement before assaults were launched.

It's a big reason why I hate oval basing, I have even had things done with biker bases though much more rarely.

Basically it's best to touch bases with your opponent first I guess.

I do think this gives a major argument for contending the idiotic, deploy sideways tactic at least. I have seen entire games won/lost turn one because of this, IMHO, shady tactic.

The sideways deployment tactic is one of the weakest rules abuses I've seen. It is extremely easy to play around because you see it coming from a mile away.

If you go first then just move your units back a few inches thus negating the advantage from the sideways tactic.

If you are going second then you should have deployed second as well. Just deploy back few inches and negate the advantage of the sideways tactic.

Pretty simple.

 CrownAxe wrote:
The sideways deployment tactic is one of the weakest rules abuses I've seen. It is extremely easy to play around because you see it coming from a mile away.

If you go first then just move your units back a few inches thus negating the advantage from the sideways tactic.

If you are going second then you should have deployed second as well. Just deploy back few inches and negate the advantage of the sideways tactic.

Pretty simple.

You can see it a mile away if you've come across it. For new players who might not have run into that sort of thing it can be bit of a 'whut'. Even for veteran players I don't see it that often as many people feel it's a bit taking advantage.

Game is just better without it. You could gain a tiny bit of extra movement, if it's nothing important then it's not worth arguing about the loss of it. Just measure your movement before you start moving (Pivoting included), pivoting not counting as movement but being during movement after you have measured was always a strange obscurity, it was harder to play in 6th than 7th.

In my opinion moving should be done center to center. Meaning the middle never pushes past speeds you want to go. Spin pivot as you like. It gains you some advantage here and there but it simplifies everything. I believe to the average model you gain maybe one to two inches on a disembark and the same for oval bases. I find that this in general makes it more acceptable. As everyone knows. When I teach people to play in my club I teach them to move like this.

 cormadepanda wrote:
In my opinion moving should be done center to center. Meaning the middle never pushes past speeds you want to go. Spin pivot as you like. It gains you some advantage here and there but it simplifies everything. I believe to the average model you gain maybe one to two inches on a disembark and the same for oval bases. I find that this in general makes it more acceptable. As everyone knows. When I teach people to play in my club I teach them to move like this.

That's all well and good, but it isn't how the rules work, and if those friends at your club every play anywhere else or travel to a con or tournament they are in for a shock. With a 12 inch deployment range and random charge distance, that 2 inch cheat makes a lot of difference. Plus, it's worse than that, because if you 2 inch cheat and then 180, your exiting troops are getting the whole length of the vehicle as free movement as well, as their hatch isn't where it should be.