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.

Why in the warp would you turn your rear armor to the enemy?

Because in the grand scheme of things, a 40pt Rhino means nothing if you can get your assault troops in range to wipe out a 120pt enemy unit?

AND now they are shooting at an empty transport, as opposed to transports with stabby or shooty things still in them.

At least use decent examples when you say people are cheating. If anybody would use this "cheat" as your words say which was legal 2 months ago, it is not done to gain the whole lenght of the vehicle for assault.

Say it is for melta-gun range which you shouldnt be able to to get in when you disembark on first turn.

And since you can always go backwards getting the whole lenght of the vehicle is even not necessary, you can just drive in reverse.

The distance you could get was always the distance you got from just pivoting (which is around 2 cm for rhinos and 4 cm for land raiders).

 pizzaguardian wrote:
At least use decent examples when you say people are cheating. If anybody would use this "cheat" as your words say which was legal 2 months ago, it is not done to gain the whole lenght of the vehicle for assault.

Say it is for melta-gun range which you shouldnt be able to to get in when you disembark on first turn.

And since you can always go backwards getting the whole lenght of the vehicle is even not necessary, you can just drive in reverse.

The distance you could get was always the distance you got from just pivoting (which is around 2 cm for rhinos and 4 cm for land raiders).

There is a mighty big difference when you consider things like fire dragons and WS which are only weak at their rear. Go ahead I dare you to deploy that WS with its ass pointed at me so you can back up. Melta units had a MASSIVE footprint when they could rotate for "free," even more so when they gained inches start of game.

Meltagun units except for fire dragons cant fire first turn even if they deploy backwards....

There is at least 24 inches in deployment between sides, thats what i want to say. Unless you gain inches at the first turn, turning 180 should not be enough anyway.

And we seem to have a diffference of opinion on massive...

Ok there is an assumption here that is WRONG and I can quote the rulebook to prove that. Pg 18 doesnt apply to vehicles, or indeed all models. It applies to Infantry.

Some new information has come to light as I was reading tonight… Sorry for the long windedness, but this is because it is just copied from my other forum post on the warmaster. It backs up both Pg 18 and Vehicle movement. It has NEW information that may help as it does change things.

Pg 18 clearly states that no part of its BASE can finish more than 6" away from where it started the movement phase. This is RAW, and in that regards THEY ARE RIGHT! As far as infantry are concerned their base must not be placed more than 6” from where it started from. The rule about parts of the base/ hull however doesn’t affect vehicles – hear me out…

The very first paragraph on page 18 answers our question partly. It states…

"For the time being, we'll just explain how squads of infantry move as they are the most common units in the game. Vehicles, jumps units yadda yadda move in different ways to represent their "greater mobility" and this will be discussed later in the book (pg 61-71)." – here it states vehicles etc don’t follow these rules and their rules are found elsewhere…

Page 18 are not general movement rules... they are infantry movement rules regardless of Raw. It also just stated that these other units move in different ways due to their greater mobility and these are discussed in their relevant sections…
Then, you turn to pg 62, Very first sentence... “So far, we've discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry” GW has just made that very clear, twice now, that the preceding sections! Pg 18 doesn't apply to vehicles at all and you have to use their section to work out vehicle movement.

This changes things and my perspective as well as I didnt know that. As you have to apply the vehicle movement rules in a different section under vehicles. This is the same for all other non-infantry models where you have to go to their relevant section for their rules on movement. Pg 18 doesn't count for vehicles at all except to make the point about you can’t place a model "on the far side of the tape measure and it talks about the length of the vehicle getting like a free full length movement because of placement on the other side of the tape measure. So long as you place the vehicle down BEFORE the tape measure and not after it, you satisfy this statement.

So now you turn to Vehicles, pg 72. The actual vehicle model movement rules states measuring by "measure to and from the hull". We now can’t assume pg 18 in this as they are the rules for infantry. Base or no base is irrelevant. So these are the relevant facts for vehicle movement:

1. Vehicles are “measured to and from their hull” – I guess this is by placing a dice where it is going TO and measure FROM its starting position that the model will not move more than 6”.

2. “Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model”

3. “Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot above their centre-point.” (Remember how people used to pivot by starting their move already sideways, use a free pivot to face forward, move 6” and pivot again so they could use the width of their vehicle twice for free movement). Pivots points are just the mechanism that a vehicle turns

4. If you just pivot on the spot, you are counted as stationary

5. If you move forward 6” and turn using the pivot point to turn your vehicle in any direction as you are allowed to “just like any other model”, as long as you place the model no further than 6” from its starting position (regardless of its facing as your allowed to turn in any direction multiple times during the move) you are meeting the pg 18 grey boxes placing models and measuring example. By placing the model on near side of the tape measure, not the far side of the tape measure.

6. This means a Rhino/ Wave Serpent etc would move forward 6” measuring from the hull where it has come from and to the 6” mark where it is going. It is free to turn in any direction as per pg 73 as part of that movement so long as the model travels no more than 6” from where the model started and it has been placed on the near side of the tape measure not the far side so that is legal. It doesn't matter that “parts” of the vehicle might have moved more than 6”. That isn't a vehicle rule (Its an infantry one in regards to measuring) and would be murder to measure really large vehicles like fliers and clearly there is no example/ explanation or mechanic in the rules to explain how that is done if that was the intention as that would be a horrendous measuring rule that would need to be explained. The disembarkation qualification is that the vehicle has not moved more than 6”, and as a whole, it hasn't.

7. This also answers the question about normal vehicles being able to move and turn and shoot, so long as their movement doesn't exceed their vehicle type in movement regardless of the facing.

Are you trying to say that none of the basic movement rule apply to vehicles?

Because if so that is incorrect as it would mean vehicles would be able to move off the board among other things.

DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.

It would also mean you could never move a vehicle, as the allowance to move any of your units is right after the section that says " For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section." (The Movement Phase chapter, 2nd graph).

The allowance to move vehicles, and indeed any unit, is in The movement phase chapter where they discuss the rules for Infantry.

"In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance."

Ergo if you only go off of the Vehicle movement rules vehicles do not have a separate allowance to move, and as such, you may never move any vehicle.

Ventiscogreen wrote:
DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.

From the BRB "Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be
discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section."

So if we go to the bike movement section we have,

"MOVEMENT
Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."

So there is no mention of maintaining unit cohesion. That section is in the movement section and applies to infantry. So would you argue that only infantry have to keep unit coherency?

All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.

In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.

But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)

BrockRitcey wrote:

Ventiscogreen wrote:
DeathReaper, many of us have made it very clear that vehicles and infantry DO NOT USE THE SAME MOVEMENT RULES. You continue to ignore this. I did just check, and it is possible to move vehicles off of the board, as games workshop seams to have left this as an oversight. Most players have the common sense to disregard this.

From the BRB "Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be
discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section."

So if we go to the bike movement section we have,

"MOVEMENT
Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."

So there is no mention of maintaining unit cohesion. That section is in the movement section and applies to infantry. So would you argue that only infantry have to keep unit coherency?

I could see that interpretation, i find that idea entertaining, and pretty much sums up this thread for me. By raw, if the infantry rules apply in their completeness, then the op is correct. If they are separate, with separate rules, there are a ton of shenanigans to be found. Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.

mcphro wrote:
All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.

In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.

But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)

Ive been really thinking this over. For a while I even agreed with this interpretation. But the issue is, it doesnt seem to be correct. Reasons:

1. All of this is based on the idea that the page 18 rules are for all models. And it is true, unless you are told they are superseded.
2. Basic vs Advance rules: Basic rules are actually the whole of "The rules". Advanced rules are codex rules which over-right the rulebook.
3. Pg 18 states: "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the move.

There is no conflict, or 2 parts of the rule in this case. No part of its "base" refers to models with a "base".

4. No where does it say "swap base for hull". even on page 72.
5, At this point, both 1st paragraph pg 8 and 62 say these rules are for infantry "ie models with bases"
6. Pg 72 specifically states: "The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. So it is illegal to refer to pg 18 as it says they cannot be used.
7. This is because vehicles ARE different sized models. And so it says "Models are measured to and from the hull. It didn't say to and from the front or rear of the hull. Just the hull.
8. pg 73 - Pivoting, while examples are given for stationary movement, tells you that models can pivot/turn in the movement phase and that this movement can be any number of times.

At this point, a vehicle is seen as an object It is clear that it may move upto 6" and turning can be any number of turns. pg 18 cant be applied for vehicles because weve been told we cannot (pg 72). The only exception to this is walkers.

10. pg 73 also states - Pivoting is always done by the center-point of the model to prevent it from moving further than intended.
11. pg 81 states that a unit can disembark if "so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6". It didnt say say any other way to interpret that than the vehicle.
12. The limit in this case in the range of the hull of the vehicle which is 6".

Vehicles can move up to 6" and pivot any direction so long as the "limit" of their movement is 6". So, measure from the hull 6" and place a dice. Move the vehicle in a fashion so no part (rear of otherwise) comes further than that 6" and dice.

NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.

mcphro wrote:

mcphro wrote:
All units must use basic rules... Infantry use basic rules. Models that use advanced rules, the advanced rules supersedes the basic rules when there is a conflict.

In this case the conflict is how to measure. Infantry you measure the base. Vehicles you measure from and to the Hull.

But this doesn't supersede rules that arnt in conflict... namely.. that no model may measure more then 6" from any part of its hull (pg 18)

Ive been really thinking this over. For a while I even agreed with this interpretation. But the issue is, it doesnt seem to be correct. Reasons:

1. All of this is based on the idea that the page 18 rules are for all models. And it is true, unless you are told they are superseded.
2. Basic vs Advance rules: Basic rules are actually the whole of "The rules". Advanced rules are codex rules which over-right the rulebook.
3. Pg 18 states: "if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the move.

There is no conflict, or 2 parts of the rule in this case. No part of its "base" refers to models with a "base".

4. No where does it say "swap base for hull". even on page 72.
5, At this point, both 1st paragraph pg 8 and 62 say these rules are for infantry "ie models with bases"
6. Pg 72 specifically states: "The normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. So it is illegal to refer to pg 18 as it says they cannot be used.
7. This is because vehicles ARE different sized models. And so it says "Models are measured to and from the hull. It didn't say to and from the front or rear of the hull. Just the hull.
8. pg 73 - Pivoting, while examples are given for stationary movement, tells you that models can pivot/turn in the movement phase and that this movement can be any number of times.

At this point, a vehicle is seen as an object It is clear that it may move upto 6" and turning can be any number of turns. pg 18 cant be applied for vehicles because weve been told we cannot (pg 72). The only exception to this is walkers.

10. pg 73 also states - Pivoting is always done by the center-point of the model to prevent it from moving further than intended.
11. pg 81 states that a unit can disembark if "so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6". It didnt say say any other way to interpret that than the vehicle.
12. The limit in this case in the range of the hull of the vehicle which is 6".

Vehicles can move up to 6" and pivot any direction so long as the "limit" of their movement is 6". So, measure from the hull 6" and place a dice. Move the vehicle in a fashion so no part (rear of otherwise) comes further than that 6" and dice.

NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.

I disagree with a lot of the points you bring up, especially 6 as you enter part of a rule saying its illegal leaving the second half which makes it legal, assuming you understand what the word 'Instead' means it's quite disingenuous to deliberately tailor for your purposes.- I don't expect people to read all pages thoroughly, however I think

''NOTE: You CANNOT usewidth of cehicle trickery or model for advantage to gain extra movement. If you have a baneblade it may move 6" and turn, but not move further than that 6" unless it is at cruising speed.''

This was conclusion reached a few pages ago (At least by me), albeit for different reasons, It was brought up the structure of the sentence could be referring to where any point of the hull started. It would be applied to a model with a base also... as they are not measured from the front or back, just the base (which I think was the main point). The easiest way to measure this is to pivot while moving rather than end your movement then pivot.

I put this little diagram together so that it’s visually clear to people how this is supposed to work. When moving, the movement of the vehicle includes any rotation, as all 40K vehicles have a predominant propulsion system along one plane of axis.

Severite wrote:

Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.

Why is the idea that something so ponderously large has trouble turning and moving a hard concept to grasp? If it's going in a straight line, it can easily move 6 inches, but if it tries to turn, it gets slowed. Smaller vehicles aren't affected nearly as much. This fits with both rules AND physics! Another victory for the machine god!

 Leonus wrote:

Severite wrote:

Personally, I /know/ that we can't be meant measure back hull, to back hull. Simple enough, the idea that I cannot pivot my monolith, and move, because its a square base bigger then six inches makes this clear. Personally, i will play movement as measure, pivot, move, as necessary, without attempting to game extra inches.

Why is the idea that something so ponderously large has trouble turning and moving a hard concept to grasp? If it's going in a straight line, it can easily move 6 inches, but if it tries to turn, it gets slowed. Smaller vehicles aren't affected nearly as much. This fits with both rules AND physics! Another victory for the machine god!

Possibly because it's a floating metal crucible of doom built by a race that has no concept of 'physics'?

Personally I think that pivoting doesn't count towards total distance moved, simply because of the enormous difficulty involved in determining this. If the extra 2" is so important to you, go for it. Just means that you're in my range that little bit quicker.

When has a raider pivoting ever been game breaking? This seems like an argument over something that has very little impact in game. Oh, certainly, it may not be in the 'spirit' of the game, but it really makes that small an impact that this seems a little OTT.

It think that the poster who said that provided the closest point of the vehicle, after it has moved, is no further then any given point on the vehicle before it moved, is in the right. But that's just me.

 milkboy wrote:

 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 straight direction and turned sideways the next turn (to fire broadside for example), you "lost" distance. Basically, it evens out in the end.

I would refer you all back to this conclusion i suspect a lot were happy with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And in case you were wondering what is meant, here is an image description.

Top is current interpretation and how i think Vehicle mvt is worded.
Bottom is Nem's interpretation, where any part of the hull must be within the maximum distance.

As you can see, the Top view "Wins" movement upon deploying sideways, while Bottom view "wins" movement upon moving sideways (If the Rhino could ever fire broadside weapon batteries)

And as milkboy says: both methods will even out upon moving forward.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 milkboy wrote:

 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 straight direction and turned sideways the next turn (to fire broadside for example), you "lost" distance. Basically, it evens out in the end.

I would refer you all back to this conclusion i suspect a lot were happy with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And in case you were wondering what is meant, here is an image description.

Top is current interpretation and how i think Vehicle mvt is worded.
Bottom is Nem's interpretation, where any part of the hull must be within the maximum distance.

As you can see, the Top view "Wins" movement upon deploying sideways, while Bottom view "wins" movement upon moving sideways (If the Rhino could ever fire broadside weapon batteries)

And as milkboy says: both methods will even out upon moving forward.

Don't understand how the green points are lining up in your example, we measure from the edge of the hull - to the edge of the hull. As far as I can tell these should be the same edges to and from rather than different edges you have put the green splotch's on, and the first example the measurement seems to be coming from the center of the hull.

It was supposed to be a distance "front face" to "front face"?
So the second one one the bottom should be more central?
Or all on the bottom right corner (6" corner to corner? )

 BlackTalos wrote:
It was supposed to be a distance "front face" to "front face"?
So the second one one the bottom should be more central?
Or all on the bottom right corner (6" corner to corner? )

I have my table set up at home so will try and take some top pictures tonight using the D.Eldar Raider

It's difficult trying to explain images with text but I'll try.

The top diagram is using the old rules interpretation. The top diagram includes the three green spots, the two green lines and the one blue line (the other blue line belongs to the second diagram). The bottom diagram is your new interpretation.

The green spot indicates where the measuring tape is held. The old interpretation, one way is to measure centre of model to centre in the new position. Then pivot accordingly. The bottom diagram measures the 6 inches from the furthest point moved. Thus, distances between green spots is always 6 inches.

In the top example, the vehicle seemed to have "gained" distance. This is represented by the blue line measurement. In the next movement phase, when it moves 6 inches more and pivots again, it loses that distance it has gained in the first turn.

In the bottom diagram, the final position is still the same for both methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. took too long to type that.

 milkboy wrote:
It's difficult trying to explain images with text but I'll try.

The top diagram is using the old rules interpretation. The top diagram includes the three green spots, the two green lines and the one blue line (the other blue line belongs to the second diagram). The bottom diagram is your new interpretation.

The green spot indicates where the measuring tape is held. The old interpretation, one way is to measure centre of model to centre in the new position. Then pivot accordingly. The bottom diagram measures the 6 inches from the furthest point moved. Thus, distances between green spots is always 6 inches.

In the top example, the vehicle seemed to have "gained" distance. This is represented by the blue line measurement. In the next movement phase, when it moves 6 inches more and pivots again, it loses that distance it has gained in the first turn.

In the bottom diagram, the final position is still the same for both methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. took too long to type that.

But under the old method you wouldn't start measuring until after pivoting the vehicle, meaning that measurement line starts 2'' or so further than on the first diagram? Am I missing something?

[edit] I never meant to leave out actually measuring from a specific 'facing' while applying other rules, I have to test with a line out but in my head you have to turn with most vehicles quite a bit at the end of movement to actually break them, when measuring appropriately without applying a break in measuring for pivoting.

That is true but even if you pivot first and then move 6 inches by measuring from the front of the model (in this example), the centre of the model will still only move 6 inches.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

please never refer to "The most Important Rule" in this forum, it is agreed that we do not.

If Nem had a valid method with full rules support (as per the OP) then many of us would actually follow those rules, as the "as usual" with DE Raiders is accepted but very very easily seen as "cheating" to new players.

Nem,

Milkboy explains it very well:
In the "old method" you could actually use the green dot for the measuring tape. I actually use that method (I do not measure from the front of the hull, 3" forward, pivot, 3" forward.
I pick the most central point and measure from there, so need to "clear" corners by about 2" (on a rhino)

As i undertsood and tried to represent your method: The distance between the green dots (and furthest part of the hull "forward") is always 6", and both methods result in the EXACT same position going from 1 to 3.

I could technically see your interpretation 2 to 3 go less than 6" but then would you say that those are the rules as you read them?
IE in my example of movement, the rhino would be 11.5" from its starting position (1 to 3)

I'd put up a new image if this is not clear

In case anyone who doesn't understand why this would make sense.






Anyone saying pivoting is not distance gained isn't thinking about this scenario at all.

I support this, and most likely will bring it up at the FLGS. If they argue with me I will abuse the gak out of it until they agree.

 milkboy wrote:
That is true but even if you pivot first and then move 6 inches by measuring from the front of the model (in this example), the centre of the model will still only move 6 inches.

Problem is people don't measure from the CENTER of the hull, they measure FROM THE HULL.

Meaning distance is gained, and even 2 inches gained on turn on for Orkz in dawn of war deployment is HUGE.


EDIT**

There is not a rules reference, to my knowledge, that specifically says where to measure from. (Other than "the hull")

The people that say they measure from a corner, must not pivot 180 degrees often, because they would soon realize that Rhinos move like 1-2 inches a turn.

Unless they pivot first, not acknowledging pivoting as movement, which would give those people an advantage as shown in the above example.

Good lord you guys are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. My diagram is correct, anything else is gaining movement because it is pretending that rotation does not count toward the 6" of movement.

Da Mediokre Painta wrote:
I put this little diagram together so that it’s visually clear to people how this is supposed to work. When moving, the movement of the vehicle includes any rotation, as all 40K vehicles have a predominant propulsion system along one plane of axis.

Yes I think this is the way it reads now, subtle difference.

Forces one to plan before moving by necessitating prior knowledge of which part of hull will move the farthest.

Da Mediokre Painta wrote:
Good lord you guys are trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be. My diagram is correct, anything else is gaining movement because it is pretending that rotation does not count toward the 6" of movement.

funny. the opposite faction could claim the same thing.

i feel sorry for your gaming group... having to deal with a RAW rule lawyer like yourself, making these kind of statements.


anyway, let me get one thing straight. is anyone saying i couldnt park a vehicle sideways on the 12" mark, then pivot and still counting as stationary? (i.e. fire all weapons, charge with disembarked passengers etc...)