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.

If all you do is pivot, you are stationary. If you move in any other way, you measure as shown above.

so you are saying RAW and RAI is:

gaining 2" while beeing stationary is ok
gaining 2" while moving is not ok

?

and what about those big vehicles like monos or baneblades? if they pivot they cannot move?

RedNoak wrote:
so you are saying RAW and RAI is:

gaining 2" while beeing stationary is ok
gaining 2" while moving is not ok

?

and what about those big vehicles like monos or baneblades? if they pivot they cannot move?

Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.

 Dracos wrote:

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.

This is an old interpretation, please read the new posts and why this would not work.
Even Nem has chosen an adaptation where it's distance from any part of the hull to any part of the hull.

It is also 1 interpretation but the the "almighty right one".
Most of us still read the old interpretation as correct and not disproven...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

This is how the second interpretation is seen currently, rather than your example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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?

And here is how the interpretation you follow would "gains distance", just like the one we use "gains distance" if you deploy sideways...

And the completes the full circle of the discussion again. Let me know if I have to re-quote this post when we go back round

 BlackTalos wrote:

 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?

And here is how the interpretation you follow would "gains distance", just like the one we use "gains distance" if you deploy sideways...

And the completes the full circle of the discussion again. Let me know if I have to re-quote this post when we go back round

That last one is wrong. The rear of the vehicle has moved further than 12", therefore it is an illegal move under the interpretation set out in the OP.

Snapshot wrote:
Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.

thats where i disagree from a RAI standpoint. no where is it mentioned that big vehicles are more cumbersome than small ones. on the contrary, regardless of size each category or modeltype moves at the same speed and has the same maneuverability if not otherwise stated in some kind of special rule (even RAW wise)

just think about how restricted the movement of vehicles would be if you couldn't pivot for "free". a monolith could never move more than 1" and some big vehicles could actually move "further" if they would just stay stationary and pivot on the spot.

i'm not saying that RAW wise you guys are right (i still believe this is not the case) but even if you 'were' right about it, big vehicles would be useless in a standard game. the movement would be so awkward and cumbersome to execute, that fielding them wouldnt make any sense (especially for big transports, since they could only move foward in a straight line or loose a turn by pivoting on the spot)

just take the picture from above and visualize how restricted the movement for big vehicles would be.

even a for a rhino wanting to make a 45° turn... look how silly this would be.


now imagine if the rhino wanted to make an 90° turn. it could move less than ONE or TWO inches. A RHINO.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That last one is wrong. The rear of the vehicle has moved further than 12", therefore it is an illegal move under the interpretation set out in the OP.

That is why the OP changed position to something that made a lot more sense, and is still fully bound by the conditions in the OP:

 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...?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RedNoak wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
Pretty much. If big vehicles pivot and move AND they want to travel Combat Speed (with all the benefits this entails) they need to be careful. I guessing here, but one of the reasons I think a stationary pivot is "free" is to accommodate large vehicles changing facing - seems pretty reasonable and fair. A large vehicle ought to have a harder time maneuvering than something like a Bike.

thats where i disagree from a RAI standpoint. no where is it mentioned that big vehicles are more cumbersome than small ones. on the contrary, regardless of size each category or modeltype moves at the same speed and has the same maneuverability if not otherwise stated in some kind of special rule (even RAW wise)

just think about how restricted the movement of vehicles would be if you couldn't pivot for "free". a monolith could never move more than 1" and some big vehicles could actually move "further" if they would just stay stationary and pivot on the spot.

i'm not saying that RAW wise you guys are right (i still believe this is not the case) but even if you 'were' right about it, big vehicles would be useless in a standard game. the movement would be so awkward and cumbersome to execute, that fielding them wouldnt make any sense (especially for big transports, since they could only move foward in a straight line or loose a turn by pivoting on the spot)

just take the picture from above and visualize how restricted the movement for big vehicles would be.

even a for a rhino wanting to make a 45° turn... look how silly this would be.


now imagine if the rhino wanted to make an 90° turn. it could move less than ONE or TWO inches. A RHINO.

The same goes to a Rhino that wants to make a 180° turn to let models embark / disembark from the back: it would barely move 1" if it was limited at 6".
That's why (and i fully agree) the OP changed the interpretation to this:

 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...?

Which works very well imo. It has the same "win"-"loose" as the current method, while still adhering to the original "no more than 6" " condition

No sorry, gonna put a couple of things forward now.. please please get this point.

1. pg 72 CLEARLY says the "NORMAL rule for measureing distance to or from a base cannot be used"

... so in that respect, you are NOT ALLOWED to refer back to page 18 so far as refering to bases and the like... you must use the vehicle movement rules pg 72/73

2. It took me a while, but we are all arguing 1 THING! The allowed distance for movement. And it took me a while because I THOUGHT it had something to do with measuring.. it doesnt andI think we are all getting it wrong. It has to do with pivoting. Pg 73 CLEARLY states that it is pivoting that controls just how far a vehicle has moved. "Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.". The reason i Love that sentence, is it is the one thing in the book that addresses vehicle movement and going further than allowed. Going further than allowed for a vehicle is not addressed on page 18 "no part of a base can move furthen than 6" That rule is specifically an infantry rule. This is addressed in 3 places...

1. pg 18 - paragraph 1 "for the time being well just explain how squads of infantry work"
2. pg 62 - first sentence - "So far, weve discussed the basic rules as they pertain to infantry" (this particular one is damning, cause they just said it black and white... these rules upto page 62 are basic rules as they pertain to infantry!
3. pg 91 Walkers - "If a walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as for an infantry model". "Under moving wakers - "Walkers move using the movement rules for infantry"... there it is again...So if there is a unit that requires to be measured like infantry, they will tell you in that unit types description.

...So this means a couple of things... 1) vehicles can move 6" period. 2) this is measured from the hull. not part of the hull or this corner or that. ie Lets say your moving your wave serpent in an arc. You get your tape measure, you move/ bend it up to 6" from the front of the hull, place a dice, then move your vehicle up to that dice . You MAY now turn your vehicle about the centre point SO LONG AS no part of the vehicle EXCEEDS that dice. If it did, to stay legal (if you want to stay at combat speed you would have to move your model so that no part exceeds that 6" movement.

3. all this other interpretation about vehicles slowing down, measuring this and that corner is irrelevant. This is no mechanic in the book that tells you to do that. If measuring vehicles was THAT complicated, they would give specific examples of how to do that. People here have good intention and opinions. Buit not matter the argument, if you tell a person e.g. you must measure from this corner of the vehicle etc... Well ill say "show me where it tells me to measure from a the corner of the vehicle etc". sorry, not being rude, but unless it says it in the rulebook, you cant do it.

... the underlying mechanic is move no more than 6", pivot around the centre-point.

eg. this stops old tactics of parking your vehicle sideways, pivoting and getting free 1/2 model free movement. while pivoting is a free move, if you were facing sideways, then you would have to measure from the side of the hull 6", sure then turn/ pivot and move 6" from that point. Because if your vehicle pivoted, then measures and it moved like 9" its over 6" movement - thats illegal - sure.

e.g. lets say a Wave serpent. wants to turn a drop off infantry. Measure 6" from front of wave serpent. Move model. Free turn 180 degrees. The Rear door CANT be more than 6" from original measurement. Infantry disembark. Use wargear to spin vehicle after shooting phase etc..

I really do respect a lot of opinions, pictures, proposed mechanics etc. However you cant "propose a rule" thats not in the book. But... consider these things... please...

a. No where does it state you swap base for hull. on page 18.
b. It DOES state the normal measuring of bases and infantry rules CANNOT be used. So if someone quotes pg 18 "measure from any part of the base... just stop, your told your not allowed to.
c. The CRUX of the argument - stopping vehicles from moving more then their allotted distance is SPECIFICALLY addressed under pivoting paragraph on page 73. Pivoting is actually the mechanic that stops you from going too far, and it SPECIFICALLY says so...

Another argument...

People then say... well if all that is true...thats unfair, your necron transport or wave serpent is longer then my chimera....

Well that's a modelling issue not a rules issue. And the larger model pays for as it cant hide as well. Otherwise gw should make all vehicles exactly the same size. Look at the size of a necron flier with infantry vs am's Valkyrie/vendetta flier vs space marine stormraven. Even for fliers that will never be fair. Or landraider vs chimera exiting from front or rear. Every vehicle will have differences and has advantages vs disadvantages. Thats no different from eldar that can run and shoot vs a model that cant. Vehicle size is no different. Thats not modelling for advantage, that is how gw released its models. The new AM taurox wheeled transport looks longer then some vehicles. Besides, once a vehicle has turned its rear to the front it does so at disadvantage as well. i.e. Also vehicles like the wave serpent shield cant protect if its is facing away, unless it takes specific wargear making them even more expensive. A 55 point chimera or a 40 point rhino vs a 140 pt wave serpent that can perform the same turning maneuver and I gain an extra 2" for my infantry, if it is a cheat, is an expensive one. But then the rules do say thats why vehicles represent greater mobility.

Truth is, GW never intended for the game to be complicated. And ill permitted any player who plays me, to move that full 6" and clap them for doing so. You know why, cause its fair because ill do it in my turn too.

Yes, we are fully agreed on that position of thought: it is the position taken by the OP and others.

However by playing a Necron Ghost Ark with the method you have outlined above: measure from the front of it, place a dice, and move up to that dice, you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice (Black spot on the picture here)

 BlackTalos wrote:

The Gauss blasters on the side of the Ark are closer (12" from where the front of the Vehicle was, to be exact) and some would say you are "gaining movement" - the same people who are currently arguing that deploying sideways "gains movement" for long vehicles.

In the end it makes not much difference which method you use, but i'm sure a Necron player against a DE player would argument this at length...

Both are "fair".

 BlackTalos wrote:
Yes, we are fully agreed on that position of thought: it is the position taken by the OP and others.

However by playing a Necron Ghost Ark with the method you have outlined above: measure from the front of it, place a dice, and move up to that dice, you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice (Black spot on the picture here)

 BlackTalos wrote:

The Gauss blasters on the side of the Ark are closer (12" from where the front of the Vehicle was, to be exact) and some would say you are "gaining movement" - the same people who are currently arguing that deploying sideways "gains movement" for long vehicles.

In the end it makes not much difference which method you use, but i'm sure a Necron player against a DE player would argument this at length...

Both are "fair".

But there is a mistake here I think.. correct me. If I moved the front of the vehicle it to the red line (the red dot), the vehicles pivot point is 1/2 way back along that red line of the model. On the red line, you have pivoted the vehicle around the nose point. This is illegal as you must pivot around the center point.Just like the green dotted example, this is legal. So no the blasters cannot extend past the end of the black line. See, you stated "you then line up the entirety of the Ark's Flank against said dice" Noooooo, you must pivot the vehicle around its center point.

I said... "You measure 6" from the hull of your vehicle. Move the model to that line. i.e. move the vehicle up to that line. I would move the same part of the hull that I measured facing in that direction, but in your example, before turning, your vehicles nose should be at the red dot and the vehicle should be on a 45 degree facing. Now, you may turn 90 degrees if you wish around the center point. But "no part of your vehicle may exceed that red dice, or you would be at cruising speed. so from where the nose should be facing 45 degreed along that red line with the nose touching the red dice, you may now turn the vehicle 90 around the center point of the vehicle...

In fact, the longer your vehicle, the further away your guns will be from that red dice...does that make sense?

The main argument for long vehicles is if they turn 180 degrees and disembark infantry because people say the back of the vehicles access point has moved like 12". well sorry, again modelling issue. Rules say you can turn without penalty an many turns as you like. It is intended that way. See my fair/ unfair comment above.

mcphro wrote:

2. It took me a while, but we are all arguing 1 THING! The allowed distance for movement. And it took me a while because I THOUGHT it had something to do with measuring.. it doesnt andI think we are all getting it wrong. It has to do with pivoting. Pg 73 CLEARLY states that it is pivoting that controls just how far a vehicle has moved. "Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed.". The reason i Love that sentence, is it is the one thing in the book that addresses vehicle movement and going further than allowed. Going further than allowed for a vehicle is not addressed on page 18 "no part of a base can move furthen than 6" That rule is specifically an infantry rule. This is addressed in 3 places...

"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."
the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.

this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.

if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.

in 40k distance moved is the difference between the start and the end, what you do between the two doesn't essentially matter and any "magic" done to try and get free movement is cheating.

If you do not move at all, you may pivot, and the model doesn't count as moving.

otherwise pivoting counts as moving and is done as the model moves, not when your done moving and you pivot. If we have moved and then pivot, we are not remaining stationary so the pivoting=movement and is not free, and if that takes us beyond the distance we are allowed to move we are cheating.

If the movement was measured from what the vehicle was doing during its move instead of at the end of its movement you would end up with scenarios where CCB could do flybys(and conversely any FMC, reavers, and screamers..) against models that were not between their begining and ending points, which we cannot do because movement is only the distance from where you began moving to where you ended moving, not what happens between.

Im glad someone went into detail and found a solid reasoning for why cheat moving should be illegal and disallowed.

RedNoak wrote:

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...)

No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.

mcphro wrote:
No sorry, gonna put a couple of things forward now.. please please get this point.

1. pg 72 CLEARLY says the "NORMAL rule for measuring distance to or from a base cannot be used"

... so in that respect, you are NOT ALLOWED to refer back to page 18 so far as refering to bases and the like... you must use the vehicle movement rules pg 72/73

2

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement? How about the separate rules for Jump infantry measurement - or Bike movement? The bit that is actually only pertaining to infantry is 6inches.

Lets make this clear - All basic rules for Moving, shooting and assaulting use infantry rules as a baseline. If you ignore all those sections for anything other than infantry you don't have many rules at all.

This is how the rule book works. You have basic rules which are written from infantry perspective, you then have lots of other types of units with some of their own rules - where their rules are conflict with the basic rules then they override, but other than those rules they are still subject to all baseline rules.

What is stopping you from moving a MC off the board in the movement phase? Page 18 (Or maybe it's on 19). Even though it's 'Infantry' rules, MC's do not have an allowance. Likewise, the rules for remaining in coherency are in that section, is it only infantry which must remain in unit coherency?

Edit: Quote Basic Versus Advanced

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They
include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules
for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank).

-------

The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.

It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.

-------

Evidently I haven't had time to picture this out yet. If I can find a ruler might be able to do it from my desk

------

Edit; It's essential pivoting is not thought of as 'before' you move or 'after' you move, Pivoting is done during movement (as you move) - and actually it always has been which is why not counting as movement previously was a obscurity, it lead to a stop start measuring method which is not detailed anywhere in the rules.

I don't believe it's as difficult as a lot of people are making out. With only slight pivots people will continue to stick the tape down at the front and do a slanted 6inches, which is fine. If people want to do a 180, they will position the back at the end of the measurement instead of the front. To go around a 90 degree corner they will do this exactly like every other model, measure 6inches around the corner (Unless anyone measured 3inches, moved all the models and then moved another 3....) positioning the front / wherever the point at the end of the tape (doing the pivot as they move the vehicle) - Anything which is not 'Stop measuring, Pivot, Start measuring again' method will conform to all these rules.

 Nem wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

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...)

No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.

nope, it is to show that under certain circumstances, as i said later, pivoting while remaining stationary in cases of big vehicles you would actually let you 'move' further than if you were to move and then pivot (because no hullpart can move more than 6")

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement?

i wrote this before allready... .. you use an interpretation whenever it fits you bit you disregard interpretations of others because of RAW. either you use RAW or its an open discussion where you cant rule out other interpretations. this is your opinion and can be never anything more because its not clearly addressed in the rulebook.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."[u]
the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.

this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.

if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.

The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.

It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.

the picture dosnt show only pivoting (counting as stationary) its a move and a pivot from the centre
i wanted to show how limiting this form of movement would be if no part of the hull can move more than 6" (when you want to turn and move)
and i uses a pretty tight scaling (for the rhino)

RedNoak wrote:

 Nem wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

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...)

No, because the rules are clear on that, no one has ever claimed so. It's pretty obvious from that question you havn't attempted to read the rules, or this thread though.

nope, it is to show that under certain circumstances, as i said later, pivoting while remaining stationary in cases of big vehicles you would actually let you 'move' further than if you were to move and then pivot (because no hullpart can move more than 6")

It could, but its a get out for vehicles that need to just turn (As that's mostly what the super heavy vehicles do anyway). As far as it being clear, its because the rules state Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.

''As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or
from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and
from their hull''

Yay context! Instead of using the base, we use the hull for measuring. And that IS all the vehicle rules for measuring, instead of bases, we use hulls. Which means we need to refer to 18 if you want to measure your vehicles movement, unless you can point out where there are separate rules for vehicle measurement?

i wrote this before allready... .. you use an interpretation whenever it fits you bit you disregard interpretations of others because of RAW. either you use RAW or its an open discussion where you cant rule out other interpretations. this is your opinion and can be never anything more because its not clearly addressed in the rulebook.

"Pivoting is always done from the centre-point of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."[u]
the only reason that this is stated is to prevent pivoting from the front etc (especially for vehicle that stayed stationary). it does however not say, in any way, that this prevents ANY part of the vehicle to be further away a given distance.

this is all an interpretation of some sentences. there is however no single rule that exactly confirms this or another theory.

Anyone who reads this forum a lot will know I have a lot of respect for other peoples interpretations, even where they differ from mine. I don't rule out others interpretations so easily, but again at some point I weigh the balance and I know many many people on here will disagree with removing the second sentence and therefore the context of the ruleto fit your own interpretation of 'RAW'. Then you suggest my interpretation of RAW is just RAI, It's not. My interpretation of these rules are fully in line with the written words, I have quoted all the rules in question and all. I used all the rules and arrived at a point all of them fit (rather than just some). I have changed bits from the OP to fit with discussion that others have brought forward, that's the point of these forums.

There is never anything solid (Other than FAQs) to tell us how we are playing any of the rules is actually the correct way. Not being a single rule to confirm is fine, as I have stated it fits with all the other rules, If the shoe fits.... I'm pretty happy with best fit of a rule really - and while you have disagreed you you have not mentioned how a different interpretation fits better.

if you want to play it this or that way fine. i think i would too. but dont confuse this with actual RAW or RAI.

The diagram with the BIG VEHICLE & rhino turning is wrong. That is defiantly not a pivot from the center of the vehicle - Its closer to pivoting from a corner. Please use vaguely accurate diagrams in discussion rather than posting kak and pointing out how silly it looks. It's going to look silly if you fabricate a pivoting rule.

It's also why I've refrained from Paint or PS diagrams, as the distances and measurements are key here, its quite likely many are not using the correct scale etc, which can make them look better or worse than it actually is - I think we need to get a MM accurate view.

the picture dosnt show only pivoting (counting as stationary) its a move and a pivot from the centre
i wanted to show how limiting this form of movement would be if no part of the hull can move more than 6" (when you want to turn and move)
and i uses a pretty tight scaling (for the rhino)

delete

I know where you guys are coming from, but the rules mechanic that is being argued breaks down for other movement in the game if pivoting counts as movement. i.e. There are simple statements that state the "intent" of what vehicles can do. It does say that vehicles can turn/ pivot just like infantry can.

How can you then count turning as moving when you don't count turning as moving with an infantry base?

Well it's their version of interpretation. I do not think it's wrong, but I also agree with you that a Pivot is not counted as distance when you are moving forward (or left or right).

At this point in time, i would say Both interpretations "work" in RaW.

As for intent: I'm pretty sure it was always "measure movement - Pivot - measure movement - Pivot- etc" How far have you moved? answer has to be within limits set. Telling you how to do this with exact rules is a bit harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Awfeel wrote:

And this will continue to happen until the rules change completely or they make it clear that they want to remove this.

(Usually GW do this with pretty pictures showing the DOs and DON'Ts)

the problem with this "trukk move" will always remain. any vehicle with 24" weaponry could do the same thing (pivoting on the 12" deployment line without counting as moving) and fire in the first turn into the enemy deployment zone while counting as being stationary (i.e. fire all weapons with full ballistic skill)

i just dont see it as a big enough problem to over-complicate vehicles movement-phase... (given that there is no clear RAW/RAI)

every army benifits/suffers from those things in the same way. so its kinda balanced.


i have and will always measure from the center of the vehicle and pivot (around the center) as many times as i want in the movement-phase.


oh and @Nem

Anyone who reads this forum a lot will know I have a lot of respect for other peoples interpretations

after your your calm and informative reply i am inclined to believe that : )

RedNoak wrote:
Any vehicle with 24" weaponry could do the same thing (pivoting on the 12" deployment line without counting as moving) and fire in the first turn into the enemy deployment zone while counting as being stationary (i.e. fire all weapons with full ballistic skill)

I did not think of that situation as we kept talking about "movement"....

But indeed, even following the Rules as pointed out by Nem, a vehicle could still pull-off the "Cheat" of deploying sideways and being "Less than 24" " away from the enemy deployment. Vindicator Tank comes to mind here, and i think this cements my position personally

Yea, just because you can doesn't mean you should "just" because that interpretation the rules allow it...

hehe, but that doesnt move the discussion in any direction.^^ if you can come to an agreement with your opponent, everything goes.


but to recap things:

i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.


what i'm going to say was partially stated a couple of pages ago...

if you refer to infantry base-movement rules, it opens up a totally new discussion, since everything that was stated here about vehicle movement would also affect infantry movement. if no part of the base can move further than 6" and turning/pivoting is counted towards the distance traveled (even if its a round base) no infantry model (or any other model) could turn at the end of its movement phase. (see attachment 1)

i know you are all afraid of the mighty OP ork trukk gaining an inch...
but as i said before this works out for all armies. shooty armys can do the same thing to fire their 24" weapons with full BS into the enemy deployment zone on turn 1
and by the way, this way of shooting was and still remains LEGAL by all in this thread proposed means. (see att. 3)

the next issue would be big vehicles. even small vehicles would suffer from restricted range if they want to turn during their movement.
but in some cases big vehicles couldnt move at all if they want to pivot, since at a certain point,
if you want to 'track' ranges in any instance of the movement, "a part of the hull" would move further than the 6" restriction
and if they were to move some big vehicles would actually LOOSE distance in order to turn. (see att. 3)

another argument would be the cumbersome process of moving vehicles. keeping track of all points of the hull in every instance of the movement and measuring all the time to make sure nothing goes outside the 6" bubble.



so like i said before. as a general rule:

simply measuring from the center of the hull, pivoting as you wish is the most-simple, RAW/RAI-backed-up and fair system.



att.1

att.2

att.3

Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.

Snapshot wrote:
Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.

i know that it has no real practical use.
it just shows the possible inconstancy of some rules (for some interpretations)
turning infantry models is clearly allowed but no part of the base can move further than 6".

a directly affected model however would be a (round based) walker. after moving 6" he couldnt turn at all. a walker base is what? 2" wide? so in order to turn 90" you would only be able to move 5". to turn 180° you could only move 4".

RedNoak wrote:

Snapshot wrote:
Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.

i know that it has no real practical use.
it just shows the possible inconstancy of some rules (for some interpretations)
turning infantry models is clearly allowed but no part of the base can move further than 6".

a directly affected model however would be a (round based) walker. after moving 6" he couldnt turn at all. a walker base is what? 2" wide? so in order to turn 90" you would only be able to move 5". to turn 180° you could only move 4".

You're quite right - the walker would have to think about what facing he wanted and take that into account with his movement.

Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)

No they can't, they function like any other vehicle in regards to Line of Sight, you have to trace Line of Sight from the mounting along the barrel, just like all other vehicles.

Snapshot wrote:
Technically, the restriction on not allowing any part of the base of an infantry model to be further than 6" from where it started applies, but in practice, I don't think it matters because they have circular bases, ranges are measured from the base (even for template weapons), and facing doesn't matter. Are there some armies with Monstrous Creatures that have oval bases? Then it would matter.

There are MC's with Oval bases, but similarly they are not Infantry.

i think by now its pretty obvious that there are no 'clear' or RAW indications that vehicles cannot do "free-pivots" during their move. especially since their is no description how to 'track' pivots on the move.

I think my problem is there is no indication vehicles CAN do free pivots, there was in 6ed, but that rule has been removed. Considering taking the measurement rules for movement - you would need a rule to say you can free pivot rather than something to say you can not

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Although, in the case of Walkers, they can fire in any direction anyway, so this would only be to set your armour facing (which would kinda be forward anyway...)

No they can't, they function like any other vehicle in regards to Line of Sight, you have to trace Line of Sight from the mounting along the barrel, just like all other vehicles.

Corrected, another change from 6th that i failed to notice. Walkers no longer pivot freely in the shooting phase =O



In the case of the Imperial Knight, if you glued it properly the weapon Arm may swivel. Can you point it at anything you want to shoot? IE pretty much 90°-180° to his right (or left)