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.

 Nem wrote:

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

no its not. your whole assumption is based that this sentence...

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

...means you can only pivot free if its remained stationary.

to me it doesn't say that.

and again, even if we ASSUME that you are right, nowhere in the rulebook does it mention how to proceed from here. how do we measure pivots? when do we measure them? where do we measure them?

we would need a complete improvised rule-set (just look at the last 5 pages on this topic) just to move our vehicles.

you have no RAW baseline only a shady interpretation (RAI-wise) which implications are so cumbersome to execute and straight up deadly to some units, that it would have a major impact on the game

To me personally that whole section where they say pivoting on the spot doesnt count for movement is only there to explain why you can pivot and still fire all your weapon at full BS and has nothing to do with counting movement inch's.

If you pivot to drive around the corner of a building, for example, the act of pivoting in that turn doesn't count for movement. But let's say you wanted to stick close to the wall of the building, and move in an "L" shape to hook around the building in your movement phase. You would have to measure from start point to end point of the L to determine how far you've actually move, the pivot at the joint of the L to turn around the corner of the building doesn't count.

I don't believe there are any problems with it, decide where your moving to, measure 6'' from the hull move the vehicle there pivoting as your moving it. No implications, no made up rules, in line with the measurement and movement rules. How you measure any other model when going around a corner - like that


It's not an assumption - the sentence says if you pivot on the spot alone it does not count as movement, so that if you only pivot you do not count as moving. And not having a rule to say you can ignore the measurement rules.

Which part of that paragraph do you think says; pivoting is not movement? There was part of this rule in 6ed that said that clear as daylight - but it's been removed in 7ed. Seriously I'm assuming I am right because it literally says pivoting on the spot ALONE doesn't count as movement, but nothing about pivoting not being movement at any other point. Ergo, no rules saying you can ignore pivoting when determining distance.

As for needing permission to override measurement rules that's a part of basic versus advanced rule set - we have rules which say measurement for a vehicle is hull to hull, and we're told in measurement about how to measure 6inches. Now you need something to say it can ignore those rules when pivoting, ergo the lack of rules saying you can is a problem, because you need permission to break those rules. You require permissive rule here which says you can cross the 6inches of that tape measure via pivoting.


Basically rule book doesn't point out everything you can not do during the game, it tells you what you can do (and then gives restrictions and exceptions). You have to prove why you can, rather than I proving you can not.

@RedNoak: What Nem has put fourth, and I think what you are missing, is that in a permissive rule set you need permission to do something. How do you measure your infantry? Do you start at the furthest point , before you have moved the model, and end the move at the furthest point, after you have stopped moving the model? How else would you measure pivots? You put the tape down/start measuring before you pivot and stop measuring after you are done moving the model. When do you measure infantry? These are all covered in the basic rules if you want to stop and look at them.

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

What does this mean to you if it doesn't mean that pivoting is only free if stationary?

The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.

That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.

The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).

Eihnlazer wrote:
The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.

That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.

The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).

That's because previous editions had a sentence which said that pivoting didn't count towards movement along with the one about only pivoting on the spot. That first sentence was removed whilst the rest was just copy and pasted.

So the author intended to remove that sentence, which then leads the rule to the conclusion in the OP.

There IS a rule that forces you to consider the cost of pivoting in your movement - it is the one on p18 that says no part of the base (hull) can be more than X" from where it started. That simple rule automagically makes you pay for pivoting, so they make the exception (advanced rule) that when you only pivot you don't suffer any of the penalties for having moved.

So if you move forward one-one-hundredth of an inch, you can only pivot so many times? That makes no kind of sense, especially as it is almost literally impossible to pivot a model and not move it slightly off its original starting point (as determined by the center point of the model).

I take it then you can never measure anything as most people put pressure on the things they are measuring and therefor move it..... That is what I am getting from your statement.

 Psienesis wrote:
So if you move forward one-one-hundredth of an inch, you can only pivot so many times? That makes no kind of sense, especially as it is almost literally impossible to pivot a model and not move it slightly off its original starting point (as determined by the center point of the model).

Technically yes, but if your playing group gets out their micrometers after you declare you're just pivoting, get another playing group....

*throws table* feth this. even if I lose, never taking vehicles, as if I ever ran into one of you in game about this, I would probably quit and sell all my vehicles immediately.

I understand the point of the thread and the legality, but I see the fun of the game also like a frog. You can dissect it and see how it works, but it's no longer alive.

Final note: I would rather get cheesed out an extra couple of inches then spend 30 minute arguing over the correct movement.

As the thread is getting heated again, i believe it can stay where it stayed before:

Yes they removed that 1 phrase of specification. Yes page 18 maxes you out from the hull. Yes i can see it as a valid interpretation and would not deploy my Vehicles sideways if i faced you.

However.

The current reading and interpretation by most of us, where pivot is free: so starting your mvt with a pivot to "gain distance" still works, and is still within the rules.
If taking note of page 18: The Center point of the vehicle has never moved more than its allowance, so what happens to corner X Y Z is irrelevant. If you believe so, enjoy explaining it to players with Monoliths and Baneblades.

Eihnlazer puts it how i also read the rules currently:

Eihnlazer wrote:
The whole point is, people are seeing that and thinking if you move at all then the pivot counts towards movement.

That is a logical conclusion, but it is never actually said.

The only reason they put that particular phrase in there is, as i said earlier, because they wanted everyone to understand that pivoting on the spot does not count as movement, and thus would not give you a penalty to shooting (since if you move even 1/10th of an inch, you are going combat speed and cant fire all your weapons at full BS).

Both positions accepted, with agreement before the game starts, and TO ruling in tournaments. No one is "Wrong".
Both sides work, both sides "Gain movement" and both will create small issues.

and now we got to a full circle in just one page of this thread.
i believe most of you guys dont get what a massive nerf to vehicle's and walkers this would mean.

- big vehicles cant turn at all if they moved
- smaller vehicles can only move 1-2" if they want to turn more than 45°
- walkers cant turn if they moved more than 4"

and no, we are not exactly told how we are supposed to measure pivots, besides a vague "messure from the hull" and some mixed in rules for INFANTRY movement.

There aren't that many issue if you take it this way:
"No part of the hull is simply from Hull to hull, no matter facing, 180 turns, etc."

 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...?

Not such a big nerf...

misread something

"No part of the hull is simply from Hull to hull, no matter facing, 180 turns, etc."

but how is this more RAW or RAI conform than the pivot doesnt count as moving?

its a compromise, ill give you that. but it still impedes vehicle movement, if you turn you will never move more than 5" maximum the mor degree you turn the less you can move (and makes it really awkward to measure)

Yes, you are missing that you are measuring from corner A to corner A.

The resulting interpretation of the "other side" that works is "no part of the hull" can be 6".

So if you take a Rhino, move forward and do a 180*, as long as the BACK is 6" from where the FRONT was, you are "within 6" ".

[ED]: sorted

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I'd buy it.

Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.

Those were usually the same people who would try to pivot on a corner at my LGS. Had a dude rotate his dreadknight on a far side, gained an extra good 4 inches from that long ass base. When you call them out, they just look at you, like you accused them of murder.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I'd buy it.

Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.

Those were usually the same people who would try to pivot on a corner at my LGS. Had a dude rotate his dreadknight on a far side, gained an extra good 4 inches from that long ass base. When you call them out, they just look at you, like you accused them of murder.

As much as Pivoting on a corner is completely illegal per RaW, and told "you are not playing right" with "please go back and move that again",

I have yet to meet a Dark Eldar player who does NOT deploy sideways and rotate on turn 1. Never had an issue with it and they are almost never Waac players...
If you decided to deploy 0.001mm behind your Deployment line and get charged, i think you didn't think things through when he deployed =P

The problem with the deploy sideways and pivot is you have to measure from where you started before pivoting for movement now as the pivot isn't free if you intend to do more than just pivot. if you measure from where your pivot ends up and then moved 6" you have cheated.

Same for the end of the movement, you can't move 6" and then pivot. Pivoting isn't free.

I played Dark Eldar a handful of times in 6th, and never pulled the pivoting BS because tbh it didn't actually say it was free and allowed then either, people just assumed it was.

vehicle movement really isn't hard unless you are trying to cheat at it.

Where is your vehicle, are you moving or just pivoting.

If just pivoting-pivot and your done- you don't count as moving.

if you are moving then mark start point, mark end point, do your pivots between the two at the center of the model. done.

how to fail at moving-

pivot mark start point-move [this is a fail because if you do more than just pivot the pivot doesn't count as stationary so it is part of your move and you must include the pivot as movement]

or

mark start point, move 6", then pivot at end of move. [this is a fail because if you do more than just pivot the pivot doesn't count as stationary so it is part of your move and you must include the pivot as movement]

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I'd buy it.

Deploying side-ways and quick pivoting to gain an extra 4 inches was a tactic for Waac, the uninformed, or just shady-grin play in general.

oh cmon... but turning a sideway deployed vehicle and firing that into the enemy lines on turn 1 with full BS is fine?

blaktoof wrote:
if you are moving then mark start point, mark end point, do your pivots between the two at the center of the model. done.

exept that big vehicles cant move and turn
smaller vehicles...

urgh im getting tired of this -.-

blaktoof wrote:
if you are moving then mark start point, mark end point, do your pivots between the two at the center of the model. done.

I agree:

Deploy sideways.

Start moving: move 0.001" forward.

Pivot.

Measure 5.999" from the front of the hull. Move forward.

End movement.


How far is the front of your hull to the Mid-line? 6" minus half the vehicle length.
I have "cheated" and "gained movement" by following your exact rules.

EDit: The center of the vehicle (or "mark start point") is still 6" from where it was at deployment ("measure to end point")

except you are not agreeing.

you are acting like the pivots during the movement do not take up movement, they do.

Well how do you measure (in inches) a pivot about the center point of the model?

From Corner A to Corner A? We have already discussed how that would not work and completely destroy vehicle movement.

You already know before the pivot where you plan to move. Start measuring before you pivot then pivot and place the facing you want toward the direction you want and move the distance you wish to move. This has been posted in here as a valid workaround at least twice now.

If you need to go around things move to where you need to pivot record the move start measuring in the new direction, before the pivot, then finish the move.

If all you are doing is pivoting it's not measured per the rules.

Edit: Using this you do not loose distance, you simply do not gain distance via pivoting while moving.

Not being functional is not equivalent to a reduction of efficacy. The new movement rules are the latter, not the former. I dont like the change myself, but that doesnt alter the text written in the book.

Just accept the new movement paradigm and adapt imo.

I'm afraid this would definitely kill transports. The point of a transport is to increase mobility as much as it is to offer protection. If rotating my rhino 180 degrees before I move now means I can only move 2" forward because the change in position of my rear hatch is 4" forward and that counts as part of my movement when I decide to actually move, then I was way, WAY better off just marching my infantry forward.

Throughout 5th edition, when vehicles were king, I always played it that you start out, before doing anything, measuring from your vehicle to where you wanted your vehicle to end up - closest point, usually. And then you could spin around like a top during your movement as much as you liked, so long as you ended up that far away. I resented the landraiders and DE raiders that tried to gain extra inches by deploying sideways and then turning. The fact that they had to pull out a "well, technically, this blah blah blah...." proved to me they were trying to gain advantage in the rules.

In 7th, I honestly thought I had read that vehicles moved by first pivoting to face the direction they wanted to go, then measured and moved. That made the DE trick legal, but it applied to all vehicles now, and it was only coincidental that certain longer vehicles benefited more. Oh well.

What this DID do was make vehicle movement make a bit more sense - people complained about my method of doing things back in 5th because it involved tanks moving sideways. In what I thought was 7th's version, tanks had to always drive forward or backward, and pivoted as much as necessary without reducing their movement. This worked for me visually on the table much better than before.

Now we apparently have serious issues with deployment out of transports, and the poor IG and eldar players with a hatch only in the rear might as well never try to take them for transport potential (like they have been at all, really...), because when deployed facing forward, that hatch is now 7" back in their deployment zone. This truly does put the nail in the coffin for mose transports except open-topped, which disembark from anywhere, and landraiders, with a hatch in the front. Anyone else loses too much movement to make it worthwhile.


I'm in agreement with the technique of measuring 6" away before you do anything, and then making sure no part of your vehicle exceeds that distance away once it's done moving - and turn as much as you like on the way.

 Nem 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.

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

But there is, the paragraph does state: "Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the movement phase sounds as Stationary." That is a huge indication that vehicles CAN do free pivots, as why would a maneuver done after 0" of moving not change your movement speed, but doing the same thing after 6" of movement would? By all indications such a The removal of the phrase "Turning does not reduce the vehicle's movement." sounds more like the writers going, we're stating this same principle 3 times in 2 sentences, maybe saying it just twice will be fine.

Either way I think the writers dropped the ball on this wording change, if they didn't mean to change the common interpretation, they underestimated the importance dedicated rules people will place on every sentence, and if they did intend the change, they did not bring enough attention to said change as the rules were out for a healthy amount of time before anyone even noticed the different wording, much less ascribed a fundamental change in the way people move vehicles to that change.

The sentence about "a vehicle may pivot as much as they like" is still in, isn't it?

How could that be true if pivoting DID count as movement? If it does, then no, I can't pivot as much as I want freely. I can pivot....well none at all, I suppose, if I want to end up 6" away. That seems contradictory. I'm sure, despite the removal of the sentence, that they still intended vehicles to be able to spin around as they moved.

 Spellbound wrote:
The sentence about "a vehicle may pivot as much as they like" is still in, isn't it?

How could that be true if pivoting DID count as movement? If it does, then no, I can't pivot as much as I want freely. I can pivot....well none at all, I suppose, if I want to end up 6" away. That seems contradictory. I'm sure, despite the removal of the sentence, that they still intended vehicles to be able to spin around as they moved.

A vehicle may turn as many times as it likes, just like a normal model.

However the difference between this edition and last is that in this edition.

Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than wheeling round. Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as Stationary

pivoting is done as you move, not before or after.

If you only pivot you count as not moving.

There is no exemption that pivots do not count towards movement like there was last edition.

and there is this..

As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction, but if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase.

so if you pivot as you move you measure your movement start and stop point before all pivots, and at the end after all pivots. not Pivot measure move, or measure move-pivot.

Also we may end the move with the any part of the hull further than the distance alloted for the move.

this does not mean the front of the vehicle has to be where the front is, you can move a rhino pivot 180 and be 6" from where you started. your front where your rear was and your rear where your front was and no part of the hull has moved past the 6" you are allowed to move, you are just facing the other way. As long as no part of the hull is more than 6" away from where it started you are still moving 6".