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.

I agtee with Poly ranger. I don't expect someone to know my entire codex, I don't even know it by heart myself, but I'm not going to bother explaining every single rule to every player I face. I'll go over the units and their wargear (e.g. "One squad of 10 praetorians with Rods of the covenant, here's 2 units of ... with .... and ..., etc). If they don't know what it does, they're free to ask.

My opponents will always be surprised. I bring wildly varying lists for wildly varying armies. The only thing they get to know beforehand is whether it's going to be competitive or goofy, because that's something we agree upon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Yeah, doesn't seem that TFG. I would chalk it up as a learning experience and deploy differently next game. I've gotten turn 1 charges before plenty of times,and every time it was because my opponent deployed/moved in a way that allowed me to do it. Nobody likes being charged turn one but they recognize that they left the unit in a vulnerable position.

And if you had read the thread, you'd know that what he did was illegal as he was not allowed to move his vehicles like that.

Turn 1 charges are not the problem, illegal moves are.

Guy sounds Luke a douche to be honest. If he tries again mention the movement is from nose to nose. If he has to pivot and move, the nose is where the measuring starts BEFORE pivot.

To be honest i had typed out that post and not submitted it yet, and in the interim many others posted. When i hit submit, i noticed the page had filled up while i was typing and working. So yeah, i thought it was still legal as it was in 6th. Now that i see the other posts, i'm more enlightened. Maybe he still wasn't being TFG and didnt know himself that it had been made illegal for 7th. My bad, dude. Sorry.

Just to be clear my turn 1 charges had nothing to do with this pivot/movement interaction.

People get rules wrong all the time, particularly if they've played multiple editions. This was something that was allowed in 6th and got changed-the correct thing to do is check the rules, and if he then sticks by his mistake or gets mad, maybe consider ending the game.

The incorrect thing to do is let the mistake go, get mad about it and ask the internet to tell you that your loss didn't count. This just spreads the whole toxic attitude about the game.

Hardly "TFG at its best" especially given the rules changes between editions. I think rushing to brand someone TFG after they did something that was legal in previous editions is a little bit hasty, to say the least.

Talk to your opponent. Not us.

Not letting the other guy forge his narrative of highly mobile transports is pretty TFG, if you ask me.

Without the consent of your Opponent, one does not have permission to change the Rules even to 'better fit the Narrative.'
Calling the Opening Poster 'That ******* Guy' for questioning why their opponent is breaking a Rule without having asked for concessions to do so... that is far from polite!

Vehicles are very clearly intended to move 6" RAI unless Fast.

Exploiting oversights in the rulebook rather than playing strictly to RAI is pretty clearly TFG behavior.

If you disagree, you probably are one!

In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

DaPino wrote:
If I pivot and gain 3 inch, then move 6 inch forward, how did the front of my vehicle remain within 6" of where it was at the start of its movement phase?.

If you pivot the vehicle 180 degrees on the spot, and then move 6 inches forwards, how far has the front of the vehicle moved from where it was at the start of the movement phase?



That's the problem with this interpretation. It results in you having to count the distance that every part of the vehicle moves, and as soon as you move in anything other than a straight line, that gets complicated very quickly, and drastically cuts down the distance that vehicles can actually move.


Frankly, I don't see any practical difference between the wording of the current rules and the way they were worded last edition. They've re-worded it slightly, but the end result is the same, and the pivot trick is still legal.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

It didn't make me upset - like I said, everything else in the game was just fine - but it's not the way I prefer my games. I don't want to win because my opponent simply didn't know something, I want to win because even though they knew it, they were not skillful enough to avoid it. The same applies to myself. And it was a casual game, so I didn't get mad or make any mention of it to my opponent - I'm not going to ruin his game for doing something that he was obviously very proud of - but it was still enjoyment based on making someone else feel badly, which I think is the core of "surprise!". There's nothing wrong with that kind of game, if it's communicated that you'll be playing with surprises - but then I think it's important that you're both on the same level and not assuming that the other person's play-style is the same as yours.

I think that's the crux of it. It depends on the playstyle of the person or group. How open or sneaky you want to be is dependent on those around you.

Edit: Referring to GTF discussion part not the particular rule about pivoting.

How do you conclude that 'any part of the Base' does not require us to ensure every part of the Base obeys this Rule?

While this Rule is one of the many I put forth as an example of the Vacuum Effect, as it only works when applied to pure-Infantry Unit Types, that phenomenon does not grant us permission to ignore a Rule without permission to do so. Talking to your opponent about the phenomenon, and getting concessions to disregard the Rule, is still very much required if one is going to completely ignore its existence. Given how terrible this Rule is for any Unit Type other then pure-Infantry, and for Vehicles in particular, the Opponent is more then likely to concede that it needs to be ignored for the game to function... just one of many.

Assuming your opponent is going to ignore a poorly written Rule, without discussing it with them first, is a recipe for disaster.

It doesn't work for infantry either.

If you have a model on a 1" base, who pivots 180 degrees as they move 6", the leading edge of the base at the end of that model's movement will have moved 7".

Attempting to complete an action that is in violation of a Rule does not mean that Rule is 'incorrect,' all it does is make your action illegal.

From a pure Game Mechanic point of view, I have been trying to think of a reason why rotating the pure-Infantry Model would even matter. The few I am able to think on all involve placing the Model in such a way it gains a benefit, one the Authors may actually be trying to prevent with this very Rule. These include ensuring the Model is 25% in cover by presenting the thinnest side towards the enemy, maybe not a whole 180 degree turn but far more realistic a pivot that one may see on the table top. Another was oval shaped Bases using the pivot-move manoeuvre to ensure they get a little closer to the enemy, which could make the difference between getting into Range for a Shooting attack or not.

Therefore a rule specifically designed to forbid these types of outcomes makes complete sense to me and the only complaint I have is the Vacuum Effect, but such is common with Game Workshop's sloppy Rule writing....

 insaniak wrote:
It doesn't work for infantry either.

If you have a model on a 1" base, who pivots 180 degrees as they move 6", the leading edge of the base at the end of that model's movement will have moved 7".

The difference being that infantry does not have a facing as per the rules while vehicles do. And if that's what it takes to make you follow, I'll gladly not pivot my infantry models all game, because you ARE technically correct, even tough it would have very little bearing on the game' s outcome (as opposed to the shennanigans in OP's post).

Yes it restricts vehicles in a major way and in a friendly game I wouldn't be a dick about it unless they're clearly trying to break the rules, either through malicious intent or ignorance, and it's giving the a major advantage that I just cannot overlook (as was the case in OP's post).

If a Leman Russ pivots and some part of it's hull has travelled 7 inch instead of 6, but there's no real impact to the game because he'd still be in range regardless and the facing barely changes, I'd be fine with that. If he travels 6" and completely pivots the vehicle so my melta's are forced to shoot his AV14 front instead of AV10 read, I'd tell them that's not according to the rules.

In wargaming (in the proper sense, which is not necessarily limited to the tabletop) the idea is to test outcomes based on realistic actions to gain information, which helps to inform real-life decisions.

Vehicles do not go 50% faster because they pivot. It's completely wrong to do this if you're interested in gaming an outcome based on the tactical choices of both parties.

Feel free to explain to me how this kind of behavior would be in any way constructive if we were trying to wargame as a simulation model.

It's WAAC behavior. End of discussion. There really isn't more to discuss.

Yoyoyo wrote:
In wargaming (in the proper sense, which is not necessarily limited to the tabletop) the idea is to test outcomes based on realistic actions to gain information, which helps to inform real-life decisions.

Only if the game is supposed to be an accurate simulation.

40K is not a simulation. This is a game where a guy who is kneeling down spends the entire game kneeling down, and as a result can't see over obstacles that other, more upright members of his unit can see over. It's a game where the guy who is closest to the enemy magically absorbs every incoming shot until he dies, at which point the next closest model becomes the bullet magnet. It's a game where shooting at a stationary vehicle the size of an apartment block parked an arm-length away has the same chance of hitting it as shooting at a rapidly moving drone on the other side of the table...

And what do these flaws justify, exactly? In short, what is the point of the game to you?

I'm sure you'd find a lot of players who simply would respond "to win". Which is exactly what I said.

Yoyoyo wrote:
And what do these flaws justify, exactly? In short, what is the point of the game to you?

The point of the game is, as with any game, to have fun.

The best way to do that, from my experience, is to find opponents who approach the game with a similar outlook to your own, rather than just declaring that anyone with an opinion differing from yours is doing it wrong...

There is a very clear and easily understood limitation of 6" moves before disembarkment (specific exceptions exist). If both players prefer to play with 9" opening moves, or to give one player the ability to do so, that's fine. Obviously, that's not really the situation as it played out, is it?

A ruleset exists for a reason. If you're deliberately trying to subvert it without the knowledge of the other player --- which includes being obtuse or aggressive when arguing against clearly intuitive rulings, such as Immobile vehicles Jinking or 9" moves before disembarkment -- what do you want, sympathy? F the guy in this game who played OP. No sympathy.

If both players agree they can do whatever the hell they want. In the context of playing without a prior understanding, it's wrong. Players who are WAAC don't like to recognize that and will constantly smokescreen to avoid accountability.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Players who are WAAC don't like to recognize that and will constantly smokescreen to avoid accountability.

I've actually found that to rarely be the case.

Most of the more hardcore players that I've come across over the years have been quite upfront about it. In many cases, they simply don't comprehend how anyone could enjoy playing any other way, and so they have no particular reason to obfuscate about it.

On the other hand, I've seen that 'WAAC' label thrown around an awful lot when all that is really happening is that two people have different views on what is acceptable and what isn't. A disagreement over a single rules interaction is a long, long way from being sufficient cause to apply that label.

Hell, I was accused by an opponent of being a WAAC player for running attack bikes in my Red Corsairs army in a tournie back in 2nd edition. You had to pay 150% of their normal points cost to use them, and back then attack bikes weren't even particularly good. But he didn't feel that they belonged in a Chaos army (because who cares what the codex says, 'miright?) and so I was clearly just using them to gain an unfair advantage...


Sometimes it pays to have an open mind, and accept that the fact that an opponent is reading a rule in a way you don't agree with doesn't automatically make them some sort of unscrupulous tool who just wants to win at any cost.

Agreed!
It is really annoying that, in a system as poorly written as Warhammer 40k, somehow players with different interpenetration of the Rules are labelled 'That ******* guy' for simply having a difference of opinion.

 Yarium wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
In that anecdote about the Deceiver's surprise redeployment I have to say keeping that info on the down low is how that should play out. Definitely very fluffy to be caught by surprise by a rule with the purpose of reflecting how the deceiver catches the enemy by surprise. How one could be upset by that in a friendly game is beyond me. My response in that situation would be to laugh about it, think it was cool and try to figure out how to adapt. It is only going to catch someone by surprise one time. You are taking the game way to seriously if not mentioning makes you mad. And if the game is that serious to you, generally or because you are in a tournament of death match or something, it is your responsibility to know the rules and not your opponent's responsibility to inform you.

In other scenarios I may view it differently, but that was such a fluffy perfect result I can't get upset by it.

It didn't make me upset - like I said, everything else in the game was just fine - but it's not the way I prefer my games. I don't want to win because my opponent simply didn't know something, I want to win because even though they knew it, they were not skillful enough to avoid it. The same applies to myself. And it was a casual game, so I didn't get mad or make any mention of it to my opponent - I'm not going to ruin his game for doing something that he was obviously very proud of - but it was still enjoyment based on making someone else feel badly, which I think is the core of "surprise!". There's nothing wrong with that kind of game, if it's communicated that you'll be playing with surprises - but then I think it's important that you're both on the same level and not assuming that the other person's play-style is the same as yours.

I knew I should have put more of a qualifier on my statement, but was in a rush. I was using "you" generically not speaking about you specifically. And while I personally would, as a general rule, be amused and entertained by learing of the rule (assuming he wasn't just making something up) the way the opponent revealed the surprise and acts in general could either make the process more entertaining or potentially turn me from a positive to negative attitude. "Ha, Ha, check out this stupid newb who didn't know what the Deciever could do and totally deployed his units where I'm gonna blow him off the table turn one". Good feeling gone. Its all in the opponent's demeanor. I'm just saying that in a vaccuum, assuming the opponent is a decent guy, I would enjoy the surprise and would hope others could as well. Wacky, unexpected, cool stuff is part of the fun of the game. (Except when it isn't and that line is personal and admittedly can be arbitrary.

 insaniak wrote:
On the other hand, I've seen that 'WAAC' label thrown around an awful lot when all that is really happening is that two people have different views on what is acceptable and what isn't.

If you're not a WAAC player you simply come to the sensible and intuitive compromise, where there is one.

This is not hard to understand, except for people who prefer not to understand it.

If OP's oppenent wasn't a WAAC player this post wouldn't exist. Recognize it for what it is man.

On what basis are you making that assumption?

 insaniak wrote:
On what basis are you making that assumption?

The wrong basis, apparently.

While what the OP's opponent was doing is clearly illegal under the 7th edition rules, I would not go so far as to start bandying about everybody's favorite terms, "WAAC" and "TFG".

Pivoting for extra movement was technically legal in 6th edition (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), and was a trick that many Dark Eldar players used. The OP's opponent may have simply missed the change in wording and assumed that the technique was still legitimate.

Both "WAAC" and "TFG", while possessing separate definitions, has similar contexts: they are dependent on attitude more than anything else, and consequently lead to patterns of behavior. One incident, unless the OP can provide information otherwise, does not make a player "WAAC" or "TFG".

It's better to assume ignorance instead of malice, especially on the internet.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

While what the OP's opponent was doing is clearly illegal under the 7th edition rules, I would not go so far as to start bandying about everybody's favorite terms, "WAAC" and "TFG".

Pivoting for extra movement was technically legal in 6th edition (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), and was a trick that many Dark Eldar players used. The OP's opponent may have simply missed the change in wording and assumed that the technique was still legitimate.

Yes, it was legal under 6th, and every prior edition back to 3rd. And, as I mentioned before, the interpretation that makes it illegal in 7th renders the movement phase far more complicated than is practically worthwhile.

A lot of players still see it as a perfectly legal tactic, and it's been a thing for so long now that most don't consider it a big deal. Particularly when there is such an easy counter to it.

"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

Yoyoyo wrote:
"Technically legal" and "Trick" kind of say it all boys!

It's impossible to ground it in any kind of realism, it goes against the RAI (universal 6" movement), it's not obvious to newbies, it gives an advantage to the kinds of players who aren't above such shenanigans, and it adds no depth or value to gameplay.

It's for one purpose and one only -- to gain an advantage to win over the other player, and it's exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing within the spirit of them.

Yes, it is WAAC behaviour. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck.... well, I guess we better not hurt it's feelings by calling it one as well!

As insaniak pointed out earlier, the only way to make skimmers move without gaining any extra movement is to measure from every part of the model, which could lead to skimmers losing movement for pivoting on the spot. In this case, it would be more RAI for skimmers to be able to move easily without sacrificing movement.

No part of the 40k rules are meant to be "realistic". If they were, Bolters could cover the board in range and assault would be impossible even by 7th edition standards.

If you want to explore the realm of "technically legal", you will find most of the psychic phase there. After all, what exactly happens when a psyker joins a unit? And how do mastery levels work anyway? In any case, only the basic structure of 40k is makes easy logical sense for new players.

What you see as an unfair advantage, I see as a fair penalty for making the mistake of deploying too close to a fast assault unit. If you're going to bandy "WAAC" about, you would have to include anyone who has moved a skimmer in any edition after 3rd ed.