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.

sm3g wrote:

Spoiler:

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"

Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?

No. It means that you measure to where you want to go, MARK THAT SPOT, then you pivot and move. No single part of your model can pass that spot no matter how many times to pivot.
The free pivot is never supposed to add extra movement

-

 Galef wrote:

sm3g wrote:

Spoiler:

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"

Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?

No. It means that you measure to where you want to go, MARK THAT SPOT, then you pivot and move. No single part of your model can pass that spot no matter how many times to pivot.
The free pivot is never supposed to add extra movement

-

Ahh good, I was hoping so. The actual movement part of it makes sense to me, was just making sure that they didn't remove pivoting on the spot for free

Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.

sm3g wrote:
Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"

Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?

No. The main rulebook clearly says that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.

As soon as you do anything else, however, then you have moved and the distance you moved should be measured from your initial position before the pivot. It's been this way since 6th.

Just think about what position you want to get it into, what part of the hull will have moved the furthest in order to make that move and then measure that as it will give you a rough estimate of the total distance you'll have covered for combat/cruising speed purposes.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

sm3g wrote:
Over this Tyrant Guard thing, it's clear neither side will budge here, thankfully I do not have Tyranids.

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle.
When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before
it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time?
Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by
pivoting, then measuring, then moving.
A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base)
can finish the move more than the model’s move
distance away from where it started the Movement phase"

Does this mean turning on the spot counts as movement now?

No. The main rulebook clearly says that pivoting on the spot alone does not count as movement.

As soon as you do anything else, however, then you have moved and the distance you moved should be measured from your initial position before the pivot. It's been this way since 6th.

I thought as much, my mate questioned it last night when we were playing (so for arguments sake I let him say my pivoting counted as movement and snap fired some heavy bolters ). I didn't think it would have overruled the pivotting on the spot.

 EnTyme wrote:
Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.

How does a flying tank running on alien anti gravity engines and piloted by a ten thousand year old space elf actualy move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:
Nope, you're talking about him gaining the IC rule, that's not what it says.

He just joins the unit as if he were an IC.

If it helps you to imagine it - Take that Tyrant off the board and replace him with an IC, join it to the unit, then swap back for the Tyrant.

If you're replacing the Tyrant with a proto-entity that is nothing but the IC rule, he's not from the Tyranid Faction and so can't join Tyranid units...

 insaniak wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.

How does a flying tank running on alien anti gravity engines and piloted by a ten thousand year old space elf actualy move?

Exactly as the rules currently depict.
It's the ones with wheels (both of them) that are wrong.

Requizen wrote:

Benlisted wrote:
"Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."

This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.

I'm not too familiar with the size discrepancy - is it possible to get a cover save on MCs with things like Gants and Gaunts?

It says "terrain," not "intervening models"

Vorian wrote:
Nope, you're talking about him gaining the IC rule, that's not what it says.

He just joins the unit as if he were an IC.

If it helps you to imagine it - Take that Tyrant off the board and replace him with an IC, join it to the unit, then swap back for the Tyrant.

I think you're mistaking the Independent Character special rule for a unit type. That's like saying "Imagine the Tyrant is a Deep Strike", it doesn't make sense. Independent Character is not a unit type. The definition of "An Independent Character" is a model with the IC special rule. A model cannot be just an Independent Character, it would cease to function.

Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?

Come to think of it, even if firing through models requires 25% coverage, Guants are over 25% of the height of all Tyranid MCs except the very largest.

 Orock wrote:
Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?

True, but the re-roll gets hot ruling helps out KMK with ammo runts at least.

insaniak wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Who said anything about what a Tyrant is?

He is joining as if he were an independent character. He could be a tree, a balloon, a concept and he would still join as if he were an independent character.

Look at the rules for independent characters and follow those.

One of the rules for Independent Characters is that they can't join units if they are MCs. Nothing about pretending that the Tyrant is an IC changes the fact that he is an MC.

If I pretend that my blue car is red, it's still a car as well as being 'red'.

And it also moves faster as well.

Alcibiades wrote:

Requizen wrote:

Benlisted wrote:
"Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins."

This is good and fair for consistency with vehicles, but it reaaaally screws Nids over. As if we weren't monobuild enough already, now any footslogging MCs will be lucky if they ever get a cover save, which they really relied on.

I'm not too familiar with the size discrepancy - is it possible to get a cover save on MCs with things like Gants and Gaunts?

It says "terrain," not "intervening models"

A separate part of the FAQ states the same for intervening models.

Alcibiades wrote:Come to think of it, even if firing through models requires 25% coverage, Guants are over 25% of the height of all Tyranid MCs except the very largest.

From the perspective of the firer, I sincerely doubt a Tyrant is ever going to be 25% obscured by a gaunt?

sm3g wrote:
From the perspective of the firer, I sincerely doubt a Tyrant is ever going to be 25% obscured by a gaunt?

It can happen, depending on terrain. A gaunt or gaunts on a hill can do it, or maybe some Gargoyles maybe able to it as well.

Davor wrote:

sm3g wrote:
From the perspective of the firer, I sincerely doubt a Tyrant is ever going to be 25% obscured by a gaunt?

It can happen, depending on terrain. A gaunt or gaunts on a hill can do it, or maybe some Gargoyles maybe able to it as well.

I almost included "unless the gaunt was on much higher ground than the firer". Gargoyles might, I guess it depends if the area between the model and it's base counts like the spaces between models count for obscuring.

 EnTyme wrote:
Easiest way to handle it is to just move vehicles the way vehicles actually move.

Gotta disagree, the best way is to pick whatever point on the vehicle you think will be moving the farthest from where it started, measure 6 inches from there to it's new location, and just slide it over. Try to pivot so that the movement looks possible for tracked vehicles to actually do will end up with you both conused. Electric slide those tanks where they need to be!

ERJAK wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Gotta disagree, the best way is to pick whatever point on the vehicle you think will be moving the farthest from where it started, measure 6 inches from there to it's new location, and just slide it over.

Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.

Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.

 insaniak wrote:

Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.

Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.

No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...
I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.

 MrFlutterPie wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?

True, but the re-roll gets hot ruling helps out KMK with ammo runts at least.

Don't worry, I'm sure GW will "fix" Orks in in the 8th ed... maybe Orks will even be the first codex released! Because that worked out so well for us in 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

Which results in a rhino that wants to do a 180 and move away having moved 4" before it does anything more than pivot to face the right direction.

Frankly, I think the best way to handle it is to keep doing it the way the vast majority of players have been doing it since 3rd edition and ignore the occasional 'stretching' movement that happens as a result.

The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.

Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.

And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.

I'm so glad my Guass can punch through Void Shields now, won't be seeing many people using those anymore

sm3g wrote:

No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...

Except that without that second 180, your rhino has moved 10" instead of 6.


And, of course, if you track the actual path of the movement, each of the rhino's front corners has moved a little more than that.

I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.

That and the infamous 'long vehicle deployed sideways on the line, pivoting and then moving' for that extra inch or so of range.

Neither of which were bigger issues than the huge can of worms opened by a rule forcing us to track the individual movement distance of each part of the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.

Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.

And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.

That would make sense if just pivoting on the spot had the same effect...

 insaniak wrote:

sm3g wrote:

No it doesn't - turn rhino 180 degrees, move 6", turn 180 degrees. Nothing has ended more than 6" from where it started in the movement phase...

Except that without that second 180, your rhino has moved 10" instead of 6.


And, of course, if you track the actual path of the movement, each of the rhino's front corners has moved a little more than that.

I suspect this explicit ruling is to avoid people moving 6 inches then turning before disembarking, essentially gaining an extra few inches depending on transport size.

That and the infamous 'long vehicle deployed sideways on the line, pivoting and then moving' for that extra inch or so of range.

Neither of which were bigger issues than the huge can of worms opened by a rule forcing us to track the individual movement distance of each part of the vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The alternative is a rhino that can turn 180 degrees and then drive forwards a set distance in the same amount of time as a rhino moving that same distance straight ahead without turning.

Even in a tank where you can do the opposite direction treads manoeuvre it takes time to pivot on the spot, so it makes sense that pivoting should use some of your movement, if you intend to move after pivoting.

And game wise it prevents being able to use pivots to gain extra movement, which is good as it is a tactic which can help some models way more than others.

That would make sense if just pivoting on the spot had the same effect...

The second 180 is the key bit in all of this though...that was my exact point, you can do it, just not in such a way that gains an advantage by having a particular facing of the vehicle move an extra 4" from where it started.
I also agree with your last sentiment that logically speaking pivoting on the spot should have the same effect now, but lots of this game doesn't work by logic

Cleatus wrote:

 MrFlutterPie wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Tankbustas confirmed nerfed. Anything else you would like to gak on orks with, GW?

True, but the re-roll gets hot ruling helps out KMK with ammo runts at least.

Don't worry, I'm sure GW will "fix" Orks in in the 8th ed... maybe Orks will even be the first codex released! Because that worked out so well for us in 7th.

You guys got a 7th edition codex? I didn't know that.

Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.

Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.

It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.

Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.

It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.

NO....but like.... I can see how this would also be a 100% logical way to interpret the FAQ (As it is written)....and arguably makes more sense...especially since some vehicles are longer than 6".

Saw this on bols comment section and couldn't stop laughing





They randomly gave flyers a 90 degree vertical arc. When they do arbitrary stuff like this, the problem still is nothing lets you shoot through your own hull so all those wing mounted weapons aren't gaining much in the up department even with the change from 22.5 to 45 degrees up/down.


"Q: What is the vertical firing arc for shooting from Flyers, and
how is this split between targets above and below the shooter?
A: Assume that weapons can swivel 90° vertically – 45°
upwards and 45° downwards."




This one just shows you jervis's contempt:



"Q: Can Bikes, Super-heavy Walkers, Walkers, and Monstrous
Creatures move and/or assault units on the higher levels
of ruins?
A: Yes. For simplicity and ease of play, the core game
rules allow most models to climb any piece of scenery.
Use the ‘Wobbly Model Syndrome’ rule if it is not
possible to place the model in the position it is meant
to be occupying. If you wish, you may want to say that
models are only allowed to move to places that they
could reach ‘in real life’, but you will need to apply a
certain amount of common sense and discretion in
order to make such a rule work well.."

Common sense and discretion? Better yet, should the person writing the rules not be applying some common sense and discretion'? No, apparently, that has to be argued for and played differently on every table, in every club and basement because making a ruleset into mad libs didn't destroy the damn game. 5th seemed to work fine in that no one was batting an eye that their biker couldn't assend thin air drive on the upper levels of ruins or cliffs. I mean, what was the point of jumpt or jet or jetbike or skimmer units if everything can essentially fly?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Did anyone stop to think that when they say no part of the vehicle may move farther than where it started they meant "it" as in the whole vehicle, not the particular part.

Pick a point in the direction you want to go, move the vehicle to that point on the table, spin in circles all you want because the vehicle only moved the distance you chose.

It specifically stops any of the turning for distance nonsense on the move, while you also have to turning in place counts as stationary specific caveat.

I've always interpreted it that way. Doesn't stop me wishing they'd cleared it up by simply replacing 'it' with 'the vehicle'.