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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving". I'd have no problem with articulated legs and arms being moved as part of a model's move and I'd struggle to come up an ironclad rules reason why you couldn't.

As this thread demonstrates, it would be helpful if GW would properly define what the "hull" of a vehicle is. Better yet, it might even be preferable for them to drop the word altogether. I'm struggling to think of how that would make the rules worse.

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

Yes, because GW are incompetent.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?
Assuming they are still following the rules of " no part of the model can move beyond the Move measurement" rule properly. Meaning the legs could be extended fully, then "pull" the body forward, or go from a sprawl, into a ball, but if done in reverse (ball to sprawl) that would eat tons of movement.

From the drop-pod ruling one can safely assume that move-able parts of a model may not be moved over the course of the game.

I thought FAQs were specific to the units in question? There's quite a few models that can move/articulate, is the Drop Pod the only one with an FAQ?

What makes you think that asking the very same developer whether this also applies to predator or rhino doors would not result in a whack on the head with the rulebook?

You can either make an ass out of yourself for claiming RAW despite clear intentions or you can just accept that GW has never has written rules that should be taken literally.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

I've heard of similar debates around the use of drop pods, where the doors can be opened and closed. This is starting to get a little over the top, or into the realm of extremely niche arguments - nearly everyone would not expect someone to move the legs.

Big and small models/hulls/bases have their own advantages and disadvantages, so as long as it doesn't change within a battle, I don't see much difference. If a model has a low profile, that I can't see it to shoot then it cannot shoot me unless it moves. If something is so large it blocks line of site to models behind it... it blocks it to me (unless part of the same unit). Large bases cannot move into certain spaces, but they can tie up lots of people in combat. If you know these things and stick to them in the battle you can deal with them, changing the shape of a model is an extreme example and is bad sportsmanship - consistency, intent and openness is key

I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

If I tell you you have permission to move a Tupperware container from Room A to Room B, that doesn't give you permission to move just the lid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I don't see why permission to move a model wouldn't include moving part of that model.

Therefore whenever you have permission to move, you can adjust movable parts.

By the same token, you cannot adjust movable parts outside of instances where the model has permission to move (so no rotating a turret back out of LoS after shooting etc)

Moving a model is not the same as moving part of a model.

They aren't synonymous. But moving part of a model is a subset of moving a model, and therefore covered. Provided that part doesn't move more than the movement characteristic (or the amount of movement allowed).

If I tell you you have permission to move a Tupperware container from Room A to Room B, that doesn't give you permission to move just the lid.

If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

And that's not an argument.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If the movement rules specified precisely where you moved to and from, maybe you'd have a point with that reply. But you don't.

As you know, movement of 0" is fine. Therefore moving some of the model 0" is fine, for example when you rotate on a point. This is the same.

That's simply not a logical inference, sorry.

And that's not an argument.

It literally is? You're making a faulty logical inference.

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model

No it can not, as move means a certain thing in 40k.

or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving".

Move means a certain thing in 40k, so moving the whole model without articulation is the correct way to do it.

I'd have no problem with articulated legs and arms being moved as part of a model's move and I'd struggle to come up an ironclad rules reason why you couldn't.

Well the rules do not allow moving a models legs just the model as a whole.

As this thread demonstrates, it would be helpful if GW would properly define what the "hull" of a vehicle is. Better yet, it might even be preferable for them to drop the word altogether. I'm struggling to think of how that would make the rules worse.

That would be nice, but it is GW so...

So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

 Wibe wrote:
So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

I've had someone do that with Eldrad and a Wave Serpent, is that illegal or would it enrage you?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


With defiler legs being articulated, can a player adjust them, as part of moving?

Do the rules state that you can adjust the defiler legs as part of moving, if not then you can not do it.

It's ambiguous at best. The rules state "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this." That could be interpreted to mean you can move articulating parts of the model

No it can not, as move means a certain thing in 40k.

or move the whole model itself, but not articulate it. The fact no part of the model can move further than the model's maximum Move does provide a decent catch-all fallback regardless of what counts as "moving".

Move means a certain thing in 40k, so moving the whole model without articulation is the correct way to do it.

The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

Slipspace wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

It's got nothing to do with the definition of move. It's got to do with the fact you're only given permission to move the model, not part of a model.

If I give you permission to deposit a bag of coins into the company bank account, do you have permission to only deposit half of them? Same for moving a tupperware container into another room vs moving just the lid.

What’s with the ‘analogies’ that actually aren’t and illuminate nothing? As ever, change the question you change the answer. Change the scenario and you change the outcome. And Tupperware is never bound by the rules of 40K, so it’s a pointless insertion into the conversation.

I agree with Stux that if you *really* need it the rules cover moving bits just fine. But to be honest I’d never stop anyone rotating a turret or sponson when they move a model, so long as it’s not moved again after firing. For the avoidance of hamfeline doubt, yes, that’s HIWPI. It’s the most sensible option rather than bleating “the rules don’t let you move your turret!” when, as Stux has demonstrated, they actually do if you need them to.

But as the thread is about vehicle hulls and the question has been answered it’s probably better to lock the thread and start a separate one if this *really* needs to be hammered out. Which it really doesn’t.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
So a defiler can cradle/babysit characters by placing the character in-between his legs/claws? You cant shot the character if it's placed like that, and even making it impossible for certain unit to get into cc with the character Defilers need a base...

I've had someone do that with Eldrad and a Wave Serpent, is that illegal or would it enrage you?

It would not enrage me, but I would give em a long nostril exhale and maybe a closed mouth smile

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
The whole point I'm making is that "move" isn't really defined as precisely as you and BCB seem to think. The way it's worded could be interpreted to allow you to move component parts of the model or the whole model. It's ambiguous because it uses the natural English definition of move, rather than a game-specific definition and that leaves room for interpretation because in this context "moved" could cover displacing the entire model a certain distance or only moving a part of it.

As I also stated, I don't think it's actually all that important since the moving rules contain a prohibition on any part of the model moving more than its Movement value, so you can't exploit anything in the rules by moving legs, arms or turrets and keeping the model still.

It's got nothing to do with the definition of move. It's got to do with the fact you're only given permission to move the model, not part of a model.

If I give you permission to deposit a bag of coins into the company bank account, do you have permission to only deposit half of them? Same for moving a tupperware container into another room vs moving just the lid.

That Tupperware thing is a completely faulty analogy, because you're talking about a discrete location, and that isn't how movement works in the game.

Again, depositing doesn't work because it is discrete.

If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly. You are really reaching on this one.

 Stux wrote:
If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

And if the rules did not define move, then that would be fine to use the English definition.

But the rules define move so any basic English is over-ridden by the 40k Rules.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly.

They do not.

They cover moving the model from one place on the battlefield to another (Measured in inches). They do not allow you to articulate the model as you move the model a certain number of inches though

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
If you move part of something you would say that the thing has moved. That's basic English, not a faulty inference.

And if the rules did not define move, then that would be fine to use the English definition.

But the rules define move so any basic English is over-ridden by the 40k Rules.

The rules already cover adjusting movable parts just fine if you follow RAW properly.

They do not.

They cover moving the model from one place on the battlefield to another (Measured in inches). They do not allow you to articulate the model as you move the model a certain number of inches though

There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

 Stux wrote:


There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

This is equivalent to "But nothing says I can't"

The rules do not say that I can't drink some whiskey to auto-pass a morale test, but that does not mean I can do it.

You can move part of it, but you will end up moving the whole thing, because movement is measured in inches from the starting point to the end point. there is no allowance to move just the turret.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet." (40k Battle Primer P. 3)

This is talking about displacing a model from one position to another on the battlefield. The context of what they are talking about matters.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

This is of course not at all relevant.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:


There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

This is equivalent to "But nothing says I can't"

The rules do not say that I can't drink some whiskey to auto-pass a morale test, but that does not mean I can do it.

You can move part of it, but you will end up moving the whole thing, because movement is measured in inches from the starting point to the end point. there is no allowance to move just the turret.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet." (40k Battle Primer P. 3)

This is talking about displacing a model from one position to another on the battlefield. The context of what they are talking about matters.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

This is of course not at all relevant.

You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it. A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

 Stux wrote:


You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it.

And as per the P 3 definition these are the same thing in the 40k rules.

A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

Not as far as the 40k rules are concerned.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

Yet you are putting things there that clearly are not there. There is no provision to articulate a models parts. The only allowance is to move the model up to a set distance.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

It really is not. What happens in "musical statues" (Whatever that is) has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:


You are reading more into the definition than is there - it doesn't talk about displacing the whole model, it talks about moving it.

And as per the P 3 definition these are the same thing in the 40k rules.

A part of something moving means that thing has moved. That's it.

Not as far as the 40k rules are concerned.

This is absolutely not a case of "it doesn't say I can't" it's a case of "does say I can", if you actually understand what words mean.

Yet you are putting things there that clearly are not there. There is no provision to articulate a models parts. The only allowance is to move the model up to a set distance.

The example is very relevant, it is demonstrating what something moving means. The crux of the discussion.

It really is not. What happens in "musical statues" (Whatever that is) has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

If you want to house rule it then fine, but don't claim it's the rules. You're adding on extra clauses that aren't there to restrict the definition, and that's just arguing in bad faith.

 Stux wrote:
There's nothing in the definition of moving that says the whole model has to move. The model generally has permission to move and therefore you can move part of it.

Example: I'm playing musical statues. I see someone's arm move. They moved.

"A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet."
Emphasis mine. 40k has a permissive ruleset, so rather than needing the rules to say you cannot do something to prevent you from doing said thing, you need the rules to allow you to do something before you can do it. The rules permit you to move the entire model, not individual parts of the model. If you are moving the arm of your Knight in a direction, you are not moving the model in that direction, you are moving the arm of the Knight in that direction. If I tell you that you can move forwards or stand still and you move your arm forwards you have not moved forwards, you have moved your arm forwards. If the rest of your body isn't moving with you then your entirety have not moved, you have moved part of the model. In the case of 40k, you would need explicit permission to move part of the model, rather than the entire model. It also creates wacky issues of raising your gun one round to see over a piece of terrain and lowering it the next or after using an ability that lets you move the model to get out of LOS, but I don't know if you can be swayed by RAI.

I don't really see how that's a "wacky issue". It's just part of the game. You still generally won't be able to poke a turret out to shoot without giving the opponent the opportunity to do so back in their turn, which seems fair to me. The RAI is clear to me that it should be allowed, so that's not an issue for me at all.

Look, I really don't buy this reading of the text (it never talks about "entire" or anything like that - that's something people are adding to it) but it's clear I'm not going to convince the entrenched positions of some of the posters here. From a RAW perspective it's a pretty weak argument they are making, but there's no point going in circles further.