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.

It notes in vehicle movement that the turn is free in that it doesn't take up any movement but does that mean that you don't have to make a difficult terrain check?

hrmmmmm, a free 'move'? Or it's 'free' to turn during it's movement phase?

Turning to pivot as well I would think is effected...

top of my head answer... yes, it counts and needs to be rolled for dangerous terrain. IIRC the dangerous terrain test is rolled if the vehicles moves while inside the Dangerous terrain. Turning even while being 'free' is still a movement.

Anyone else want to take a peek in a BBoR to confirm? I can but not until later this afternoon.

I can't remember what it says exactly. Something along these lines. if the vehicle did not move in the movement phase it can turn in place without counting as moving. If it does not count as moving it should have all the benefits/drawbacks of not moving. Being struck automatically in close combat, not rolling 2 dice when scattering, not having the take a dangerous terrain test ect ect.

That's a good point, as otherwise people could claim that their tanks rotate 360 degrees each turn, whether they move or not, and thus a 4+ is needed. Or they can just move them 1 degree left or right.

Page 64. In spite of the extra commas and the subject-pronoun disagreement issues (a perennial GW favorite), this sentence appears to say that a pivot in the shooting phase does not count as movement.

Thus, if it isn't movement, it doesn't necessitate a dangerous terrain test. Also the vehicle is auto-hit in assault and rolls one die for ordinance, etc.

I agree with this as the interpretation of the 'pivot' in the shooting phase.

However, it seems that the OP was talking about the MOVEMENT phase. I would say that while pivoting at the start of your move in the movement phase is 'free' in that it does not cost any 'inches of movement', it would still count as movement.

eg your tank is in an alleyway barely wider than itself (and your tank is longer than it is wide, like most 40k vehicles). You wish to turn 180 degrees BEFORE moving, and then move. But in pivoting, your front and back ends would pass through difficult terrain (ie ruins).

I would say that in that case: yes, you'd have to take the test.

I fully agree with Strangelooper. Turning in the movement phase is movement. Turning in the shooting phase isn't movement (and only because the rules specifically say so).

Posted By yakface on 12/20/2006 5:54 PM

I fully agree with Strangelooper. Turning in the movement phase is movement. Turning in the shooting phase isn't movement (and only because the rules specifically say so).

Just to cover all ground to fully close this off, what if a vehicle which pivots during its shooting is assaulted next turn? I would say that it counts as stationary but my guess is that there will be someone here who will take the stance of:

"It notes that it fires as if stationary and not that it counts as stationary for that turn."

Takers?

I read that as: "...can pivot on the spot in the Shooting phase before they shoot without counting it as movement (so they can fire as if they were stationary)"

The stuff in the brackets beiing 'clarifications', so that the meat of the sentence is: "can pivot on the spot in the Shooting phase without counting it as movement".

Therefore, I think that if a vehicle pivots at the beginning of its shooting phase, it does not count it as movement for any purpose at all (including difficult terrain tests, shooting its weapons, and being assaulted).

Nowhere does it say: "can pivot on the spot without (counting it as movement during the shooting phase)". Though I can see how that interpretation could be arrived at, I think it's erroneous.

Flavious? Care to weigh in from the professional grammarian POV?


WARNING - NON-RAW ARGUMENT AHEAD (cover your delicate eyes if you are a RAW-only monkey):

I also think that works from a 'balanced advantage' aspect: sure, you can pivot and fire as if you didn't move (advantage) but then you are hit in assault as if you didn't move (disadvantage). Trying to claim advantage and then another advantage based on the opposite interpretation strikes me as dirty pool.