vehicles pivoting

[Crablezworth]

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/294492.page

I just stole this from yakface:

"The rules for Vehicle Movement say (rulebook, pgs 56-57): "As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull."

and:

"A vehicle that travels up to 6 [inches] is moving at combat speed...A vehicle that travels more than 6 [inches] and up to 12 [inches] is moving at cruising speed...Moving a maximum of 12 [inches] may seem relatively slow for a vehicle, but it represents a cross-country speed rather than traveling on a road."

and:

"Vehicle 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. Turning does not reduce the vehicle's move. This means that a vehicle may combine forward and reverse movement in the same turn providing it does not exceed its maximum move."




QUESTION: If a 'long' vehicle (such as a Dark Eldar Raider, for example) is deployed with one of its 'sides' parallel to the edge of its deployment zone, on its first turn if the vehicle model is first pivoted 90 degrees before it is actually moved across the table do you play that this allows the vehicle to essentially 'gain' bonus distance to its movement (with the longer the vehicle model meaning the more distance it technically 'gains'?

Note: The term 'gain' is being used here, but in reality, no movement distance is technically being 'gained' by the vehicle. However in game terms it does mean that the vehicle will be able to move to a position further than it would have been able to if it hadn't pivoted at some point during its move.



OPTION A. Yes, I do play that vehicles can essentially gain bonus movement by pivoting this way (with the 'longer' the vehicle essentially meaning the more 'bonus' distance gained), as the rules clearly specify that pivoting does not reduce the vehicle's move.


OPTION B. No, I play that vehicles measure movement distance from their centre-point or I play that the total distance a vehicle model ends up having moved in any direction (regardless of pivots) cannot exceed its maximum move. Regardless of the reason, the result is I play that vehicles are not able to 'gain' any bonus distance by pivoting when moving.


OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below."

[Tumal]

It would be less distance though than if it started with its tail parallel to the deployment zone, so is it really a relevant point? If you were trying to cheese with distance just don't have the sides parallel to the board. On this ground I suppose that qualifies as "A".

[natesnation]

I shall explain my position on this now that there's a proper venue for it.

When I first learned of this trick, my thought was of all the people I've played against, how they move their vehicles. Often, when they pivot, its not an exact center-of-mass motion, they just move the thing in the direction they want it to face. cool.

so here's me thinking that this motion applied to the raider would be used to bump the distance by intentionally mis-rotating the vehicle to add a few inches, and hoping your opponent doesn't notice. I also thought that they'd move the full distance, then re-pivot again, with the side now facing the maximum furthest point that the prow had achieved in its move, again with a rotation that was not from the center of the vehicle.

the long and short of it is that I assumed the "raider pivot" trick was entirely taking advantage of your opponent's sportsmanship in allowing you to just move your vehicle in imperfect ways to save on time. Even in a competetive environment, such abuse of goodwill has no place, so I was a little chapped.

I "get it" now, and it really isn't that big a deal.

[Desc440]

If I understand what you are saying nate, that would be straight up cheating. The "pivot trick" is not that at all, as you are now aware.

[LUTNIT]

Chimera did point out an interesting rule that I overlooked and no one else seemed to mention:

As you move the models in a unit, they can turn to face any direction, without affecting the distance they are able to cover...." (emphasis added).

Since this is an actual rule it really breaks the rest of the vehicle movement rules in the rule book. Unless you either move a vehicle backwards so it isn't any further forward than it was before it pivoted or all vehicles are perfect circles most vehicle movement is actually breaking this rule.

To directly follow this rule you would have to move your vehicles without any pivoting (which is allowed later in the vehicle movement section) and pivot them at the end only. Even then this still gives you the advantage of weapon range and disembarkation since the pivot is adding to both of these.

Looks like it really is an argument with no clear cut answer.

[Crablezworth]

For 6th they should move to measuring from the center of the vehicle. Would make it simpler. I can guarantee though people do tihs all the time without realizing it. As nate said, I don't think its a big deal.

Not long ago on dakka there was a debate about razorbacks and people putting the top part on so they gain an inch shooting forward. Some people were like losing their s**t over it, others pointed out that if they're ever shooting at anything behind the razorback that they've now lost an inch and if they're shooting left and right there's like no difference and it was pretty much a non-issue. It kinda cut both ways and it was also like the most benign case of "modelling for advantage" of all time.

[natesnation]

For 6th they should move to measuring from the center of the vehicle. Would make it simpler. I can guarantee though people do tihs all the time without realizing it. As nate said, I don't think its a big deal.

Not long ago on dakka there was a debate about razorbacks and people putting the top part on so they gain an inch shooting forward. Some people were like losing their s**t over it, others pointed out that if they're ever shooting at anything behind the razorback that they've now lost an inch and if they're shooting left and right there's like no difference and it was pretty much a non-issue. It kinda cut both ways and it was also like the most benign case of "modelling for advantage" of all time.

yeah, what really bugs me is the dude with the boarding planks that go to the front of the battlewagon, so he can board when he rams. that is total crap.

[Joyous_Oblivion]

For 6th they should move to measuring from the center of the vehicle. Would make it simpler. I can guarantee though people do tihs all the time without realizing it. As nate said, I don't think its a big deal.

Not long ago on dakka there was a debate about razorbacks and people putting the top part on so they gain an inch shooting forward. Some people were like losing their s**t over it, others pointed out that if they're ever shooting at anything behind the razorback that they've now lost an inch and if they're shooting left and right there's like no difference and it was pretty much a non-issue. It kinda cut both ways and it was also like the most benign case of "modelling for advantage" of all time.

yeah, what really bugs me is the dude with the boarding planks that go to the front of the battlewagon, so he can board when he rams. that is total crap.

I thought a boarding plank just allowed a model to make an attack against a close (can't remember exact distance) model. Does it say the plank has to be physically modeled from the point you want to attack from?

[Tumal]

Either I'm doing something HORRIBLY wrong, or you misunderstand me, or maybe I misunderstand something around the circumstances of the "question".

I'll use one of my tanks as an example (Eldar, they're all slightly longer than wide). If I deploy my tanks on the edge of the board with the "ass" against the table edge (no part of the tank off the board, just flush with the edge) I would be measuring movement from the nose of the hull. This is farther from the board than the side would be if I parked it sideways to start as suggested in the post by Ben. Thus, pivoting to that position should pretty much be the same as starting in that position.

...

And I just had Phil explain to me that we're talking about the Front of the deployment zone, I was thinking the back.
SMRT!

In which case, yeah...I would have to revise to "not something I'd ever do on purpose".

[PeterPotamus]

I read through the dakka topic and it appears that the general consensus is to go with option A, while most people also don't seem too concerned with the legitimacy of using option B, although the movement graph on page 12 of the rulebook illustrates movement distance being measured from the front of the vehicle rather than the middle. If firmly adhering to this, also disallowing drifting moves in which the vehicle rotates in mid-move, long vehicles would never get any movement gains through pivoting, as their "nose" must be placed in the destination spot; they could only conceivably score a movement gain from deployment, thanks to placement rules rather than movement rules. All of this should be clear enough- measuring point of departure from one part of the vehicle and point of arrival at another part of the same vehicle would make no sense even if it wasn't disallowed by the rulebook.
That being said, a rule amendment to the deployment rules is all it takes to fix this, and 6th ed might include just that. Either that or Eldar get a tiny movement bonus on turn 1, they're very fast anyway.