Post by maugrim on Jul 2, 2012 16:09:52 GMT
Vehicle movement is still debatable by those who wish to ignore certain parts of the rules. Re: thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=35303&page=1
They have removed a line or so, and added one: "Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."
WTF? It is precisely "pivoting around the centre" that idiots argue *allows* it to move further than intended or allowed! Although with pre-measuring, it allows you to measure from your forces to the model before he moves it, and after, clearly demonstrating that it has moved further than 6" (or whatever).
If you get somebody doing this to you - you can do the same with your Trygons, Tervigons and Tyranofexen. Deploy it sideways, then rotate it from the back point of the base (pg 10 allows you to rotate your model freely because facing won't matter for shooting or assault) and *then* start measuring your movement. Heck, rotate it again at the end of your movement and perhaps again before your Assault. Oval bases break the basic rules set. It assumes round bases, and there are no rules about them, unlike vehicles they are not required to rotate around the centre. Do it once or twice and I think your opponent will start to see reason quickly enough.
Also - they've left the door open for another bit - completely driving around terrain. Example: Rhino is parked behind a wall, and wants to be on the other side. You could drive straight forwards, go over the Terrain (taking a Dangerous Terrain Test) and end up 6" from your starting position. OR (completely by RAW) drive all the way around the wall, back to in front of where you were - ending up 6" from your starting point.
Both are legal by reading RAW, since you measure movement for vehicles from their hull, the difference between the starting position of the Hull and the ending position of the Hull is within the vehicle's maximum movement distance.
Is it cheezy? Yes. Is it illogical? Yes. Can you do it with Infantry? Technically yes. Can it be disproven by RAW? No. This is what happens when you simplify/generalize your rules and A) Rely on "common sense" in your player base and B) Never put in the rules anything about tracing/measuring the actual path that your models take. Previous editions of 40k included it (1st, 2nd, I think even 3rd) but in later, simpler editions things like this have been "assumed". They even took out the line in the vehicle movement rules about "backwards and forwards movement".
Strictly by the rules, movement is very simple: You measure out your movement distance, pick up your model and place it back down so the base/hull is entirely within that radius facing any direction you want.
That is it. The exact path you took to get there isn't mentioned as being important anywhere. This is a difficult concept to accept for experienced wargamers and logical thinkers.
Even when you look at the Terrain rules (pg 90) it simply states: "If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain." And also, "If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain test."
By RAW, infantry can go around the same Wall as the example above, as long as the difference between their starting and ending position is 6" or less. Does that make ANY sense? No. Is there something that I haven't found in the rulebook to counter it? Not yet (can somebody else find something?). But it goes to show that oversimplification and stupid basic assumptions by rules designers do indeed make or break the rules.
Of course, there are parts of the rules which don't allow such chicanery. Charges, Involuntary Movement, Tank Shock are all instances where it proscribes a required path to take for the defined movement. In those cases its clear about passing through DT.
But seriously? Not to put in some sort of simple line about "travel in a line" or "shortest distance" or "measure the path the model takes" or something like that... Really? Nothing?
They have removed a line or so, and added one: "Pivoting is always done from the centre of a vehicle to prevent it from accidentally moving further than intended or allowed."
WTF? It is precisely "pivoting around the centre" that idiots argue *allows* it to move further than intended or allowed! Although with pre-measuring, it allows you to measure from your forces to the model before he moves it, and after, clearly demonstrating that it has moved further than 6" (or whatever).
If you get somebody doing this to you - you can do the same with your Trygons, Tervigons and Tyranofexen. Deploy it sideways, then rotate it from the back point of the base (pg 10 allows you to rotate your model freely because facing won't matter for shooting or assault) and *then* start measuring your movement. Heck, rotate it again at the end of your movement and perhaps again before your Assault. Oval bases break the basic rules set. It assumes round bases, and there are no rules about them, unlike vehicles they are not required to rotate around the centre. Do it once or twice and I think your opponent will start to see reason quickly enough.
Also - they've left the door open for another bit - completely driving around terrain. Example: Rhino is parked behind a wall, and wants to be on the other side. You could drive straight forwards, go over the Terrain (taking a Dangerous Terrain Test) and end up 6" from your starting position. OR (completely by RAW) drive all the way around the wall, back to in front of where you were - ending up 6" from your starting point.
Both are legal by reading RAW, since you measure movement for vehicles from their hull, the difference between the starting position of the Hull and the ending position of the Hull is within the vehicle's maximum movement distance.
Is it cheezy? Yes. Is it illogical? Yes. Can you do it with Infantry? Technically yes. Can it be disproven by RAW? No. This is what happens when you simplify/generalize your rules and A) Rely on "common sense" in your player base and B) Never put in the rules anything about tracing/measuring the actual path that your models take. Previous editions of 40k included it (1st, 2nd, I think even 3rd) but in later, simpler editions things like this have been "assumed". They even took out the line in the vehicle movement rules about "backwards and forwards movement".
Strictly by the rules, movement is very simple: You measure out your movement distance, pick up your model and place it back down so the base/hull is entirely within that radius facing any direction you want.
That is it. The exact path you took to get there isn't mentioned as being important anywhere. This is a difficult concept to accept for experienced wargamers and logical thinkers.
Even when you look at the Terrain rules (pg 90) it simply states: "If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain." And also, "If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain test."
By RAW, infantry can go around the same Wall as the example above, as long as the difference between their starting and ending position is 6" or less. Does that make ANY sense? No. Is there something that I haven't found in the rulebook to counter it? Not yet (can somebody else find something?). But it goes to show that oversimplification and stupid basic assumptions by rules designers do indeed make or break the rules.
Of course, there are parts of the rules which don't allow such chicanery. Charges, Involuntary Movement, Tank Shock are all instances where it proscribes a required path to take for the defined movement. In those cases its clear about passing through DT.
But seriously? Not to put in some sort of simple line about "travel in a line" or "shortest distance" or "measure the path the model takes" or something like that... Really? Nothing?
"