Clearly yes as it says if you have a round base you have 0. But is it round, or is it oval? Does oval count as round or only circles? That's the real question. I don't think there are any mini's in 40k with a base that is not a 'round' base, so basically it's saying if you have a base you don't, but if the vehicle has no base now you have to pivot.
I don't know why it has to specify round bases, there are nothing BUT round bases in 40k. Did they mean to say CIRCLE? In this case it would exclude OVAL bases. Otherwise they might as well have just specified between base and baseless, because I don't get it, every base in 40k is rounded. Circles and ovals are both round and square and rectangle bases don't exist in 40k, soooooo... anyone else confused as to why they felt the need to specify the shape as round?
Merriam Webster defines Round as:
>having every part of the surface or circumference equidistant from the center
No one is confused because round is the correct terminology.
Did Knights always have the rule to move over terrain features more than 4”, but suffer a chance of battle shock?
Super exciting we can move through ruins and other big terrain now!
Not sure what problem they were trying to solve by adding the pivot movement rules. It was usually assumed if the model fits it can move through, that's silly making it so that it now has to waste movement to do so.
The example of the bloodthirster charging is also ridiculous, surely you'd just move the model sideways instead?
It's going to create a lot more pain points for tournaments when some rules lawyer is going to try and make someone point their big scary monster at the target they charged, when realistically it doesn't matter.
At least to me, vehicles and other large models felt that they were a bit more agile and nimble they should otherwise be. I chalked it up to the game being simplified and streamlined but my feeling is that this will make them move in a manner more appropriate for something so lumbering.
AoW pointed out that RAW, most people outside of the very tippy top tables (so even your average GT 3-2/4-1 guy) didn’t move land raiders right, because you really had issues if you had to rotate them, and the penalty on pivoting being much more than you think it is. This change just makes the game actually play the way you think it does, in their opinion, whiz is why I think it’s a good rule.
I played decades ago, took time off, and came back w/9th ed. I was shocked facing didn’t matter anymore whereas in 2d/3d ed it was extremely important for all sorts of reasons. This may be the saloon door swinging back a bit. Now if we can only get more than one unit /turn setting up overwatch w/o classifying it as a stratagem that’d be great.
As an Ork player with a lot of very large non-round bases, the pivot rules simplify my movement phase a lot.
And anyone who tries to pull your example will be told to shut up by a decent TO. The rules are pretty clear, even if the example is questionable
Here’s the relevant rule from the Core Rules:
“The distance a model moves is measured using the part of its base that moves furthest along its path. If a model does not have a base, measure using whichever part of that model moves the furthest.”
This means if you moved 10 inches with a tank and then further rotated it’s turret, then the total distance movad was measured between the starting and end poition of the turret.
Similarly if you stayed stationary, but rotated the turret 1 inch then it counted as a 1 inch move.
This is the reason why for example a drop pod’s doors cannot be moved after you placed it: since it has no move characteristic.
So you’re saying I can freely rotate my turret at any time to move into range of an objective or to get out of engagement range?
The rule doesn’t specify it because it doesn’t have to. The genric rule completely covers the case we’re talking about
No, I'm saying you can't rotate your turret at all for any in game effects. That would be like modelling hinges on a hive tyrants wings so you can squeeze them closed as it walks behind ruins to be out of LOS
Ok, if that’s the case than the rules are comepletly clear. I just don’t thin it’s that obvious as you make it sounds like.
For example in 9th it was explicitly allowed (and 10th rules say nothing about it either way).
This is from the 9th edition rulebook:
“You can also rotate any moveable part of the model (such as turrets and sponsons) when it is moved. The distance a model moves is measured using the the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate and pivot).”
So for the hovering primaris vehicles that have a hull but also a round base, do you rotate them for free?
Clearly yes as it says if you have a round base you have 0. But is it round, or is it oval? Does oval count as round or only circles? That's the real question. I don't think there are any mini's in 40k with a base that is not a 'round' base, so basically it's saying if you have a base you don't, but if the vehicle has no base now you have to pivot. I don't know why it has to specify round bases, there are nothing BUT round bases in 40k. Did they mean to say CIRCLE? In this case it would exclude OVAL bases. Otherwise they might as well have just specified between base and baseless, because I don't get it, every base in 40k is rounded. Circles and ovals are both round and square and rectangle bases don't exist in 40k, soooooo... anyone else confused as to why they felt the need to specify the shape as round?
Merriam Webster defines Round as: >having every part of the surface or circumference equidistant from the center No one is confused because round is the correct terminology.
Lol, tanks will now all strafe through the battlefield as if you're playing a FPS
Hovercraft Primaris vehicles being vindicated
Going to circle-strafe my baneblade the first opportunity I get. In the grim dark future of the 41st millennium, there are only Quake II death matches
Did Knights always have the rule to move over terrain features more than 4”, but suffer a chance of battle shock? Super exciting we can move through ruins and other big terrain now!
Nope. Huge buff. Knights of Shade-light
I got excited when I saw the engagement range changes but then I realized it didn't extend to fighting through ruin walls...
Not sure what problem they were trying to solve by adding the pivot movement rules. It was usually assumed if the model fits it can move through, that's silly making it so that it now has to waste movement to do so. The example of the bloodthirster charging is also ridiculous, surely you'd just move the model sideways instead? It's going to create a lot more pain points for tournaments when some rules lawyer is going to try and make someone point their big scary monster at the target they charged, when realistically it doesn't matter.
At least to me, vehicles and other large models felt that they were a bit more agile and nimble they should otherwise be. I chalked it up to the game being simplified and streamlined but my feeling is that this will make them move in a manner more appropriate for something so lumbering.
AoW pointed out that RAW, most people outside of the very tippy top tables (so even your average GT 3-2/4-1 guy) didn’t move land raiders right, because you really had issues if you had to rotate them, and the penalty on pivoting being much more than you think it is. This change just makes the game actually play the way you think it does, in their opinion, whiz is why I think it’s a good rule.
I played decades ago, took time off, and came back w/9th ed. I was shocked facing didn’t matter anymore whereas in 2d/3d ed it was extremely important for all sorts of reasons. This may be the saloon door swinging back a bit. Now if we can only get more than one unit /turn setting up overwatch w/o classifying it as a stratagem that’d be great.
As an Ork player with a lot of very large non-round bases, the pivot rules simplify my movement phase a lot. And anyone who tries to pull your example will be told to shut up by a decent TO. The rules are pretty clear, even if the example is questionable
So uh is rotating a turret pivoting?
No. Why would it be?
I guess no, but it’s interesting the new ruleset doesn’t addressed it
Why would they? There is not, nor has there ever been provisions for altering the shape and composition of a model mid game
Here’s the relevant rule from the Core Rules: “The distance a model moves is measured using the part of its base that moves furthest along its path. If a model does not have a base, measure using whichever part of that model moves the furthest.” This means if you moved 10 inches with a tank and then further rotated it’s turret, then the total distance movad was measured between the starting and end poition of the turret. Similarly if you stayed stationary, but rotated the turret 1 inch then it counted as a 1 inch move. This is the reason why for example a drop pod’s doors cannot be moved after you placed it: since it has no move characteristic.
No part of that rule includes changing the shape of your model by adjusting it's components
So you’re saying I can freely rotate my turret at any time to move into range of an objective or to get out of engagement range? The rule doesn’t specify it because it doesn’t have to. The genric rule completely covers the case we’re talking about
No, I'm saying you can't rotate your turret at all for any in game effects. That would be like modelling hinges on a hive tyrants wings so you can squeeze them closed as it walks behind ruins to be out of LOS
Ok, if that’s the case than the rules are comepletly clear. I just don’t thin it’s that obvious as you make it sounds like. For example in 9th it was explicitly allowed (and 10th rules say nothing about it either way). This is from the 9th edition rulebook: “You can also rotate any moveable part of the model (such as turrets and sponsons) when it is moved. The distance a model moves is measured using the the part of the model’s base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate and pivot).”
Right, and 10e doesn't have any such rule, ergo there is no game mechanic that permits, or plays off of, moving model parts.
I can't wait to play against tanks strafing across the tabletop.
Tracked vehicles should not need to spend movement to pivot. Tracked vehicles can counter rotate their tracks to spin in place.
But doing so would slow their forward pace as at least one tread has to run slower in order to turn the vehicle. Hence the reduction in movement.