Immobilised Dreadnought

[Something Wycked]

being able to articulate to face the target avoids needing to pivot.

Spurious.

 

If you insist on that rule being followed exactly as stated, an immobilized walker can't fire period. It must first pivot to fire.

The goal of the pivot is to bring the target into the weapons' arc of fire. If the target is already in the weapons' arc, then no pivoting is necessary. Rules quote from Isiah:

 

"pivot the walker on the spot so its guns are aimed at the target "

What does "aimed at" mean? The target is in the arc of fire of the weapons.

How much must the Walker pivot? Enough to put the target in the arc.

Ergo, if the target is already in the arc of fire, no pivoting is necessary. Your claim that "you would always have to pivot to fire, even if it was the null pivot, and then an immobilized walker could never fire" is incorrect.

 

Effectively, the rules boil down to this:

If the Dreadnought is immobilized and can't pivot, and the target is in the arc of fire, then the Dreadnought may fire at the target. If the target is outside of the 45 degree cone of fire, the Dreadnought may not "articulate" or "swivel" or any other concept that isn't permitted by the BRB to avoid the penalty of being an immobilized vehicle.

[maturin]

I haven't bothered to do a search to dig up the other old threads, but here's my take on the pivoting issue:

 

"Articulating at the waist" (or swivelling, or whatever you want to call it) changes your facing.

 

Here's the relevant quote, p.72:

 

"...This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles. Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction until its next Movement phase, so its facing will determine where its rear armour is going to be when the enemy returns fire!"

 

So if you swivel your dread 180 degrees to shoot behind you, and an enemy unit shoots it in the engine stacks, are you going to claim that they're still shooting at the dread's front armor because its feet are still pointing at the enemy?

 

To me, it's clear that "swivelling" changes your facing - just like pivoting on the spot with a predator or any other regular vehicle. It's a pretty clear indication of RAI, for those of you who find the written rules a bit hazy.

[SeattleDV8]

I doesn't matter at all if the Dread is articulated or able to torso twist, the rules for the walker spell out exactly what their Arc of Fire is.

(BRB pg. 72)

....all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull mounted weapons.

That's it, clearly spelled out.

It is not a turret, a pintle, a sponson or even hull mounted, it is all weapons on the Dread have a prescribed Arc.

If the dread is immobile it may noy pivot and is allowed only 45 degrees.

If you torso twist, you have moved outside of the defined Arc of Fire.

 

 

Many people get confused with past Editions of the rules (and Battletech).

[KnowThyEnemy]

and just before its said again, i believe everyone is aware of the way a SM dread is supposed to rotate that middle joint. i believe there is also game footage and such supporting that. the issue is, there is nothing in the RAW for 40k supporting a 'swivel' move being different than pivoting. the model may have that joint there, which is all well and good, but i believe these models were designed to be glued together. otherwise GW would gladly sell you overcosted magnets for all your hobby needs :).

 

but seriously, claiming that 'but thats the way the model is meant to move, its not modeling for advantage' seems WAAC to me. your adding magnets/bearings/etc to your model in order to portray it more 'realistically' (also a word that has no business in this game of fantasy :P ), but claiming thats the way the model is 'supposed to be' in order to gain a game advantage. that, sir, is the definition of "modeling for advantage" :). i believe ill just start claiming that theres no WAY that immobilised result destroyed BOTH tracks on my landraider/predator/vindicator, i can still 'rotate' with 1 track section to shoot.

[greatcrusade08]

'fluff' abilties (ie the way a dread can pivot its midsection) has nothing to do with actual game mechanics... let me repeat that NOTHING!!!

 

we can only use rules which states that the weapns on a dread are akin to hull mounted as such only have thier normal 45 degree firing arc.. if a dread is immobilised it cannot turn to face a new direction..

 

thats the end of that discussion, thats RAW... anything else is interpreting for gain

[Squirrelloid]

and just before its said again, i believe everyone is aware of the way a SM dread is supposed to rotate that middle joint. i believe there is also game footage and such supporting that. the issue is, there is nothing in the RAW for 40k supporting a 'swivel' move being different than pivoting. the model may have that joint there, which is all well and good, but i believe these models were designed to be glued together. otherwise GW would gladly sell you overcosted magnets for all your hobby needs :P.

 

but seriously, claiming that 'but thats the way the model is meant to move, its not modeling for advantage' seems WAAC to me. your adding magnets/bearings/etc to your model in order to portray it more 'realistically' (also a word that has no business in this game of fantasy :P ), but claiming thats the way the model is 'supposed to be' in order to gain a game advantage. that, sir, is the definition of "modeling for advantage" :).

 

My Dreadnoughts rotate without any conversion work/magnets/bearings/etc.. at all. Built as intended and provided. I have not bought one of the plastic kits, but the metal ones have a big pin on the legs and a hole on the bottom of the chest that it goes into, and it freely rotates about this if its not glued. (Indeed, transport is a lot easier if you don't glue it!) Modelling for advantage has to mean that you have done work on a kit beyond the components provided - claiming that putting a model together as intended is modelling for advantage is silly.

 

----------------------

 

There may be nothing supporting 'swivelling' is not a pivot. There doesn't need to be. Its not defined as a pivot, therefore its not. Its 'pointing the weapon against the target' as per the general vehicle firing rules, rules that make it clear vehicles are expected to make use of existing articulation, and that articulated joints which are glued in place have special exceptions made for them to give them natural firing arcs as if they weren't glued.

 

This only looks black and white if you assume something that isn't in the rulebook: that articulation of provided joints constitutes pivoting - pivoting is very clearly turning the entire model. Dreadnoughts have a base, and the orientation of that base is fixed by being immobilized.

 

And if you insist on following the letter of the RAW in this case, you cannot fire an immobilized dreadnought at all. "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target..." Not 'may' pivot, or 'is allowed to pivot'. You must pivot the walker. Immobilized walkers can't pivot, therefore you can never get to firing. I think we can agree this is not intended, but it is actually what the rules say.

 

What's the intention? The immobilize result specifically says its damage taken to a leg (relevantly for walkers). This is obviously fluff rather than rules, but it seems to lay grounds for the intention of the writer - it is only the leg(s) that are disabled.

 

I freely admit its a grey area. The rules spell out something that I feel is against all sense. What people decide is the intent of the rules will of course vary.

[Morollan]

And if you insist on following the letter of the RAW in this case, you cannot fire an immobilized dreadnought at all. "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target..." Not 'may' pivot, or 'is allowed to pivot'. You must pivot the walker. Immobilized walkers can't pivot, therefore you can never get to firing. I think we can agree this is not intended, but it is actually what the rules say.

 

If my weapons are already pointing at the target then I can pivot "so that it's guns are aimed at the target" without moving so much as a millimetre.

[greatcrusade08]

My Dreadnoughts rotate without any conversion work/magnets/bearings/etc.. at all. Built as intended and provided. I have not bought one of the plastic kits, but the metal ones have a big pin on the legs and a hole on the bottom of the chest that it goes into, and it freely rotates about this if its not glued. (Indeed, transport is a lot easier if you don't glue it!) Modelling for advantage has to mean that you have done work on a kit beyond the components provided - claiming that putting a model together as intended is modelling for advantage is silly.

 

it will nedd confirming but im pretty sure the directions included in dreadnought kits shows that you glue the body to the waist.. anything else could very well be deemed modelling for advantage and wouldnt be built as intended

 

There may be nothing supporting 'swivelling' is not a pivot. There doesn't need to be. Its not defined as a pivot, therefore its not. Its 'pointing the weapon against the target' as per the general vehicle firing rules, rules that make it clear vehicles are expected to make use of existing articulation, and that articulated joints which are glued in place have special exceptions made for them to give them natural firing arcs as if they weren't glued.

this is assinine and a complete abuse of any morale trust given to your opponents..

if you read the whole section on firing walkers, it says at the bottom of the passage

"Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction until its next movement phase, so its facing is going to determine where its rear armour will be"

what your saying is you can interpret the wording to turn a dread on its spot but not have the base itself move.. therefore its no a pivot.. i say this is abusive wordplay.

 

here from pg 61 on immobilised results

"an immobilised vehicle may not turn in place"

it mentions nothing about pivoting, it says cannot turn in place, whether its the top half or the whole thing a turn is a turn.

 

This only looks black and white if you assume something that isn't in the rulebook: that articulation of provided joints constitutes pivoting - pivoting is very clearly turning the entire model. Dreadnoughts have a base, and the orientation of that base is fixed by being immobilized.

You claim strict adherance to RAW, but at every opportunity you bring in your own RAI

fluff doesnt equate to game mechanics.. show me where the walker rules state a dread can turn on the spot without it constituting a turn or pivot.. (i want a single quote, none of this smoke and mirrors a+b+c stuff you like so much)

also show me where pivting means turning the entire model (and base), it makes no mention of bases merely that they turn on thier centre point to change facing again showing that by turning the dreads your changing facing and are infact 'pivoting'

 

lastly i want the quote that says that only a dreads base is fixed by an immobilised result.. in fluf terms they use the word leg and joint, but cealrly spell out they may not turn in place/

 

please provide these quotes OR stop using invalid arguments.

 

And if you insist on following the letter of the RAW in this case, you cannot fire an immobilized dreadnought at all. "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target..." Not 'may' pivot, or 'is allowed to pivot'. You must pivot the walker. Immobilized walkers can't pivot, therefore you can never get to firing. I think we can agree this is not intended, but it is actually what the rules say.

 

now your just being difficult, if we follow this line of madness then an undamaged dread cannot fire at anything in its current fire arc becuase it wouldnt need to pivot to fire at it.

its clear what the rules mean, lets not be obtuse with interpreting RAW

 

What's the intention? The immobilize result specifically says its damage taken to a leg (relevantly for walkers). This is obviously fluff rather than rules, but it seems to lay grounds for the intention of the writer - it is only the leg(s) that are disabled.

Again show me this intent, the rules amke no mention of dreadnoughts only walkers.. some walkers dont articualte at the waist even in fluff.. your presumed "intention" is useless in this argument

 

I freely admit its a grey area. The rules spell out something that I feel is against all sense. What people decide is the intent of the rules will of course vary.

no grey area, this rule is clear

[SeattleDV8]

Yes , a dread may 'swivel'....45 degrees as stated in their rules.

It can also pivot a full 360 , as long as it is not immobile.

Not being able (or needing to) pivot in no way stops the dread from firing.

Any claims otherwise are unfounded.

[Something Wycked]

Yes , a dread may 'swivel'....45 degrees as stated in their rules.

The Dreadnought's weapons may swivel ;)

[SeattleDV8]

Well thats all that is allowed, the weapons are not hull mounted (only 'like hull mounted')

Their are no rules that allow the dread to torso twist.

[Squirrelloid]

My Dreadnoughts rotate without any conversion work/magnets/bearings/etc.. at all. Built as intended and provided. I have not bought one of the plastic kits, but the metal ones have a big pin on the legs and a hole on the bottom of the chest that it goes into, and it freely rotates about this if its not glued. (Indeed, transport is a lot easier if you don't glue it!) Modelling for advantage has to mean that you have done work on a kit beyond the components provided - claiming that putting a model together as intended is modelling for advantage is silly.

 

it will nedd confirming but im pretty sure the directions included in dreadnought kits shows that you glue the body to the waist.. anything else could very well be deemed modelling for advantage and wouldnt be built as intended

 

I don't recall the directions giving specific instructions to apply glue or not apply glue *anywhere*. I don't even recall that it *came* with instructions. There might have been an exploded model on the back of the box, but no instructions and no booklet inside. Metal dreadnoughts are from 3rd edition, maybe 2nd also, and you only got rough guidance on how to put the things together - generally printed on the box.

 

There may be nothing supporting 'swivelling' is not a pivot. There doesn't need to be. Its not defined as a pivot, therefore its not. Its 'pointing the weapon against the target' as per the general vehicle firing rules, rules that make it clear vehicles are expected to make use of existing articulation, and that articulated joints which are glued in place have special exceptions made for them to give them natural firing arcs as if they weren't glued.

this is assinine and a complete abuse of any morale trust given to your opponents..

if you read the whole section on firing walkers, it says at the bottom of the passage

"Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction until its next movement phase, so its facing is going to determine where its rear armour will be"

what your saying is you can interpret the wording to turn a dread on its spot but not have the base itself move.. therefore its no a pivot.. i say this is abusive wordplay.

 

here from pg 61 on immobilised results

"an immobilised vehicle may not turn in place"

it mentions nothing about pivoting, it says cannot turn in place, whether its the top half or the whole thing a turn is a turn.

 

This only looks black and white if you assume something that isn't in the rulebook: that articulation of provided joints constitutes pivoting - pivoting is very clearly turning the entire model. Dreadnoughts have a base, and the orientation of that base is fixed by being immobilized.

You claim strict adherance to RAW, but at every opportunity you bring in your own RAI

fluff doesnt equate to game mechanics.. show me where the walker rules state a dread can turn on the spot without it constituting a turn or pivot.. (i want a single quote, none of this smoke and mirrors a+b+c stuff you like so much)

also show me where pivting means turning the entire model (and base), it makes no mention of bases merely that they turn on thier centre point to change facing again showing that by turning the dreads your changing facing and are infact 'pivoting'

 

lastly i want the quote that says that only a dreads base is fixed by an immobilised result.. in fluf terms they use the word leg and joint, but cealrly spell out they may not turn in place/

 

please provide these quotes OR stop using invalid arguments.

 

Provide any definition of 'pivot' or 'turn' in the rules whatsoever. I can't find one. Asking me to show where they define certain types of 'aiming the weapon at the target' which only involve using model articulation as *not something* with *rules quote* when they never define what that something is - well, its impossible. Logically impossible. The only rule that covers general articulation of weapons has been quoted already, and its on p58: "When firing a vehicles weapons, point them against the target and then trace line of sight from each weapon's mounting and along its barrel."

 

Due to this gaping hole in the rules, common language understanding is necessary.

 

I never said its 'turning on the spot', i said its swivelling. Common language understanding: if you turn, then if you walk forward you will be going in the direction in which you have turned. That's what any normal person means by a 'turn' when referring to facing. The legs have not changed direction, should the dread be capable of moving then if it walked forward it would go in the direction its legs are facing. Ergo, rotating the upper half does not constitute a turn by common language understanding. You might say the upper half of the dreadnought has turned, just like you might say a turret has turned, but you'd never say the Dreadnought has turned, or changed its facing.

 

(I should note that swivelling is not a technical term. I'm using it to mean 'changing the orientation of a component using the provided articulation').

 

If you imagine the dreadnought as walking in a straight line and firing at the same time, its still facing in the directions its legs are pointed, and moving in that direction. That direction is forward for the dreadnought. The upper half may rotate and fire in a different direction, but the *orientation* of the dreadnought is where its legs are pointing. Similarly, if a person rotates at the waist, we don't say they've turned or changed direction. Someone running may turn his head or even his upper body to look behind him, but he isn't suddenly running backwards while doing this. We still say he's running forward. His facing has not changed. The dreadnought is analogous to a person, and the same common language ideas about orientation apply.

 

This is part of why its a grey area. They use terms here they never really define, and common language already has a good concept of what it means for an anthropomorphic being to turn or pivot and it involves full body repositioning.

 

And if you insist on following the letter of the RAW in this case, you cannot fire an immobilized dreadnought at all. "When firing a walker's weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target..." Not 'may' pivot, or 'is allowed to pivot'. You must pivot the walker. Immobilized walkers can't pivot, therefore you can never get to firing. I think we can agree this is not intended, but it is actually what the rules say.

 

now your just being difficult, if we follow this line of madness then an undamaged dread cannot fire at anything in its current fire arc becuase it wouldnt need to pivot to fire at it.

its clear what the rules mean, lets not be obtuse with interpreting RAW

 

The null pivot is still a pivot. Even if you're pointing *right at the target already*, you can still pivot to face it.

 

What's the intention? The immobilize result specifically says its damage taken to a leg (relevantly for walkers). This is obviously fluff rather than rules, but it seems to lay grounds for the intention of the writer - it is only the leg(s) that are disabled.

Again show me this intent, the rules amke no mention of dreadnoughts only walkers.. some walkers dont articualte at the waist even in fluff.. your presumed "intention" is useless in this argument

 

And those walkers can't make use of articulation they don't have. Model specific difference. Similarly, sponsons for some tanks have different firing arcs than others - perfectly intended, and not at all a problem just because they're both 'sponsons'.

 

Now, I'd be happy to play it however, but I don't think the rules are very clear on how it is. (I don't even use the one dreadnought I have, so its not like I care how they work for my own use).

[Something Wycked]

Despite the walls of text, you still haven't shown any rules that back your case, Squirrel :P

 

Dreadnoughts may pivot to fire at their targets in the shooting phase.

Dreadnoughts are walkers. Walkers are vehicles. Immobilized vehicles may not pivot. > Immobilized Dreadnoughts may not pivot.

 

Dreadnought weapons may swivel 45 degrees. Or, said another way, immobilized Dreadnoughts have a 45 degree arc of fire.

 

All of your arguments for the torso twisting, articulation, etc. of the Dreadnought to avoid the Immobilized damage result are unsupported. :)

[dswanick]

"When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45°, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles. This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles." (BRB, Pg.72)

 

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary(however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)." (BRB, Pg.57)

 

It really is this simple. The walker may pivot in order to bring it's weapons to bear on a target, but it may not pivot if it is immobilised. No other RAW applies.

[greatcrusade08]

If you imagine the dreadnought as walking in a straight line and firing at the same time, its still facing in the directions its legs are pointed, and moving in that direction. That direction is forward for the dreadnought. The upper half may rotate and fire in a different direction, but the *orientation* of the dreadnought is where its legs are pointing. Similarly, if a person rotates at the waist, we don't say they've turned or changed direction. Someone running may turn his head or even his upper body to look behind him, but he isn't suddenly running backwards while doing this. We still say he's running forward. His facing has not changed. The dreadnought is analogous to a person, and the same common language ideas about orientation apply.

 

i agree with thade (on other threads) and something wycked.. everything you say is smoke and mirrors to detract from the fact you have no standing within the rules.. Sw has summarised nicely.

i will say the above quote is nonsense

 

If you imagine the dreadnought as walking in a straight line and firing at the same time, its still facing in the directions its legs are pointed, and moving in that direction.

he may be moving in that direction but hes clearly not facing that direction.. the rulebook does quantify 'facings' (orientation), especially when being shot at.

 

the rulebook does use and qauntify the words turning and pivoting on page 57 of the BRB, it makes no mention of a 'swivel'

 

I never said its 'turning on the spot', i said its swivelling. Common language understanding: if you turn, then if you walk forward you will be going in the direction in which you have turned. That's what any normal person means by a 'turn' when referring to facing. The legs have not changed direction

yet the walker rules do acknoweldge the fact that turning to aim its weapons on a target does indeed change the facing of the dreadnought

 

When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons on a walker can swivel 45 degrees, like hull mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles. this pivoting in the shooting phase does not count as moving and reprisents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison to other vehicles. Keep in mind however that the walker will probably remain facing in this direction unti its next movemnet phase, so its facing will determine where its rear armour is going to be when the enemy returns fire

 

now pivoting has been described in the BRB on page 57

vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot around its centre point

immobilsed vejciles may not pivot

 

so if you want to turn a dread to face a target you have to turn the whole vehcile on its centre point .. by previously established GW wording

they leave no mention of twisting at the waist despite your assertions they do

 

the rules make no mention of dreadnoughts only walkers.. some walkers dont articualte at the waist even in fluff..

And those walkers can't make use of articulation they don't have. Model specific difference. Similarly, sponsons for some tanks have different firing arcs than others - perfectly intended, and not at all a problem just because they're both 'sponsons'.

 

Again athough im repeating myself, the rules only cover walkers as a sub type of vehicle, dreadnoughts are no explicitly covered.. so unless you can show me the are specific rules for dreads then they have to use rules for walkers.. not all walkers can twist on thier 'waists' and as such neither can dreadnoughts for the purposes of game dynamics.

[Squirrelloid]

Look, I'm not trying to argue that the RAW is at all clear on this one. All I'm saying is that the RAW says very little about the situation, and that its not clearly a pivot.

 

The rule definition of pivot invokes the word turn, which makes it useless, since we apparently don't agree on what it means to turn a model. If we agreed on what it meant to turn a model, we'd agree on what the walker rules actually mean. Now, you can provide a definition for what the rules mean for you to 'turn a model', which its defined pivoting as, or we can agree that there is a basis for a difference of opinion.

 

I will agree with you that rotating the upper body of the dreadnought changes its "armor value" for a given direction because it has rules that specifically state that, and specifically mention you determine armor values based on the *body* (which i'm reading as torso area) - but I don't think armor value against firing is the same thing as the facing of the model as a whole, especially not when they felt the need to give you specific rules on how to determine a walker's AV.

 

Alternately, we disagree that the rules encourage us to use provided articulation, and that your position is the only acceptable articulation is turrets and sponsons. I feel the rules prefer us to use provided articulation where possible.

 

My point is, our disagreements are about things that aren't stated in the rules. I don't really care, I'd be happy playing either way. No smoke, no mirrors, I'm using plain english and expressing a disagreement about the definitions of terms the game did not care to define. And I'm happy to agree that there is a legitimate disagreement as to the meaning of those terms and would even agree that playing it your way is better.

 

I will totally agree with dswanick's post. That's exactly what the rules say. I'm not disagreeing with that text at all.

[Something Wycked]

I will totally agree with dswanick's post. That's exactly what the rules say. I'm not disagreeing with that text at all.

I'm not trying to argue that the RAW is at all clear on this one. All I'm saying is that the RAW says very little about the situation, and that its not clearly a pivot.

These two statements are contradictory, Squirrel. :)

[Squirrelloid]

I will totally agree with dswanick's post. That's exactly what the rules say. I'm not disagreeing with that text at all.

I'm not trying to argue that the RAW is at all clear on this one. All I'm saying is that the RAW says very little about the situation, and that its not clearly a pivot.

These two statements are contradictory, Squirrel. :)

 

Only if you assume rotating the top of a dreadnought is pivoting =P

 

My common language understanding of pivot/turn (the game rules equate them) for an anthropomorphic entity require the feet to change orientation. Facing is determined by potential direction of movement, should movement be possible. Thus, a rotation about the waist is no more pivoting (=turning according to the rules) for a dreadnought than it would be for a person.

 

I thus conclude a waist rotation is not pivoting, and that the quoted text does not apply.

 

The lack of clarity of the meaning of pivot with respect to a Dreadnought is exactly why I think this is a grey area.

 

(Unless of course you assume a dreadnought *must* pivot to fire, which is a legitimate interpretation of the text, but the consequences of that interpretation - that immobilized dreadnoughts may *never* fire - is beyond silly, and I think we can agree on that).

[Something Wycked]

Once again, the waist rotation you are championing has no basis in the rules. At all. :)

[Squirrelloid]

Once again, the waist rotation you are championing has no basis in the rules. At all. :)

 

Can the model rotate about the waist as provided. Mine certainly can.

 

Can the model be rotated without 'pivoting' to point weapons against the target as required under the general rules for firing with vehicles as per p58? Depends on the what is meant by 'pivot'. That is the *only* real point of contention.

 

Can we not agree that this is a definitional problem?

[dswanick]

The rule definition of pivot invokes the word turn, which makes it useless, since we apparently don't agree on what it means to turn a model. If we agreed on what it meant to turn a model, we'd agree on what the walker rules actually mean. Now, you can provide a definition for what the rules mean for you to 'turn a model', which its defined pivoting as, or we can agree that there is a basis for a difference of opinion.

Well, if that's all you need - "Vehicles 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." BRB, Pg.57

[Squirrelloid]

The rule definition of pivot invokes the word turn, which makes it useless, since we apparently don't agree on what it means to turn a model. If we agreed on what it meant to turn a model, we'd agree on what the walker rules actually mean. Now, you can provide a definition for what the rules mean for you to 'turn a model', which its defined pivoting as, or we can agree that there is a basis for a difference of opinion.

Well, if that's all you need - "Vehicles 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." BRB, Pg.57

 

So does the model include or not include the legs? Ie, would this not require the legs to have moved as well for it to be a 'pivot'?

 

I agree you can read it the way you're reading it. I disagree that's the only legitimate way to read it. (BTW, that definition of pivot-turn is using one word to define the other, since we disagree about the joint meaning, its not very useful)

[Something Wycked]

Once again, the waist rotation you are championing has no basis in the rules. At all. ;)

[stinkenheim]

No where in the rules is 'swivelling' ever mentioned in the description of how walkers fire. It is completely irrelevant whether you believe a swivel is a pivot or not, just as it is irrelevant whether you believe a model can pivot at the waist or would need to move its feet.

The rules are perfectly clear that an immobilised walker may not pivot.

Simple, are your intended targets outside of the 45% arc of fire, if yes then you can't shoot them.

 

Talking about swivelling at the waist, not moving the models feet when pivoting etc are non entities in this discussion because the rules never mention those things.

 

It is perfectly acceptable that occasionally your models may not be able to shoot because things are out of los/fire arcs.

[dswanick]

The rule definition of pivot invokes the word turn, which makes it useless, since we apparently don't agree on what it means to turn a model. If we agreed on what it meant to turn a model, we'd agree on what the walker rules actually mean. Now, you can provide a definition for what the rules mean for you to 'turn a model', which its defined pivoting as, or we can agree that there is a basis for a difference of opinion.

Well, if that's all you need - "Vehicles 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." BRB, Pg.57

 

So does the model include or not include the legs? Ie, would this not require the legs to have moved as well for it to be a 'pivot'?

 

I agree you can read it the way you're reading it. I disagree that's the only legitimate way to read it. (BTW, that definition of pivot-turn is using one word to define the other, since we disagree about the joint meaning, its not very useful)

Actually the rules define turning as pivoting, it all leads back to pivoting. Pivoting never invokes the word turning. A dreadnought is allowed a pivot during the shooting phase to align its weapons with a target. An Immobilized Vehicle may not Pivot. Anything else is House Rules and not appropriate for the +OR+.

"When firing a walkers weapons, pivot the walker on the spot so that its guns are aimed at the target (assume that all weapons mounted on a walker can swivel 45°, like hull-mounted weapons) and then measure the range from the weapon itself and line of sight from the mounting point of the weapon and along its barrel, as normal for vehicles. This pivoting in the Shooting phase does not count as moving and represents the vastly superior agility of walkers in comparison with other vehicles." (BRB, Pg.72)

 

"Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving, so a vehicle that only pivots in the Movement phase counts as stationary(however, immobilised vehicles may not even pivot)." (BRB, Pg.57)