Can you pivot an oval base?

[Gentlemanloser]

The rules for pivoting are (verbose);

 

 

TURNING AND FACING
As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned on the spot to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they
are able to cover.  Whilst the direction a model is facing won't impact its ability to shoot or charge into combat later in the
turn, it's always better to have it facing towards the enemy, just as it would on a real battlefield

 

Is there any possible way to turn an oval base (such as the one a Grey Knight Nemesis DreadKnight is on) without affecting the distance it is able to cover?

[Raeven]

Yes. Depends on which facing is the front facing, but it is my understanding that you can freely turn any model about the center of its base with no penalty unless noted otherwise. Flyers being the most notable.

 

So, for consistency you only ever measure from the front facing. So if you want to move your model you set it facing the direction it will move (assuming you can) then measuring from that facing you move the model. This effectively treats all bases as if they are circular on their front facing edge, regardless of actual base shape.

 

The consistency is what eliminates the cheating aspect.

[nurglez]

Only if you spin it 180 or 360 degrees ;)

 

Why do you need to pivot a DK? models can see all around themselves.

 

A bigger issue is regarding dark eldar raiders and them pivoting.

[Dam13n]

The old method of either front to front or back to back when measuring distance should still apply. The problem with oval bases lies in rotation.

 

However so long as you pick the direction and measure from the point on the edge of the models base that is closest to the intended destination in said direction you then have a point of maximum move. (trying to word that was a bugger, so I hope it makes sense)

 

So long as no part of the model surpasses that point, then you haven't exceeded your maximum move.

 

The rotation of the model would happen as part of the models move, not before or after you have moved. You therefore have a starting position and an ending position.

 

Now, with circular bases you could rotate them at any time without affecting any distances, as such doing so for visual effect is fine.

 

The only exception being walkers on their round bases, where facing can have a significant bearing on incoming fire.

 

Non-vehicle models on oval bases should not share this freedom of rotation precisely because rotating them does affect distances/ranges etc.

 

Arguably the same example could be applied to vehicles (for similar reasons) - the turn is part of the move so measure first - note maximum distance - then move vehicle so it ends its move no further than that point.

 

As opposed to the old - turn - move - turn method of squeezing an extra inch of movement out of the process.

 

Of course I'm offering "rules as interpreted" here, so opinions as to the validity of my interpretation will likely vary, I appreciate that.

 

I'm currently 135miles from my rulebook, so can't comment on RAW at present ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

Damien, consider the picture you posted in the other thread.

 

The Oval base moves forward to get into shooting range with a squad in that direction.  It pivots as you suggest.  Hasn't gained any movemen tin that direction, but pivots so that it is still within 3" of the Objective it was claiming.  Or pivots so it is still withing distance of a friendly unit that provides some sort of buff (Power Field, Divination, etc).

 

Would you say that the pivot had allowed it to afect the distance it is able to cover?

 

A second question.

 

In order to achiveme the shapes in your diagram, we must 'turn on the spot'.  Is this possible if the swing (and not pivot around a centre) would touch terrain at all?

 

Could a NDK pivot after moving in such a fashion it gains a cover save from part of its base ending in area terrain, while not being subjected to any terrain penalties to movement, as it's already moved?

 

 

Why do you need to pivot a DK? models can see all around themselves.

 

To game the system. ;) As all minis are allowed to be turned on the spot.

[Leonaides]

GL - its not affected the distance the model is able to cover while MOVING... It also hasnt affected the possible distance the model can contest an objective by (since the base has not changed, so still covers the same area).

 

Also, if at any point of its movement it ends up in terrain then it must suffer the effects of moving into terrain (such as difficult terrain tests/whatever) just as any other model.

 

And:

 

To game the system.

suggests that this thread is going to get melta'd within the next few days. Poking a bee's nest just because you can doesnt make it a good idea.

[Squirrelloid]

Any rotation of an oval base is affecting its distance to *something*.  Possibly relevantly.  Like letting you stay within the FNP bubble of an aura-based FNP (or other aura-based effect), or staying within range of an objective, or possibly setting you up for an assault move in a direction other than your primary direction of movement.  Ie, there is no 'front facing' per se, because all directions are potentially relevant, not just the direction of movement.

 

(On the off chance there exists an oval base with a heavy weapon that doesn't have relentless, would you count a rotation as having not moved if it doesn't otherwise move?  What if the motivation to rotate it has nothing to do with range to something, like wanting to change the spacing between your own models to allow other models or units to pass?  You can rotate a vehicle in that situation and not count the vehicle as moving).

 

IMO, arbitrary rotation around the center has to be allowed for two reasons:

(1) No reason to treat non-vehicles differently than vehicles.  (Vehicles are allowed to rotate about their centers without issue)

(2) Its the only consistent way to minimize gains from rotation.  If you insist on leading movement edge, what if its not moving?  What if the direction of movement is not hte distance that matters the most?  Any rule you choose is going to be equally arbitrary and equally gameable, and by choosing something other than the center as the rotation point, you maximize the gains for gaming the system.  Rotation about the center may allow gaming for some gains, but it minimizes the gains in any direction.

 

Edit
 

 

A bigger issue is regarding dark eldar raiders and them pivoting.

 

Where's the issue?  They're explicitly allowed to do so by the rules...

[Gentlemanloser]

Where's the issue? They're explicitly allowed to do so by the rules...

Facing.

suggests that this thread is going to get melta'd within the next few

days. Poking a bee's nest just because you can doesnt make it a good

idea.

Why? Aren't most rules queries because someone is trying to, or has, done something that the rules don't quite cover?

Besides, that was a tongue in cheek response.

I posted this thread becuase it branced off from the First Turn thread, and was (to me at least) an interesting point in whether the rules actually covered oval bases and movement.

GL - its not affected the distance the model is able to cover while MOVING...

So the pivot *isn't* moving?

Also, if at any point of its movement it ends up in terrain then it must

suffer the effects of moving into terrain (such as difficult terrain

tests/whatever) just as any other model.

But the pivot *is* moving?

[Grey Mage]

It certainly is moving- you cant do it if immobilized as a vehicle, and it can change where you are on the board.

 

I agree with the maximum move measurement, and then placing as normal for movement. In cases of pivoting in place- ie the center doesnt move and you arent moving it any further- I think its the gentlemans agreement to count it as move=0".

[Gentlemanloser]

That's the issue GM.  How can you;

 

 

In cases of pivoting in place- ie the center doesnt move and you arent moving it any further-

 

With an oval base?

[Dam13n]

I think it would fall under a "declare move" sub-heading.

This includes the "model A with a heavy weapon is staying still while his unit moves about him" part of moving.

When applying sporting games-man-ship the moving of a model should be declared prior to that unit actually moving as this avoids any confusion, and actually makes it very difficult for either player to cheat

With a vehicle you could declare either:

- Stationary

- Pivot

- Move

Now the act of moving may include a pivot/turn/power-slide/j-turn...

With a model on an oval base, I would suggest a similar thing:

- Stationary - model stays exactly where it is

- Pivot - I would accept this being a move of 0" (as the model isn't going to move any further) for the purposes of shooting weapons, just like with a vehicle. I would probably frown on somebody turning a dreadknight side on to my units in order to get an extra inch of range, but I would probably shrug my shoulders, accept it as games-man-ship and just get on with the game.

- Move - again, could include any number of twist/turns/strafing/cartwheels in order to fit through gaps etc.

I think it comes down to working out where you personally draw the line where games-man-ship ends and cheating begins.

[Grey Mage]

That's the issue GM.  How can you;

 

 

In cases of pivoting in place- ie the center doesnt move and you arent moving it any further-

 

With an oval base?

Very simply. Allow a pivot as a free move if and only if the center of the base is not going to move anywhere that phase.

 

As opposed to moving a full move, and then pivoting. Or moving a partial move and then pivoting. Or pivoting on the spot and then making a move measure from the new side edge of the base. It gives one the freedom to change facing without restriction without opening up gaming for extra inches after a move.

[Gentlemanloser]

But that's not the RAW though. ;)  Unless we want to rule that by RAW, an oval base can't pivot.  Or can't pivot if it moves.

 

Which is going to cause all sorts of problems for zooming fliers on oval bases...

[dswanick]

@GL - why don't you give us an example of how an oval base can be used to game the movement rules?  Come up with a scenario, maybe draw a diagram, and show how you're going to gain some advantage by it.  I think that when you start putting your thoughts down in a concrete example, you're either going to find it doesn't give you the massive advantage you're expecting or it's illegal by the Rules As Written.

[Squirrelloid]

Not GL, but challenge accepted.

 

To keep the wordiness down, I'm defining the following terms:

Rotation Method 1 (RM1): Rotate about the center of the model

Rotation Method 2 (RM2): Rotate to be flush with the terminus of movement

 

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg42/Squirrelloid/Example2.png

 

I'm going to assume that all oval bases are half as wide as they are long, which puts the short arm 'radius' at L/4 and the long arm 'radius' at L/2.  From a move that started oriented in parallel to the direction of motion, the difference in position between RM1 and RM2 is L/4 in the direction of movement.  (Proof: Pre-swivel, the midpoint of the model is L/2 from the terminus of movement.  This position is maintained in RM1.  RM2 moves the midpoint to be L/4 from the terminus of movement because that is the short arm 'radius'.  L/2 - L/4 = L/4.)

 

Consider two points of interest lying along a line that crosses the direction of movement at L/4 from the terminus of movement.  These points are at distances D1 and D2 from the ends of the model after RM2, as diagrammed.

 

RM1 ends up at the following distances:

Sqrt ((L/4)^2+D1^2)

Sqrt ((L/4)^2+D2^2)

 

Let K1 and K2 be the critical distances for the points at D1 and D2.  If the following inequalities hold, then RM2 is gaming the system for advantage:

 

D1 <= K1 < Sqrt((L/4)^2+D1^2)

D2 <= K2 < Sqrt((L/4)^2+D2^2)

 

Rearranging (with K and D generalized for any Ki, Di with the same i):

D^2 <= K^2 < (L/4)^2 + D^2

0 <= K^2 - D^2 < L^2/16

-K^2 <= - D^2 < L^2/16 - K^2

K^2 >= D^2 > K^2 - L^2/16

K >= D > Sqrt (K^2 - L^2/16)

 

That doesn't look terribly useful does it?  Well, it actually is for the D > Sqrt (K^2 - L^2/16) relationship, because it solved for D.

 

 

How big are these advantages really?  That depends on how big the oval base is, and how big K1 and K2 are.  I use no models with an oval base, and the only models I can think of offhand are bikes, which aren't big enough to be relevantly gameable under either system.  I assume there must be some large oval base for some faction that makes this relevant...  Just to throw some numbers up there, let's assume the following:

 

L = 6"

K1 = 6" (say a FNP bubble from allied model)

K2 = 12" (on the order of the multi-melta range for melta rule)

Solving for D:

D1 > Sqrt (6^2 - 6^2/16) = Sqrt (36 - 9/4) = Sqrt (33.75) ~= 5.809"

D2 > Sqrt (12^2 - 6^2/16) = Sqrt (144 - 9/4) = Sqrt (141.75) ~= 11.906"

 

That is, so long as D <= K, RM2 will put you in range when D is greater than those numbers for the given K.  Note that since we're actually looking at two simultaneously, you have to look at both Ds to see the total impact.  ie, in the above example RM2 gains us up to ~3/10 of an inch to make it into range of both.

 

A couple things to note:

1) The effect is larger for small critical distances (Ks), ie, the 3" bubble around an objective, because that makes the relative difference in position from the two rotation methods have a  bigger impact.  Think of this as the curvature of the circle about the target of radius K running away more rapidly for smaller circles.

2) Even 3/10 of an inch is noticeable with a measuring tape.  (It's more than 1/4 of an inch, and I know I've failed range checks by that much before).  And It'll get close to half an inch gains with a couple of small Ks.  (3" objective and 6" melta range maybe, for example.)

[dswanick]

I'm sorry, that still doesn't show a situation where a RAW legal move results in a significant difference of outcome.  I'm assuming the long, straight blue line represents the movement of the oval and the black line represents the maximum movement for that model, in which case only one of those end positions is even legal per pg.10.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm sorry, that still doesn't show a situation where a RAW legal move results in a significant difference of outcome.  I'm assuming the long, straight blue line represents the movement of the oval and the black line represents the maximum movement for that model, in which case only one of those end positions is even legal per pg.10.

 

The blue line is the total movement of the oval.  The black line is a line passing through a point L/4 from the end of movement and perpendicular to the direction of movement between two points of interest whose distance is relevant.  The black line does not represent movement.

 

Some, including Dam13n, have argued that RM2, resulting in the forward oval, is the method that should be used.  I'm demonstrating that in the situation where you care about the distance to objects on either side of the model (ie, you care about both D1 and D2), his method of rotation can be gamed for advantage.

 

RM1 is rotation about the midpoint, resulting in the less forward oval, and which I favor because it minimizes any possible gaming since the gains are not directional.  (That is, you don't get to choose what your last direction of movement was and position to your advantage)

[dswanick]

Then it looks like you are measuring movement from the centerpoint of the base.  This is incorrect.  For any starting position of a model on a base, you then measure out to it's maximum movement allowance from the point of its base closest to the desired destination.  Any rotation occurs during the movement, and the end result can not exceed that maximum measured amount.  Barring the effects of Difficult Terrain the possible movement of an oval based model would look something like this:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l634/dswanick/Untitled_zpsc8e85e54.png
I can come up with one possible situation where the rotation of an oval base could potentially give an advantage within this movement envelope, but it is so unlikely to occur that the minor advantage doesn't really rate as relevant (and I don't have the possibility to diagram it out at this time).

[Squirrelloid]

Except there are positions another model could be in where your placement on the right in your diagram would have brought the moved model closer to the other model than its movement distance.  Treating all sides as the end which has moved creates problems where the actual change in position relative to all other models is not necessarily capped at the model's movement.

[Leonaides]

And we've hit the theoretical trigonometry.

check please, I'm out.

[Spinsanity]

Except there are positions another model could be in where your placement on the right in your diagram would have brought the moved model closer to the other model than its movement distance.  Treating all sides as the end which has moved creates problems where the actual change in position relative to all other models is not necessarily capped at the model's movement.

Look at the BRB page 10. When moving a model, you measure from closest edge to beyond the base, NOT from center of base to center. His diagram is correct, even though the model seems to have moved further than allowed.

[Gentlemanloser]

PNF, you miss the point.

Squirrel, oh my, that's too much mathhammer for tonight. I've drunk upwards of 5+ 500ml bottles of Cobra at a work do, and need to go to bed.

As for examples, I'm sure we don't need my craptastic paintshop skills to mock something up. They;re totally craptastic.

I hope I explain this well.

There are too bits of terrain that short edge first an oval base could fit though, that long edge it couldn't. Luckily, it's pointed short edge first and in the middle of the two bits of terrain.

So the oval base moves through both bits, missing them.

Off to the side of one of the bits of terrain, lies an enemy unit. Sneakily just out of range of the short edge upwards oval base.

No big deal.

After moving through, and past, both bits of terrain, the oval base pivots. It does so that is hasn't moved forwards more than is allowed (6"/12", whatever).

The pivot however, turns the short edge enough that it is now in shooting/assault range of the unit it was previosuly out of range to.

But to be honest, I'm not interested in the miniature. I'm not after, not interested in a massive advantage, or any advatage for that matter.

I'm just trying to see if the rules cover oval bass pivoting, as they didn't last edition, and seem not to this one.

And with oval base fliers, it's a lot more important than the NDKs you're going to face.

Edit I also like the question of pivoting at the end of a move to move part of the Oval base into otherwise out of range Area Terrain to get a cover save.

[Raeven]

To answer the last, you cannot do that.  if any part of the model enters the terrain, you have to make a difficult terrain roll that determines how far you can move from your starting position.  Not the position you enter the terrain. 

 

Assuming you made a DT test that let you move the full 6 inches, you would be covered for that move.  You don't get a free 6 inches to then be allowed to rotate your base into terrain to gain the benefits of that terrain.

[Dam13n]

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r358/MatthewDaunt/moving3_zpsbd672034.png

 

Moving in between 2 pieces of terrain.

 

You just need to check the depth of the base and compare it to the width of the gap.  If the base can fit though without touching the terrain, no DT test...

 

(Sidestepping/strafing FTW :P )

[dswanick]

 

Moving in between 2 pieces of terrain.

 

You just need to check the depth of the base and compare it to the width of the gap.  If the base can fit though without touching the terrain, no DT test...

 

(Sidestepping/strafing FTW :P )

Correct, legal, and no problem. The example cited by GL is similar to the only example i could come up with and we're talking maybe a quarter inch of difference. So i think this whole debate is a non-issue. The rules are clear, you are free to pivot your non-Flyer models at will while moving. You can not gain a movement advantage by doing so. By following the rules in the BRB on measuring movement and range, you can accomplish this.