[HH1.0] Legio Custodes Tactica

[Charlo]

It will be an assault boat, or that would be a real pooper for anything that isn't the shield bros.

[Withershadow]

It's unlikely to be an assault boat because it only has one hatch and it's on the back. It's basically an Imperia take on a bigger tougher Eldar Falcon.

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

No talk of dreads yet but we know of the two variants now. Can anyone think of a reason to take flamers over what I am presuming are lastrum bolt guns? Seems you are to likely to shoot yourself out of charge range with two heavy flamers unless it's purely for deterring charges...

[Charlo]

It's unlikely to be an assault boat because it only has one hatch and it's on the back. It's basically an Imperia take on a bigger tougher Eldar Falcon.

 

Storm Raven has a rear assault Hatch. This is the height of dark age technology in these tanks.

 

 

No talk of dreads yet but we know of the two variants now. Can anyone think of a reason to take flamers over what I am presuming are lastrum bolt guns? Seems you are to likely to shoot yourself out of charge range with two heavy flamers unless it's purely for deterring charges...

 

We'll see, I suppose. We don't know if it is Lastrum, or indeed just a heavy flamer!

[Withershadow]

With the FAQ limiting free pivoting, rear assault hatches are largely useless unless you intend to drive your tanks backwards.

 

Heavy flamers aren't going to put you out of charge range. Unless they are AP3, they will push through only a few wounds if any, and you're already like 5" from the enemy.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Withershadow

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

With the FAQ limiting free pivoting, rear assault hatches are largely useless unless you intend to drive your tanks backwards.

 

Heavy flamers aren't going to put you out of charge range. Unless they are AP3, they will push through only a few wounds if any, and you're already like 5" from the enemy.

I actually am more worried it will be ap3 on the flamer lol. That could make a close charge much closer to 8" lol

[Charlo]

With the FAQ limiting free pivoting, rear assault hatches are largely useless unless you intend to drive your tanks backwards.

 

 

6" Diembark and then MTC 2-12" charge will probably be sufficient from the back of a presumably fast vehicle.

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

Sorry what's the limit on pivot and why would it apply to a skimmer that can land in any orientation it wishes?

[SkimaskMohawk]

"Q: I have a question about pivoting and moving a vehicle. When is the distance that a vehicle can move measured – before it pivots for the first time or after it pivots for the first time? Some vehicles may be able to gain an extra inch or two by pivoting, then measuring, then moving. A: If a model moves, no part of the model (or its base) can finish the move more than the model’s move distance away from where it started the Movement phase."

 

This is what he's talking about. It doesn't necessarily say the pivoting costs movement, just that you cant deploy sideways, pivot, and then end up with bonus movement, 

[Gorgoff]

That was always illegal since it's written in the rules quite clearly.

Shame on you.

Shame.*ding*

Shame.*dong*

Shame.*ding*

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

So he was completely wrong it in no way limits us. Its exactly how it always has been just clarified for the cheaters lol. Its a skimmer anyways put it down maxed distance it can travel just backwards towards your charge goal!

[SkimaskMohawk]

That was always illegal since it's written in the rules quite clearly.

Shame on you.

Shame.*ding*

Shame.*dong*

Shame.*ding*

 

Not...exactly. The rules explicitly say that pivoting doesn't count as moving, so by pivoting (aka not moving) you could get bonus movement.

 

Regardless, they've fixed it now.  

[Withershadow]

So he was completely wrong it in no way limits us. Its exactly how it always has been just clarified for the cheaters lol. Its a skimmer anyways put it down maxed distance it can travel just backwards towards your charge goal!

So you're going to take your flare shielded front-armored assault skimmer... and drive it backwards at the enemy?  Thanks!  Or are you saying you can just pick it up and put it down facing backwards, thus performing the same maneuver that you're accusing of being "cheating"?

 

That was always illegal since it's written in the rules quite clearly.

Shame on you.

Shame.*ding*

Shame.*dong*

Shame.*ding*

 

The roll-up and pivot was a staple of 5th edition mechanized lists in all tournaments, and the tactic carried over to 6th-7th in some metas until the ruling. As pointed out above, it was allowed by the rules and was not cheating.  So shame on you Gorgoff for not knowing the rules.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Withershadow

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

A) it's a skimmer it can be placed at what ever angle you like so long as you don't make it go farther than it can legally go. That isn't cheating That's the movement phase.

 

B) if the custodes are out and deployed they are going to hopefully kill whatever they charge reducing risk to the vehicle.

[Withershadow]

A) it's a skimmer it can be placed at what ever angle you like so long as you don't make it go farther than it can legally go. That isn't cheating That's the movement phase.

 

if the custodes are out and deployed they are going to hopefully kill whatever they charge reducing risk to the vehicle.

Per the FAQ, no part of the vehicle can move further than the movement rate of the unit. So if you are facing the enemy (hatch to the rear), you cannot move forward and turn around. Given the size of the vehicle, just pivoting around probably will take up your basic movement. So the only effective way to use the hatch would be:

 

A - start facing your own deployment zone, and basically reverse towards the enemy, exposing your most vulnerable armor and wasting the flare shield.

 

B - fly behind a unit, and let the Custodes deploy out the back and assault them.

 

Still, not terrible, at least it will keep them from being pasted by Medusas and Typhons until they are close enough

Edited January 6, 2017 by Withershadow

[Ishagu]

That doesn't sound right at all.

 

Pivoting does not count as movement that's a basic rule.

[Slips]

Yeah but most vehicles are longer than they are wide. So if you pivot correctly, you can eek out a few inches of extra, free, movement which is the crux of the issue.

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

That is certainly not what the answer says but you keep on working however you like. Bye.

[Nusquam]

Right, still not part of the vehicle moves beyond its max distance if you do a 180. That FAQ stops the additional distance from deploying sideways then moving then pivoting to have an effective move of 13-14".

[Withershadow]

If you move a 6"-long vehicle 12" forward, and then turn it around 180 degrees, the rear of the vehicle has moved 18" from its original position. No part of the vehicle can move further than its movement rate, so the hatch cannot be more than 12" from its original location. In this case, you would have to spend 6" of movement to move forward, and 6" to do a 180.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Withershadow

[Hellex_The_Thanatar]

If you move a 6"-long vehicle 12" forward, and then turn it around 180 degrees, the rear of the vehicle has moved 18" from its original position. No part of the vehicle can move further than its movement rate, so the hatch cannot be more than 12" from its original location. In this case, you would have to spend 6" of movement to move forward, and 6" to do a 180.

Says max distance not max point on the vehicle. Its max distance is how close it can get to opponent with any portion of the vehicle.

[Ishagu]

If you move a 6"-long vehicle 12" forward, and then turn it around 180 degrees, the rear of the vehicle has moved 18" from its original position. No part of the vehicle can move further than its movement rate, so the hatch cannot be more than 12" from its original location. In this case, you would have to spend 6" of movement to move forward, and 6" to do a 180.

No, you're over thinking this and you're wrong.

 

It's to prevent vehicles from advancing 7/8" inches forward from their original position. If I pivot a Tank 180 degrees and then move 6" forward, that is still only a 6" move.

 

What you're describing is a max movement for any point of the vehicle which is completely different.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Ishagu

[Nusquam]

I see where to confusion is coming from. Its reading it as effectively stating either:
 

• No part of the model can end up beyond 12", thus you can spin freely so long as not part has gone beyond the max move range. So it can be oriented anyway within the 12" range so long as no part of the model crosses the 12" 'finish line'.

VS

• Each individual part cannot go beyond 12" from its original position respectively' thus the original location of hatches, weapons, wheels, and the like must all be accounted for when determining how far each piece can 'travel'. So for example: if you do a 180 a rear hatch has gone farther than the max move for that part of the model.

I'm seeing it as the first one; They want to prevent the formerly 'free' distance loophole of deploying sideways. My reasoning is that it's the entire context of the question and that "more than the model’s move distance away from where it started" is referring to the max distance the model may move as opposed to individual parts of the model. It's talking about a range (the area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale) rather than relative distance of different parts traveled. Pivoting on page 73 tells us to pivot from the center to avoid it the vehicle traveling as a whole from ending up too far, rather than specifying avoiding any part of the vehicle from traveling too far..

 

But to be fair, it could be the other way knowing GW. The last time I went this in-depth they said grenades were one per phase despite any wording to the contrary so YMMV.

 

In the context of this vehicle: If it is the second interpretation then you do lose a little distance you could deploy. You would have to pivot and move and account for positioning on the hatch and end your move perpendicular to your target so maximize deployment range. But this is unlikely an assault transport considering its a 'normal' tank and all others in it's class have a front assault ramp if it's an assault vehicle. So if it isn't an assault transport and you lose a few inches, just run instead of shooting their bolters. Then charge next turn. But if this is supposed to be the 'rhino/razorback' for Custodes then I'm doubtful it'll be assault and and the end this tangent won't have mattered.

[Ishagu]

*sigh*

 

Someone should ask them to FAQ their FAQ to avoid confusion :-P

Edited January 7, 2017 by Ishagu

[Charlo]

The FAQ is in place to stop people doing things like:

 

Deploying vehicle against the deployment line side ways.

 

Pivoting 90 degrees to face forward gives you a fair chunk of extra movement before you begin movement.

 

The FAQ prevents this.

 

It also prevents the opposite, starting forward and then edging with turns to squeeze extra movement out with pivots.

 

No, pivots do NOT count as movement, but you still cannot end any point of the vehicle further away from where it started than its maximum move.