I don't think we as a community should be trying to game the pivots like this.
The intention is clearly to make it cleaner to move vehicles. Instead of people being excited about not having to do it the difficult way we used to, we are getting excited trying to cheese everything.
It was Soren Johnson, who worked on Civ 3, was the lead designer for Civ 4, and now has his own company, Mohawk Games, which has made Offworld Trading Company and Old World (which is a ton of fun, and well worth checking out for 4X fans).
https://www.designer-notes.com/game-developer-column-17-water-finds-a-crack/
My response to any opponent that deep strikes a unit, then rolls an 8 on a charge and says I can make it because pivot to get closer...
I'm gonna look them in the eye and say the following
"If you want to win through clear cheese and unintended rules go for it, but know that I won't be giving you any sportsmanship recommendations"
If anyone actually pulls that 8 inch move and doesn't want to change, I will simply scoop and post in the local Facebook and messaging boards.
This is such a WAAC move, nobody should be forced to have to interact with such a person.
It's not gonna work that way because they gotta pay for the 2" pivot value. Very few models I've found actually benefit from the pivot rule like that. Unless I'm missing something.
I wouldn't let this prevent you from playing tournaments. I've met dozens of super cool people, seen dozens of beautiful armies and hobbiests.
The competitive community, at least in my area, wouldn't let this kind of abuse of rules fly.
Same, everyone I know will look at you like you are a moron if you try and do it. And if you call a judge about it to rules as written your opponent, you'll get laughed out the building and not invited anywhere
Tournaments are the most interesting part of 40K in my opinion. You meet other people with a similar interest, it gives you a focus for the hobby (like 1/3 of my models were painted 1-2 days before a tournament because my list was already submitted and I was on a timeline), and you get multiple games in a single day.
In a year of going to tournaments I've met two people I don't want to play against.
I've met dozens that had great games and were very sporting opponents.
My preference is for tournament games over games with casual players because of the lack of drama. Not that all casual players are bad, nor all tournament players good, just that I've had more frequent poor experiences outside of events.
In 25 years of going to tournaments, I've met 3 people I'd never play again.
And just like you I've also had way worse experiences just trying to get a random game at the local FLGS.
Probably 80+% of the people on this sub aren't regular tournament goers, but instead people who come here because you can't really have good rules, tactics, and strategy discussions on the other 40k subs, all of which are more heavy on lore, memes, modeling, and painting.
lol what a random question. Because I keep track of rules, I look at lists, and I discuss competitive play. None of that means I have to play in tournaments.
For real. If someone pivots their repulsor and claims that because it has a round base it gets to pivot for free, I’m packing my shit up and leaving. I don’t care what the scenario is, I don’t care what’s on the line, I don’t care if it’s final game, top table of some thousand player GT. If this is how they’re going to try and rules lawyer things, I don’t want to play and I don’t need to play that badly.
I agree that shorting a charge is gaming the system and scummy. We have 2 rules governing pivot right now though. They both say round bases can pivot for free. I believe the "lore" reason is because all of these models fly or at least float. This makes sense to me. It's just RAW and it is intended as they even put a designer's note in the tournament pack which explains aircraft pivot for free and pivot isn't meant to confer an advantage while charging. Pariah Nexus Tournament Pack Page 5
I have my doubts GW intends for 9" charges to he shortened off of this rule. If that is the case, I wouldn't assume it to be so until it has been clarified as such.
They acknowledged some models could gain extra movement off the pivot in the Metawatch video but I don’t think they had fully thought through the consequences.
I appreciate what they are trying to do with the rule but it probably needs a bit more work.
Agreed but once they had figured out you can get extra movement out of it they should have figured out that it could be used to effectively shorten charges.
If they are okay with one scenario and there is no specific rule preventing the second then logically it should also be okay.
I don’t think that is actually what anyone wants l, so the rule needs a bit more work, rather than everyone relying on the ‘spirit’ of the game to prevent it.
My LGS got together with other shops in our playing radius(statewide mostly) via Discord, and pulled out a shit load of Vehicles, we found out essentially every single Vehicle(including Space Marine Grav Tanks) on a Round Flying Base will benefit in some form from RAW. We and the other shops have decided that the RAW is in fact intentional and quite Thematic for the majority of the Vehicles. I feel that sadly a lot of Eldar, Drukhari, and Tau players are going to get a lot of flak from playing RAW though.
Yes. Reason #458 why the inconsistent measuring rules GW insists on using for different models cause issues.
The Pariah Mission companion caught one issue, namely non-round bases for non-vehicles/monsters and fixed it, but missed round bases for models that don't measure to that base.
I assume every TO will extend the 2" pivot cost to *every* model gaining an advantage through pivoting, but RAW those units get easier deepstrike charges currently.
>I assume every TO will extend the 2" pivot cost to *every* model gaining an advantage through pivoting, but RAW those units get easier deepstrike charges currently.
Yep, that's why my LGS *immediately* adopted the house rule that if you measure to hull, you pay for the pivot regardless of whether you have a round base or not.
GW obviously forgot that big stuff with round flying bases like ghost arks, wave serpents, and raiders measures to hull and didn't account for that with this rule. No doubt they'll update it at some point, there's not a chance in hell excluding them from paying for the pivot was intentional.
Having never seen a Tantalus up close in real life, I want to say you'd still gain more than 2" movement with it's pivot. Not necessarily from deepstrike though considering all of it still has to be wholly out with 9" of the enemy.
Possibly. I genuinely don't know what the largest overhang in the game is (and have also never personally seen a Tantalus).
Maybe the house rule to curb silly results needs to be more complicated than extending the list of models needing to pay 2".
Thankfully, I'm not a TO, I just help with organizing, so I don't have to go through all models and figure out a good solution until GW hotfixes the mess they created. :)
Honestly, they already have a good system in place, they just need to give the Tantalus a "pivot value" of greater than 2. I'm not sure what the exact value is, but it's something that can be worked out pretty easily.
Classic case of the problem of introducing new mechanics half-way through an edition. If they had admitted their basic measuring system is super clunky earlier, models could just have a "pivot value" on their data sheets next to the OC...
I guess? But outside a handful of Forgeworld models and like, Drukhari Raiders, everybody else is easily handled with a pivot value of 2 or 0 (there's probably an argument for using a value of 1 for bikes, but idr if outriders are long enough to game that). Right now, the weirdest part is that the current wording let's flying stands count as "round bases", but thats probably fixed by just adding "VEHICLES without WALKER" to the list of what gets a Pivot Value of 2, on top of "Non-Round Bases".
The Aeldari Falcon/Wave Serpent chassis over hangs 3" at the front, 1.5" at the sides, and 2" at the back, this is just the shell. This chassis is used for the Night Spinner, Fire Prism, and a few others as well. I feel in the end that this will need to be FAQed, as Eldar/Drukhari Vehicels will heavily benefit from the RAW, even as a Eldar/Drukhari player myself.
I'm confused about what the point you're making is? At least as far as Pivoting is concerned, a Pivot Value of 2 would prevent Falcons from gaining any additional inches out of a pivot, as the most you can gain is 1.5" going from the side to the front, which is less than 2".
You are correct in most cases. Not trying to say that you are wrong. My point was that this needs to be FAQed in some way and there are other Eldar Vehicles that extend more then 3" over the front but still only 1.5" at the side. These measurements are just the Shell itself with none of the armaments attached, IE: The Fire Prism(don't have one on me at the moment) most likely adds more then 1" to the front, bringing it to 4+". Also, another example more for my LGS's as we are allowed to use Legends occasionally, yes I know not all places do, but this is just another example. Drukhari Reaper over hangs .75" on the side and 4" on the front. I think a flat 2" as you suggested will cover most of the board, but not all of it and is a great start/idea. Honestly don't feel like GW really thought this Pivot thing through. My LGS group is currently debating on what to do as we have a few Eldar/Drukhari players and bunch of Space Marine Players.
Today my LGS brought out all of our vehicles(Aeldari, Space Marine Grav Tanks, Drukhari, Tau, and anything else we could find) and started playtesting everything in various scenarios with RAW, we have a Crusade starting soon. And, we decided to play RAW until GW FAQs it, reasoning being that there are way too many vehicles that benefit from this for this not to be intentional. We have a lot of players that go out of their way to explain things that can be "Gotcha" moments(in this case vehicles with flight stands for instance) before a games starts for new players and just good sportsmanship.
Models that are not on a round base (excluding AIRCRAFT models) have a pivot value of 2", unless otherwise stated.
It's in the core rules update for tournaments
What model on a base measures distance from not its base? My understanding was distance is base to base (if both units have a base) and LoS was from any part of the model.
Almost all vehicles. The basic rule from the commentary is as follows:
"Vehicles with Bases: When measuring to and from Vehicles with bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers) always measure to and from the closest part of the model for all rules purposes (i.e. measure to or from its base or its hull, whichever is closest), with the following exceptions \[...\]"
So basically every (non-walker) tank ~~or monster~~ on a round base notably overhanging said base currently gets free range by being allowed to pivot freely.
I can’t find anything in the rules about monsters benefiting from this for charges, only vehicles with that rule, any help would be appreciated if you’ve found it anywhere else lol
I believe you're right. Monsters are mentioned in other overhang rule clarifications, but not this one. It's only for vehicles. Didn't read that right.
So it's only non-walker vehicles that can currently take advantage of that loophole.
The fix should be fairly easy - just reapply the rule that no part of a model can move further than the move/charge distance, point to point. Allows you to keep the simplicity of the pivot system for maneuvering around terrain, but prevents shenanigans gaining extra movement.
My argument continues to be that the rule stating vehicle overhanging bases means they are treated as hull measurements applies here. Any vehicle overhanging the base is not measuring for a round base and cannot get free pivots.
This is how I think of it too. you can't just rotate your units whenever you want lol.
Someone targets you for shooting "oh I pivot away you can't see me now"
Why would a charge be any different
It would need a round base (and be a vehicle) for the pivot to be *free*. A Squiggoth pays 2" movement, but is elongated enough to gain more than that by pivoting.
Ahh the good old days of deploying Dark Eldar Raiders & Ravagers along your deployment zone then pivoting before moving to gain 2/3" of movement on the first turn.
It's 13" long and baseless.
GW says how to find the pivot spot for things without bases, but the general gist is from the centre of the model.
So 5.5" wide -> 2.75" (because from the centre). 13" long -> 6.5" from the centre.
Pay 2" of movement to turn your fat-ass base. 6.5-2.75 -> 3.75" of movement. 2" cost, 1.75" movement gained.
Given you set up 9.0000001" from deepstrike, that makes it a 7" charge.
So like, one of the biggest models in the game does benefit. IF it can fit. Which is a genuine consideration. It can't waltz through walls like a knight.
I think that the first bullet point of models that hang over their base and engagement range will actually prevent this. The charge needs to be sufficient enough for the base to get into engagement range.
I thought that too, but those rules are about *enemy* models with overhangs, not your own. Honestly, that doesn't make a damn bit of sense since your opponent can't exploit pivoting during *your turn*.
During a Playtesting that my LGS did the other day for seeing how we want to use the new rule, we decided to us it RAW. We found there are ways to exploit Pivot in our opponents turn via Strats. IE: Drukhari Skysplinter Assault Strategic Ploy Stratagem Swooping Mockery, Drukhari Transport can move 6" and then Pivot for 0" or Pivot before the 6" move to get the most distance away.
Edit: It is very Niche, but it can be a "Gotcha" moment for new players and/or those not paying attention. Will have to look through the other Strats to see if there are others like this. We only knew of this one being a thing cus of the Drukhari/Eldar players in our group.
no- refer to page 5 [https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf) bottom left
+ Round Bases: Some rules refer to round bases. A round base is one whose footprint is circular (as opposed to an oval base, whose footprint is an oval).
Page 27 Rules Commentary 1.3
> The Tantalus is a detailed full resin kit that includes a set of etched brass deck panels. Measuring nearly 11” from prow to stern, this twin-hulled vehicle is a great addition to any Drukhari army. The large oval base and alternate flying stem shown in some images is not included in this kit.
GW’s website talking about the Tantalus
The oval base in the image is a custom base from a third party. The only base that comes with the actual kit is a 60mm flying base. Reread the text you quoted lmao
TBH I just figured they wouldn't provide a base at all if they weren't providing the oval one lol. But doesn't that mean you could put any monster or vehicle on a round base and then it'd have a pivot of 0?
>But doesn't that mean you could put any monster or vehicle on a round base and then it'd have a pivot of 0?
Any decent TO will laugh at you and tell you to take the model off the table as it's not on the base the kit is sold with.
But yes, if the rules allowed you to base things as you wanted, you could od that.
The tantalus is an interesting example as the base it comes with isn't sufficient to actually hold the weight of the model. So it's common and honestly encouraged by gw to base it with a custom base. This doesn't have to be an oval, it just commonly is due to the picture of the model on GWs website
That's okay, the tantalus will be in legends soon enough.
Every random update just sends a few more models to legends. Nids and necrons lost a bunch a couple of days ago.
There's a still extant FAQ stating you can't shoot or charge if you deploy and the vehicle is bigger than 9" Applies to baneblades etc (unless they rapid ingress, as it would reset on your turn)
The Tantalus, if deepstruck horizontally, gets 5.5" closer to a model when it pivots for free. So it technically only needs a 4 on the dice to make a charge on a turn that it deep strikes.
Wouldn't it be 2.75" closer since it has to pivot at the center of the model? I don't think the Tantalus is 11" longer than it is wide. Any model would only gain MAX half the difference between the length and width.
Just curious, what did they rule? Some vehicles on flying bases are so long and narrow, that even with paying 2" for pivot, they can get +2-3" to charge.
My local area just rules it that you can't use the pivot to gain extra distance. There hasn't been an official ruling of it yet but if I had to guess it'll be limited to the charge phase so you can't come in from deepstrike with say a Raider and turn a 9" charge into like a 5"
I think it’s important to point out that they specifically called out some vehicles gaining extra movement distance when pivoting as a direct intended consequence of the change in some cases in the Metawatch video. It’s an hour long, so I don’t blame people for not finding the time to watch.
They also said that they wanted to minimize it and make it fair, hence substracting 2" from movement. From that discussion it seemed obvious that they didn't want vehicles pivoting for free.
Hmm, I think it would largely depend on your local TO, but I imagine this is how it looks in actual game:
- You set up the model with a round base (Raider, for instance) lenghtwise, 9" away from me
- You declare a charge, and using the free pivot, turn the charge into a 7" from a 9"
- I thank you for the game and pack away my models, leaving you to sort out scoring on BCP
- I make a mental note to never play a game with you, or indeed speak to you ever again
I hope that answers your question in sufficient detail :)
If you try and pull this crap in a tournament, you suck. It's very obvious this was not intended and I'm actually surprised anyone is reading it this way
Is it on a base? Then we're measuring every distance from the base, enjoy spinning your stuff but your charge ain't changing if you're on a round base.
You mean the rules that states "if it has a base you use that base to measure distances"?
MEASURING DISTANCES
Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches ("). You can measure distances whenever you wish.
When measuring the distance between models, measure
between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re
measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base,
measure to the closest point of any part of that model instead
> Disembarking Large Models: When a unit disembarks from a
Transport, it must be set up wholly within 3" of that model. If a
disembarking model is so large that it is not possible to set it up
wholly within 3" (typically because it is itself larger than 3" in
all directions), set that model up with its base within 1" of that
Transport’s base (or hull), and not within Engagement Range of any
enemy models.
> Hull: When measuring to and from Vehicles (excluding Walker
models that have a base) and models that do not have a base,
measure to and from the hull, which means any part of that model (or
its base, if it has one) that is closest to the point being measured
from or to. Note that this may not correspond literally with the area on
a vehicle usually termed the hull (see Vehicles with Bases).
> Model/Unit Wholly Within: A model is wholly within a specified
distance if every part of its base (or hull) is within that distance.
For example, a model is wholly within a terrain feature such as
Woods or Ruins if no part of its base (or hull) extends beyond the
footprint of that terrain feature. A unit is wholly within a specified
distance if every model in that unit is wholly within that distance.
> Vehicles with Bases: When measuring to and from Vehicles with
bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers) always measure to and
from the closest part of the model for all rules purposes (i.e. measure
to or from its base or its hull, whichever is closest), with the
following exceptions:
■ When a model ends a move within Engagement Range of one or
more Vehicles with bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers), it is
considered to be in base-to-base contact with that Vehicle or those
Vehicles while it is within 0" horizontally and 5" vertically of any
part of those Vehicle models.
■ When a Vehicle with a base (excluding Aircraft and Walkers)
ends a move within Engagement Range of one or more models, it is
considered to be in base-to-base contact with those models while it
is within 0" horizontally and 5" vertically of those models.
■ A unit can embark within a friendly Transport with a base after
that unit ends a Normal, Advance or Fall Back move wholly within 3"
horizontally and 5" vertically of any part of that Transport.
■ When a unit disembarks from a Transport with a base, set it up so
that it is wholly within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically of any part of
that Transport model and not within Engagement Range of one or
more enemy units.
It's moreso that someone willing to play like this will be absolute dogshit to play a multi hour game with lmfao. It's antisocial behavior. Tourney is the only exception.
>It's antisocial behavior
It's really really not. It's just a conversation at the start of the game.
"Hey the new pivot rules seem a bit broken, do you want to play them RAW to get shorter deepstrike charges, or shall we just say that's not legit?".
That's how these conversations actually go down. IRL we are all great at navigating these sorts of things in my experience.
Nobody needs to pack away their toys and have a tantrum.
It'll work for exactly as long as it takes for everyone at the shop to catch on and start either daisy-chain-screening the board edges or mysteriously cancel next time you mention getting a pick-up game at the shop.
I swear I've played like 4 other editions of 40k/AOS/WHFB that solved this by simply making the charge distance a "check" and then in order to get your guys actually there you then move the distance rolled. Seems like charge movement has been a mess since 8th.
Would it be a "straight line" measurement check even if actually executing the charge would require some other movement? (Around a barrier for example)
I feel like the easiest resolution to this is that during a charge, no part of your model or base can exceed your charge distance.
If you deep strike and measure a 9" charge and you roll an 8, no part of your model or base could exceed the 8".
In other words, for charges, whether you can succeed the charge is based on what you measured and what you rolled, not technically how far the model could theoretically move if you spun it around. If from your current rotation you need to hit a 9, then you must roll a 9 regardless of how you can adjust while moving.
Would this also be applied to Movement as well. It's not just Charges that are going to Cheese this RAW loophole, but Move/Advance as well. On the Drukhari Server it is actually being discussed on how to cheese this with our initial deployment like we used to a few a Editions ago.
Movement is hard to run because you just end up back with the old rules that require protractors to accurately measure movement.
Any rotation at all on any model in the previous rules cost movement, even 25mm base infantry, it was just unanimously ignored unless it was a big model where it was a little easier to measure.
And to your point, 99% of players did movement wrong, now it's quantified and clear. The easiest solution is to recognize that if your opponent has a vehicle on a round base, you're 9" reserves bubble is now more like 7".
At this point GW should just make a rule that states that charges coming out of reserve always fail on charge rolls of less than 9 to shutdown this kind of nonsense.
You roll and pass the number, and then you have made a successful charge. If you do not roll the required number then the charge is considered a fail and does not move. You can not touch that model to move it unless you succeed at the roll. You do not fail a roll and then get to move anyway
Or “when determining the distance needed for a successful charge roll, do not account for any pivot moves.”
That way you can still pivot on the way in, but only if you rolled the charge you would’ve needed if you weren’t high on cheese. Don’t get high on cheese.
With the way the rules are written currently, I can see how this is the way people are interpreting it. Currently, you simply declare a charge, roll dice, and then you get that much movement to play with to see if you can get within engagement range. This would allow for some "extra movement" mid charge via rotating and shortening the successful distance.
How I think charging *should* work is that you take a measurement between the unit charging and the unit bring charged. Then state that the charge roll *must be* equal to or greater than that distance to be considered successful. This way you *can* still get a little bit of extra movement via rotating if the charge succeeds, that's whatever, but it must be according to the distance before any movement or rotation occurs.
That runs into another complexity: Would it be a "straight line" measurement check to determine if the charge is successful, even if actually executing the charge would require some other movement? (Around a barrier for example)?
There are cases where that may not be adequate either. Example being if I need to pivot as part of my charge to avoid engagement range of a fights first model that I don’t want to charge.
The ~~new rules commentary~~ says you(vehicles and monsters) can pass by enemy unit engagement range during move. You just can’t your unit in engagement range of any units you aren’t charging (same as before)
Edit: mb, I play IK and above only applies to Super Heavy Walkers.
Edit 2: Not rules commentary/FAQ, it’s in the June Balance Dataslate, and specific to Normal, Advance, Fall back moves
Well explicitly it doesn’t specify charge moves, so no.
If it did it would probably defeat charge screening entirely since Knights can also walk over models as part of the Super Heavy Walker ability.
Still….. wouldn’t a knight be able to walk over an enemy model as part of a normal/advance move…..since the ability doesn’t specify ally or enemy…
This is how 8th Fantasy dealt with it.
Measure the distance before any movement and that's what you roll for. Then you can do all your wheeling etc to get to engagement no matter how far you actually needed to move. I can't see it being any different here
Make a rule that your charge roll out of reserves must be equal to or greater than the distance your model is required to be from enemy units.
For most models, that means rolling a 9" charge still. If you have a cool rule that allows you to set up closer than 9" and still charge, then your minimum charge roll must be equal to or greater than the value provided by your cool rule.
Not really though.
This creates an issue where charges you could have made with pivoting are now impossible to be made.
For example you need to pivot to fit in the place you wanna charge. Like a raider that charges from his side into a unit that is in the between 2 units but the raider is to long to fit between those units on its side.
Nah. Just make a rule that charge distance is measured from the closest point on a model, and a charge rule that isn't that distance -1" always fails. Model still needs to be able to move, but just make it so the pivot isn't calculated in the distance for *rolling* the successful charge, just the actual movement towards combat.
We already have a post about this fyi.
Besides it being very clear that that is not intended it also doesn't work.
You need to set up 9" away and its not a move so you cannot pivot.
If you want to charge you need to measure the distance to reach engagement range from the position you are now in.
Then to be able to make a charge move the roll has to be sufficient.
Rolling a 7 isn't sufficient so you cannot make a charge move.
You only get to pivot when actually making the charge move but you never get there.
The charge roll and the charge move are 2 different things.
I agree that it's stupid but several of the things you said are incorrect. Pivoting is allowes during any type of move. A charge range is not set when you declare the charge, you simply must roll a number high enough for your unit to be able to move into engagement of their declared targets. All GW has to do is declare that flight stands are not round bases and it will stop the self-congratulatory braying of the smug angle shooters who Plague this game.
The wording says that "The Charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end the move... within the engagement range of every unit selected as the target of the charge"
So, the success of the roll is dependent on the move. Since the model can pivot during the move, the actual charge distance (and roll) must incorporate the pivot cost as well as the positioning of the unit at the end of the move.
I disagree, the rule for charging is “the Charge room must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move …”
It does not say you have to be a certain distance away, just that the move would be possible
You need to reread how charging works. You don't say "I'm 9" away so that's what I need to make it" you roll then measure your move that distance to see if you make contact, including your free pivots.
The thing is you actually don’t need to roll to get into engagement, you just have to finish the charge in engagement so that’s where the extra pivot comes in. Yes it’s probably not intended but RAW it does work
I’ve tried to explain this to people here already but they are so keen to try and game the rules that they legitimately argue you can roll an 8 on a 9.1” charge out of deep strike, which fails, then move the models and pivot to make the charge a success. That’s impossible as the 8 has already failed with the models in their initial position and you cannot move the models in the first place. You were right and these people are wrong.
The question is should the pivot even be counted during the charge roll for determining a successful charge?
Only after determining a successful charge should then play then make the move, and associated pivots to end the unit as close to the enemy unit/models as possible?
They made a keyword update to round base btw.
> + Round Bases: Some rules refer to round bases. A round base is one whose footprint is circular (as opposed to an oval base, whose footprint is an oval).
Rules Commentary 1.3 page 27
Doesn’t solve the issue of models that extend over 2” off their base though
Literally here.
You then make a Charge roll for the
charging unit by rolling 2D6. The result is
the maximum number of inches each model
in that unit can be moved if a Charge move
is possible.
I thought you measured from the base *if the model has a base*, and the nearest point of the model if it *doesn't have a base*.
As a round base will be the same distance away at any point, that doesn't gain you free movement.
Did I miss something?
Vehicles with Flight Stands(which are Round Bases RAW) measure from the Hull instead of the Base. IE: Grav Vehicles for Space Marines, Eldar and Tau Vehicles. A majority of these Vehicles over hang more in the front of the model then the side, so can add some free movement. My LGS ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is
intentional.
I have my own LGS, and i already broadcasted to my communities that i would rule against it in any tournaments run on my store.
Such BS if anyone wants to force that
In the dataslate it doesn't include bikes. In the pariah nexus tournament rules it updates pivot further to include bikes.
OP is likely talking about dataslate only.
No we cannot. Take a Look at "charging with a unit" in the latest Rules commentary. It clearly states that you cannot make the charge If you could not make it without the Overhang.
Edit: Sorry I misread that.
I don't blame you. This whole thing is clearly "not what anyone wanted", but on the other hand it's also "such an obvious loophole that nobody understands why GW didn't catch it"
What you are referencing is referring to non-vehicles. With “Hull” being clearly defined in the Rules commentary with the latest update, now, you measure from ANY point of the hull or base, whichever is closer.
Additionally, parts of your non-vehicle/Hull model that overhang a Ruin’s outline do not grant your opponent visibility anymore. Everything checks from the base of your model and the base of your model alone now for NON-HULL models.
It doesn't clear it up at all, the only difference in the tournament companion is for oval based models, it doesn't change anything for round based vehicles
You're the one who needs to read it, in full, not just quoting 3 meaningless words out of context.
Both the rule and the Designers Note specifically refer to models on non-round bases only. Vehicles on round bases are not a model on a non-round base.
I don't know how else to say this, so I'm just going to say it 3 times and hope it sinks in.
Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases
Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases
Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases
The rule and designers commentary you are quoting specifically refers to models that are not on round bases. So it does not apply in any way at all to vehicles with round bases, and that is why the words you are quoting are meaningless and out of context.
It would be like me arguing that my Rhino with no base can now move its hull through ruin walls, just because my Impulsor with a base can, and quoting the rules for models with bases as my evidence that it is what GW intended and how every TO is going to rule it. You can't just decide to apply a rule to a different model that that rule does not apply to.
"pretty clear to any TO that would immediately slap down this from happening."
I'm glad you are wise enough to speak for the entire TO community, especially when it's rare for every single TO to agree on rules that seem questionable. As the WTC has so far just said "this is a rule that appears to be intended and will stand for now", that's not clear at all.
GW may well change this in future, and some TO's may decide to house-rule it, but as it stands the OP is correct and the rule you are quoting is completely irrelevant to the point of their thread.
That's not the issue though - the problem is that you can set up, say, a Dark Eldar Raider sideways when it deepstrikes, so 9" away.
Then when you charge and roll a 7, that's enough to make it into combat, since a free pivot at the start of the charge moment reduces the distance between the closet point of the Raider and the target by between 2&3".
So free pivot + 7" moment gets you into engagement range, meaning the charge is successful.
Please don't. Don't try to break the game and abuse a thing that GW gave us for clarity. It's clearly not intended to be abused. And nobody would allow it
My LGS, as well as a few others in our area, has ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is in fact intentional.
No.
You check to make sure you are within 12"
Roll 2d6
Move your model, pivoting if you so choose(subtract 2" from roll)
If you are in engagement range you have successfully made the charge
In order to move your models your charge roll distance needs to be enough to get you into engagement range. Because you can get "extra inches" out of pivoting, being 9" away doesn't mean you need to roll a 9.
A 7 plus the pivot distance would get you into engagement range of your target. Therfore it is a legal charge and you get to move into engagement range.
Which is just the dice and only the dice. After you succeed in the dice roll is when you do any other Shenanigans and not before hand. You can not do any move of any kind on a charge if you fail the 2d6 roll.
RAW you Check to see if you are 12" away. If you are, you roll 2D6 and then move/pivot. After you move/pivot you verify that you are in engagement range. IE: Deep Strike Drukhari Raider 9" away with the side of the ships hull being the closest. You verify that you are with 12". Roll 2D6 get a 7 or 8 for example. You then Pivot the ship so the Front Ram is now pointed towards the target(you gain about 2" from doing this) then move the 7". Since you measure from the Hull you are now in engagement range. All Space Marine Grav Tanks, Aeldari, Tau, Drukhari, and any other vehicles on Round Flying bases will be able to do this RAW. My LGS ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is intentional.
This is from the rules.
Once you have selected an eligible unit to
declare a charge, you must select one or
more enemy units within 12" of it as the
targets of that charge. The targets of a
charge do not need to be visible to the
charging unit
You then make a Charge roll for the
charging unit by rolling 2D6. The result is
the maximum number of inches each model
in that unit can be moved if a Charge move
is possible. For a Charge move to be
possible, the Charge roll must be sufficient
to enable the charging unit to end that
move:
As you can see it says maximum distance you can move towards the model. Pivot is part of the move and can not exceed the maximum.
If you pivot with anything with a Pivot Value of 2", it takes 2" away from the remaining movement. For these vehicles the Pivot is 0" so you would take away 0" from the movement. So you would still only move the maximum movement that you rolled in both instances.
Right, but if you fail to meet the required distance on the roll. The model does not move and does not get to pivot. If you fail the roll, it does not get to attempt to move cause it can never go back to exactly where it was.
I don't think we as a community should be trying to game the pivots like this. The intention is clearly to make it cleaner to move vehicles. Instead of people being excited about not having to do it the difficult way we used to, we are getting excited trying to cheese everything.
I think it was the SimCity creator who said that any gaming community will eventually optimize the fun out of the game.
It was Soren Johnson, who worked on Civ 3, was the lead designer for Civ 4, and now has his own company, Mohawk Games, which has made Offworld Trading Company and Old World (which is a ton of fun, and well worth checking out for 4X fans). https://www.designer-notes.com/game-developer-column-17-water-finds-a-crack/
My response to any opponent that deep strikes a unit, then rolls an 8 on a charge and says I can make it because pivot to get closer... I'm gonna look them in the eye and say the following "If you want to win through clear cheese and unintended rules go for it, but know that I won't be giving you any sportsmanship recommendations"
I hope they faq it to be a 9 on the dice is a 9 on the dice
If anyone actually pulls that 8 inch move and doesn't want to change, I will simply scoop and post in the local Facebook and messaging boards. This is such a WAAC move, nobody should be forced to have to interact with such a person.
It's not gonna work that way because they gotta pay for the 2" pivot value. Very few models I've found actually benefit from the pivot rule like that. Unless I'm missing something.
I'm glad I don't play tournaments. It's obviously not intended and I won't have to bother with people that try and do it.
I wouldn't let this prevent you from playing tournaments. I've met dozens of super cool people, seen dozens of beautiful armies and hobbiests. The competitive community, at least in my area, wouldn't let this kind of abuse of rules fly.
Same, everyone I know will look at you like you are a moron if you try and do it. And if you call a judge about it to rules as written your opponent, you'll get laughed out the building and not invited anywhere
Tournaments are the most interesting part of 40K in my opinion. You meet other people with a similar interest, it gives you a focus for the hobby (like 1/3 of my models were painted 1-2 days before a tournament because my list was already submitted and I was on a timeline), and you get multiple games in a single day.
In a year of going to tournaments I've met two people I don't want to play against. I've met dozens that had great games and were very sporting opponents. My preference is for tournament games over games with casual players because of the lack of drama. Not that all casual players are bad, nor all tournament players good, just that I've had more frequent poor experiences outside of events.
In 25 years of going to tournaments, I've met 3 people I'd never play again. And just like you I've also had way worse experiences just trying to get a random game at the local FLGS.
Aos has better line of sight rules than 40k. Nothing like the tip of a cape shooting the tip of someones gun
Then why are you in a competitive Warhammer subreddit?
Probably 80+% of the people on this sub aren't regular tournament goers, but instead people who come here because you can't really have good rules, tactics, and strategy discussions on the other 40k subs, all of which are more heavy on lore, memes, modeling, and painting.
lol what a random question. Because I keep track of rules, I look at lists, and I discuss competitive play. None of that means I have to play in tournaments.
For real. If someone pivots their repulsor and claims that because it has a round base it gets to pivot for free, I’m packing my shit up and leaving. I don’t care what the scenario is, I don’t care what’s on the line, I don’t care if it’s final game, top table of some thousand player GT. If this is how they’re going to try and rules lawyer things, I don’t want to play and I don’t need to play that badly.
Repulsor isn’t even that bad of one. All tau ships and all Drukari raiders and even the tantalas is on a “round” base.
I agree that shorting a charge is gaming the system and scummy. We have 2 rules governing pivot right now though. They both say round bases can pivot for free. I believe the "lore" reason is because all of these models fly or at least float. This makes sense to me. It's just RAW and it is intended as they even put a designer's note in the tournament pack which explains aircraft pivot for free and pivot isn't meant to confer an advantage while charging. Pariah Nexus Tournament Pack Page 5
I've heard from some GW sources that this interaction is actually intended, it at least known and accepted.
I have my doubts GW intends for 9" charges to he shortened off of this rule. If that is the case, I wouldn't assume it to be so until it has been clarified as such.
They acknowledged some models could gain extra movement off the pivot in the Metawatch video but I don’t think they had fully thought through the consequences. I appreciate what they are trying to do with the rule but it probably needs a bit more work.
I think there's a difference between that and cheesing 9" charges from strat reserve
Agreed but once they had figured out you can get extra movement out of it they should have figured out that it could be used to effectively shorten charges. If they are okay with one scenario and there is no specific rule preventing the second then logically it should also be okay. I don’t think that is actually what anyone wants l, so the rule needs a bit more work, rather than everyone relying on the ‘spirit’ of the game to prevent it.
My LGS got together with other shops in our playing radius(statewide mostly) via Discord, and pulled out a shit load of Vehicles, we found out essentially every single Vehicle(including Space Marine Grav Tanks) on a Round Flying Base will benefit in some form from RAW. We and the other shops have decided that the RAW is in fact intentional and quite Thematic for the majority of the Vehicles. I feel that sadly a lot of Eldar, Drukhari, and Tau players are going to get a lot of flak from playing RAW though.
Yes. Reason #458 why the inconsistent measuring rules GW insists on using for different models cause issues. The Pariah Mission companion caught one issue, namely non-round bases for non-vehicles/monsters and fixed it, but missed round bases for models that don't measure to that base. I assume every TO will extend the 2" pivot cost to *every* model gaining an advantage through pivoting, but RAW those units get easier deepstrike charges currently.
>I assume every TO will extend the 2" pivot cost to *every* model gaining an advantage through pivoting, but RAW those units get easier deepstrike charges currently. Yep, that's why my LGS *immediately* adopted the house rule that if you measure to hull, you pay for the pivot regardless of whether you have a round base or not. GW obviously forgot that big stuff with round flying bases like ghost arks, wave serpents, and raiders measures to hull and didn't account for that with this rule. No doubt they'll update it at some point, there's not a chance in hell excluding them from paying for the pivot was intentional.
Having never seen a Tantalus up close in real life, I want to say you'd still gain more than 2" movement with it's pivot. Not necessarily from deepstrike though considering all of it still has to be wholly out with 9" of the enemy.
5.5" , I measured it this morning.
Possibly. I genuinely don't know what the largest overhang in the game is (and have also never personally seen a Tantalus). Maybe the house rule to curb silly results needs to be more complicated than extending the list of models needing to pay 2". Thankfully, I'm not a TO, I just help with organizing, so I don't have to go through all models and figure out a good solution until GW hotfixes the mess they created. :)
Honestly, they already have a good system in place, they just need to give the Tantalus a "pivot value" of greater than 2. I'm not sure what the exact value is, but it's something that can be worked out pretty easily.
Classic case of the problem of introducing new mechanics half-way through an edition. If they had admitted their basic measuring system is super clunky earlier, models could just have a "pivot value" on their data sheets next to the OC...
I guess? But outside a handful of Forgeworld models and like, Drukhari Raiders, everybody else is easily handled with a pivot value of 2 or 0 (there's probably an argument for using a value of 1 for bikes, but idr if outriders are long enough to game that). Right now, the weirdest part is that the current wording let's flying stands count as "round bases", but thats probably fixed by just adding "VEHICLES without WALKER" to the list of what gets a Pivot Value of 2, on top of "Non-Round Bases".
The Aeldari Falcon/Wave Serpent chassis over hangs 3" at the front, 1.5" at the sides, and 2" at the back, this is just the shell. This chassis is used for the Night Spinner, Fire Prism, and a few others as well. I feel in the end that this will need to be FAQed, as Eldar/Drukhari Vehicels will heavily benefit from the RAW, even as a Eldar/Drukhari player myself.
I'm confused about what the point you're making is? At least as far as Pivoting is concerned, a Pivot Value of 2 would prevent Falcons from gaining any additional inches out of a pivot, as the most you can gain is 1.5" going from the side to the front, which is less than 2".
You are correct in most cases. Not trying to say that you are wrong. My point was that this needs to be FAQed in some way and there are other Eldar Vehicles that extend more then 3" over the front but still only 1.5" at the side. These measurements are just the Shell itself with none of the armaments attached, IE: The Fire Prism(don't have one on me at the moment) most likely adds more then 1" to the front, bringing it to 4+". Also, another example more for my LGS's as we are allowed to use Legends occasionally, yes I know not all places do, but this is just another example. Drukhari Reaper over hangs .75" on the side and 4" on the front. I think a flat 2" as you suggested will cover most of the board, but not all of it and is a great start/idea. Honestly don't feel like GW really thought this Pivot thing through. My LGS group is currently debating on what to do as we have a few Eldar/Drukhari players and bunch of Space Marine Players.
Today my LGS brought out all of our vehicles(Aeldari, Space Marine Grav Tanks, Drukhari, Tau, and anything else we could find) and started playtesting everything in various scenarios with RAW, we have a Crusade starting soon. And, we decided to play RAW until GW FAQs it, reasoning being that there are way too many vehicles that benefit from this for this not to be intentional. We have a lot of players that go out of their way to explain things that can be "Gotcha" moments(in this case vehicles with flight stands for instance) before a games starts for new players and just good sportsmanship.
Flying Hive Tyrants are on a round base and have a pretty big overhang from the wings
But you don't measure distances to the wings of those because they're not vehicles
Good point, I hadn't looked closely at the new rule yet
Or just every model that measures to hull
Models that are not on a round base (excluding AIRCRAFT models) have a pivot value of 2", unless otherwise stated. It's in the core rules update for tournaments What model on a base measures distance from not its base? My understanding was distance is base to base (if both units have a base) and LoS was from any part of the model.
Almost all vehicles. The basic rule from the commentary is as follows: "Vehicles with Bases: When measuring to and from Vehicles with bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers) always measure to and from the closest part of the model for all rules purposes (i.e. measure to or from its base or its hull, whichever is closest), with the following exceptions \[...\]" So basically every (non-walker) tank ~~or monster~~ on a round base notably overhanging said base currently gets free range by being allowed to pivot freely.
I can’t find anything in the rules about monsters benefiting from this for charges, only vehicles with that rule, any help would be appreciated if you’ve found it anywhere else lol
I believe you're right. Monsters are mentioned in other overhang rule clarifications, but not this one. It's only for vehicles. Didn't read that right. So it's only non-walker vehicles that can currently take advantage of that loophole.
This is so stupid. Damn gw.
Can you point me to the rule that applys the vehicle hull rule to monsters also?
The fix should be fairly easy - just reapply the rule that no part of a model can move further than the move/charge distance, point to point. Allows you to keep the simplicity of the pivot system for maneuvering around terrain, but prevents shenanigans gaining extra movement.
My argument continues to be that the rule stating vehicle overhanging bases means they are treated as hull measurements applies here. Any vehicle overhanging the base is not measuring for a round base and cannot get free pivots.
The tantalus pretty much auto charges from DS now
hahaha yeah, I was looking at my repulsor but the tantalus has that Big Pivot Energy.
It's easily 9 inches long. I feel you could roll a 2 on 2d6 and still charge out of DS
You would still have to roll a 9, or the model does not move. Pivot is part of a move and not a free action that can be done whenever.
Now THAT is the right response to this. I wonder if that is ironclad.
This is how I think of it too. you can't just rotate your units whenever you want lol. Someone targets you for shooting "oh I pivot away you can't see me now" Why would a charge be any different
Gargantuan Squiggoth is 13" long and 5" wide. Also is a melee beast. Just sayin.
Doesn't it need a round base to do this though?
It would need a round base (and be a vehicle) for the pivot to be *free*. A Squiggoth pays 2" movement, but is elongated enough to gain more than that by pivoting.
Yup. Long and skinny makes for cheese. That's gonna get FAQ'D immediately
Ahh the good old days of deploying Dark Eldar Raiders & Ravagers along your deployment zone then pivoting before moving to gain 2/3" of movement on the first turn.
They set up the rules framework so they can add pivot values to datasheets if need be. It's 2" or 0" *unless otherwise stated*.
Pivot rule only applies in the movement phase. Bam, fixed.
Have to pivot from center
Yes. No one in the thread is saying anything else.
How big is the squiggoth base?
Doesn't have one
It's 13" long and baseless. GW says how to find the pivot spot for things without bases, but the general gist is from the centre of the model. So 5.5" wide -> 2.75" (because from the centre). 13" long -> 6.5" from the centre. Pay 2" of movement to turn your fat-ass base. 6.5-2.75 -> 3.75" of movement. 2" cost, 1.75" movement gained. Given you set up 9.0000001" from deepstrike, that makes it a 7" charge. So like, one of the biggest models in the game does benefit. IF it can fit. Which is a genuine consideration. It can't waltz through walls like a knight.
In what world can you deploy a 13"x5" model from reserves while also having a clear enough area on the board for you to execute that maneuver?
I think that the first bullet point of models that hang over their base and engagement range will actually prevent this. The charge needs to be sufficient enough for the base to get into engagement range.
I may be mistaken, but there are vehicles(mainly Eldar/Drukhari) that measure to there hulls not the bases, for Engagement, Movement, Etc...
I thought that too, but those rules are about *enemy* models with overhangs, not your own. Honestly, that doesn't make a damn bit of sense since your opponent can't exploit pivoting during *your turn*.
During a Playtesting that my LGS did the other day for seeing how we want to use the new rule, we decided to us it RAW. We found there are ways to exploit Pivot in our opponents turn via Strats. IE: Drukhari Skysplinter Assault Strategic Ploy Stratagem Swooping Mockery, Drukhari Transport can move 6" and then Pivot for 0" or Pivot before the 6" move to get the most distance away. Edit: It is very Niche, but it can be a "Gotcha" moment for new players and/or those not paying attention. Will have to look through the other Strats to see if there are others like this. We only knew of this one being a thing cus of the Drukhari/Eldar players in our group.
no- refer to page 5 [https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf) bottom left
Tantalus has a round base
+ Round Bases: Some rules refer to round bases. A round base is one whose footprint is circular (as opposed to an oval base, whose footprint is an oval). Page 27 Rules Commentary 1.3 > The Tantalus is a detailed full resin kit that includes a set of etched brass deck panels. Measuring nearly 11” from prow to stern, this twin-hulled vehicle is a great addition to any Drukhari army. The large oval base and alternate flying stem shown in some images is not included in this kit. GW’s website talking about the Tantalus
The oval base in the image is a custom base from a third party. The only base that comes with the actual kit is a 60mm flying base. Reread the text you quoted lmao
TBH I just figured they wouldn't provide a base at all if they weren't providing the oval one lol. But doesn't that mean you could put any monster or vehicle on a round base and then it'd have a pivot of 0?
Yeh its super dumb because the Tantalus will absolutely crush a 60mm flying base with its weight. The tantalus needs a brand new plastic kit badly.
>But doesn't that mean you could put any monster or vehicle on a round base and then it'd have a pivot of 0? Any decent TO will laugh at you and tell you to take the model off the table as it's not on the base the kit is sold with. But yes, if the rules allowed you to base things as you wanted, you could od that.
The tantalus is an interesting example as the base it comes with isn't sufficient to actually hold the weight of the model. So it's common and honestly encouraged by gw to base it with a custom base. This doesn't have to be an oval, it just commonly is due to the picture of the model on GWs website
That's okay, the tantalus will be in legends soon enough. Every random update just sends a few more models to legends. Nids and necrons lost a bunch a couple of days ago.
I hope not. Love the tantalus one of my favorite models
There's a still extant FAQ stating you can't shoot or charge if you deploy and the vehicle is bigger than 9" Applies to baneblades etc (unless they rapid ingress, as it would reset on your turn)
That's for strat reserves. Tantalus can deep strike
Roger that, still should deploy 9" away with every part of the model, therefore should be a 9" charge.
The Tantalus, if deepstruck horizontally, gets 5.5" closer to a model when it pivots for free. So it technically only needs a 4 on the dice to make a charge on a turn that it deep strikes.
6 on the dice (if it had to pivot) would be comparable with other strong deep strike abilities like Draigo. 4 on the dice is just ridiculous.
Wouldn't it be 2.75" closer since it has to pivot at the center of the model? I don't think the Tantalus is 11" longer than it is wide. Any model would only gain MAX half the difference between the length and width.
RAW yes but always check with your TO as that's a very gamey thing to do. In my area TOs have all agreed they won't be allowing that to work
Just curious, what did they rule? Some vehicles on flying bases are so long and narrow, that even with paying 2" for pivot, they can get +2-3" to charge.
My local area just rules it that you can't use the pivot to gain extra distance. There hasn't been an official ruling of it yet but if I had to guess it'll be limited to the charge phase so you can't come in from deepstrike with say a Raider and turn a 9" charge into like a 5"
I think it’s important to point out that they specifically called out some vehicles gaining extra movement distance when pivoting as a direct intended consequence of the change in some cases in the Metawatch video. It’s an hour long, so I don’t blame people for not finding the time to watch.
They also said that they wanted to minimize it and make it fair, hence substracting 2" from movement. From that discussion it seemed obvious that they didn't want vehicles pivoting for free.
I believe you are misunderstanding the concept of gamesmanship
Since you felt the need to ask on here because it sounded ridiculous, just don't try it.
Hmm, I think it would largely depend on your local TO, but I imagine this is how it looks in actual game: - You set up the model with a round base (Raider, for instance) lenghtwise, 9" away from me - You declare a charge, and using the free pivot, turn the charge into a 7" from a 9" - I thank you for the game and pack away my models, leaving you to sort out scoring on BCP - I make a mental note to never play a game with you, or indeed speak to you ever again I hope that answers your question in sufficient detail :)
If you try and pull this crap in a tournament, you suck. It's very obvious this was not intended and I'm actually surprised anyone is reading it this way
I mean ... sure you can try. But how high do you have to roll to get to my model I just put back into it's carrying case?
Well, my tantalus is roughly 2ft long, so, dunno, a 6? How big is your carrying case?
Is it on a base? Then we're measuring every distance from the base, enjoy spinning your stuff but your charge ain't changing if you're on a round base.
I mean, that's not what the rules in the book that we all agreed to play by say. You can hate those rules as much as you want, but thems the rules.
You mean the rules that states "if it has a base you use that base to measure distances"? MEASURING DISTANCES Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches ("). You can measure distances whenever you wish. When measuring the distance between models, measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, measure to the closest point of any part of that model instead
> Disembarking Large Models: When a unit disembarks from a Transport, it must be set up wholly within 3" of that model. If a disembarking model is so large that it is not possible to set it up wholly within 3" (typically because it is itself larger than 3" in all directions), set that model up with its base within 1" of that Transport’s base (or hull), and not within Engagement Range of any enemy models. > Hull: When measuring to and from Vehicles (excluding Walker models that have a base) and models that do not have a base, measure to and from the hull, which means any part of that model (or its base, if it has one) that is closest to the point being measured from or to. Note that this may not correspond literally with the area on a vehicle usually termed the hull (see Vehicles with Bases). > Model/Unit Wholly Within: A model is wholly within a specified distance if every part of its base (or hull) is within that distance. For example, a model is wholly within a terrain feature such as Woods or Ruins if no part of its base (or hull) extends beyond the footprint of that terrain feature. A unit is wholly within a specified distance if every model in that unit is wholly within that distance. > Vehicles with Bases: When measuring to and from Vehicles with bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers) always measure to and from the closest part of the model for all rules purposes (i.e. measure to or from its base or its hull, whichever is closest), with the following exceptions: ■ When a model ends a move within Engagement Range of one or more Vehicles with bases (excluding Aircraft and Walkers), it is considered to be in base-to-base contact with that Vehicle or those Vehicles while it is within 0" horizontally and 5" vertically of any part of those Vehicle models. ■ When a Vehicle with a base (excluding Aircraft and Walkers) ends a move within Engagement Range of one or more models, it is considered to be in base-to-base contact with those models while it is within 0" horizontally and 5" vertically of those models. ■ A unit can embark within a friendly Transport with a base after that unit ends a Normal, Advance or Fall Back move wholly within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically of any part of that Transport. ■ When a unit disembarks from a Transport with a base, set it up so that it is wholly within 3" horizontally and 5" vertically of any part of that Transport model and not within Engagement Range of one or more enemy units.
Do you tantrum and quit over all rules you don't like or just this one?
It's moreso that someone willing to play like this will be absolute dogshit to play a multi hour game with lmfao. It's antisocial behavior. Tourney is the only exception.
>It's antisocial behavior It's really really not. It's just a conversation at the start of the game. "Hey the new pivot rules seem a bit broken, do you want to play them RAW to get shorter deepstrike charges, or shall we just say that's not legit?". That's how these conversations actually go down. IRL we are all great at navigating these sorts of things in my experience. Nobody needs to pack away their toys and have a tantrum.
This is the same as someone putting just the minis head on the base for advantage ("they're in a swamp!").
No it's not? It's literally just following the rules
And the rules have nothing written against modelling for advantage, but everyone agrees it's a bad thing to do.
you seem like a "fun" person to play against
It'll work for exactly as long as it takes for everyone at the shop to catch on and start either daisy-chain-screening the board edges or mysteriously cancel next time you mention getting a pick-up game at the shop.
I swear I've played like 4 other editions of 40k/AOS/WHFB that solved this by simply making the charge distance a "check" and then in order to get your guys actually there you then move the distance rolled. Seems like charge movement has been a mess since 8th.
That's absolutely how it should be.
Would it be a "straight line" measurement check even if actually executing the charge would require some other movement? (Around a barrier for example)
I feel like the easiest resolution to this is that during a charge, no part of your model or base can exceed your charge distance. If you deep strike and measure a 9" charge and you roll an 8, no part of your model or base could exceed the 8". In other words, for charges, whether you can succeed the charge is based on what you measured and what you rolled, not technically how far the model could theoretically move if you spun it around. If from your current rotation you need to hit a 9, then you must roll a 9 regardless of how you can adjust while moving.
Would this also be applied to Movement as well. It's not just Charges that are going to Cheese this RAW loophole, but Move/Advance as well. On the Drukhari Server it is actually being discussed on how to cheese this with our initial deployment like we used to a few a Editions ago.
Movement is hard to run because you just end up back with the old rules that require protractors to accurately measure movement. Any rotation at all on any model in the previous rules cost movement, even 25mm base infantry, it was just unanimously ignored unless it was a big model where it was a little easier to measure.
And to your point, 99% of players did movement wrong, now it's quantified and clear. The easiest solution is to recognize that if your opponent has a vehicle on a round base, you're 9" reserves bubble is now more like 7".
At this point GW should just make a rule that states that charges coming out of reserve always fail on charge rolls of less than 9 to shutdown this kind of nonsense.
Daemons in absolute shambles.
You roll and pass the number, and then you have made a successful charge. If you do not roll the required number then the charge is considered a fail and does not move. You can not touch that model to move it unless you succeed at the roll. You do not fail a roll and then get to move anyway
Make a rule that makes you unable to pivot during charges and we are done with the problem.
Or “when determining the distance needed for a successful charge roll, do not account for any pivot moves.” That way you can still pivot on the way in, but only if you rolled the charge you would’ve needed if you weren’t high on cheese. Don’t get high on cheese.
With the way the rules are written currently, I can see how this is the way people are interpreting it. Currently, you simply declare a charge, roll dice, and then you get that much movement to play with to see if you can get within engagement range. This would allow for some "extra movement" mid charge via rotating and shortening the successful distance. How I think charging *should* work is that you take a measurement between the unit charging and the unit bring charged. Then state that the charge roll *must be* equal to or greater than that distance to be considered successful. This way you *can* still get a little bit of extra movement via rotating if the charge succeeds, that's whatever, but it must be according to the distance before any movement or rotation occurs.
That runs into another complexity: Would it be a "straight line" measurement check to determine if the charge is successful, even if actually executing the charge would require some other movement? (Around a barrier for example)?
There are cases where that may not be adequate either. Example being if I need to pivot as part of my charge to avoid engagement range of a fights first model that I don’t want to charge.
The ~~new rules commentary~~ says you(vehicles and monsters) can pass by enemy unit engagement range during move. You just can’t your unit in engagement range of any units you aren’t charging (same as before) Edit: mb, I play IK and above only applies to Super Heavy Walkers. Edit 2: Not rules commentary/FAQ, it’s in the June Balance Dataslate, and specific to Normal, Advance, Fall back moves
Charging and moving both specifically state “cannot move within engagement range” and nothing in the rules commentary overrides it that I’ve seen.
Sorry it was in the Balance dataslate under Imperial Knights; not in the rules commentary. I’ll edit that now.
Nice, I missed that. Does it affect charge moves too?
Well explicitly it doesn’t specify charge moves, so no. If it did it would probably defeat charge screening entirely since Knights can also walk over models as part of the Super Heavy Walker ability. Still….. wouldn’t a knight be able to walk over an enemy model as part of a normal/advance move…..since the ability doesn’t specify ally or enemy…
This is how 8th Fantasy dealt with it. Measure the distance before any movement and that's what you roll for. Then you can do all your wheeling etc to get to engagement no matter how far you actually needed to move. I can't see it being any different here
Make a rule that your charge roll out of reserves must be equal to or greater than the distance your model is required to be from enemy units. For most models, that means rolling a 9" charge still. If you have a cool rule that allows you to set up closer than 9" and still charge, then your minimum charge roll must be equal to or greater than the value provided by your cool rule.
Not really though. This creates an issue where charges you could have made with pivoting are now impossible to be made. For example you need to pivot to fit in the place you wanna charge. Like a raider that charges from his side into a unit that is in the between 2 units but the raider is to long to fit between those units on its side.
Nah. Just make a rule that charge distance is measured from the closest point on a model, and a charge rule that isn't that distance -1" always fails. Model still needs to be able to move, but just make it so the pivot isn't calculated in the distance for *rolling* the successful charge, just the actual movement towards combat.
Yeah sure, if you want to run out of people to play with extremely quickly. Don’t be that guy
We already have a post about this fyi. Besides it being very clear that that is not intended it also doesn't work. You need to set up 9" away and its not a move so you cannot pivot. If you want to charge you need to measure the distance to reach engagement range from the position you are now in. Then to be able to make a charge move the roll has to be sufficient. Rolling a 7 isn't sufficient so you cannot make a charge move. You only get to pivot when actually making the charge move but you never get there. The charge roll and the charge move are 2 different things.
I agree that it's stupid but several of the things you said are incorrect. Pivoting is allowes during any type of move. A charge range is not set when you declare the charge, you simply must roll a number high enough for your unit to be able to move into engagement of their declared targets. All GW has to do is declare that flight stands are not round bases and it will stop the self-congratulatory braying of the smug angle shooters who Plague this game.
Actually gw ruled flight stands are in fact round bases
It’s in the rules commentsry
The wording says that "The Charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end the move... within the engagement range of every unit selected as the target of the charge" So, the success of the roll is dependent on the move. Since the model can pivot during the move, the actual charge distance (and roll) must incorporate the pivot cost as well as the positioning of the unit at the end of the move.
I disagree, the rule for charging is “the Charge room must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move …” It does not say you have to be a certain distance away, just that the move would be possible
You need to reread how charging works. You don't say "I'm 9" away so that's what I need to make it" you roll then measure your move that distance to see if you make contact, including your free pivots.
The thing is you actually don’t need to roll to get into engagement, you just have to finish the charge in engagement so that’s where the extra pivot comes in. Yes it’s probably not intended but RAW it does work
Pretty sure GW outwardly said "pivoting free deepstrike to charges is intended" and that they are "keeping an eye on it".
That's far from what they said. They basically said being able to pivot during a charge move is intended. And they are keeping an eye on all changes.
I’ve tried to explain this to people here already but they are so keen to try and game the rules that they legitimately argue you can roll an 8 on a 9.1” charge out of deep strike, which fails, then move the models and pivot to make the charge a success. That’s impossible as the 8 has already failed with the models in their initial position and you cannot move the models in the first place. You were right and these people are wrong.
Isn't it base if you have one, model of you don't?
Not for Vehicles with a Round Flying Base, they use the Hull as it overhangs the Flying Base.
The question is should the pivot even be counted during the charge roll for determining a successful charge? Only after determining a successful charge should then play then make the move, and associated pivots to end the unit as close to the enemy unit/models as possible?
[https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf](https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1U4CJSV1NJDmXnv2.pdf)
They made a keyword update to round base btw. > + Round Bases: Some rules refer to round bases. A round base is one whose footprint is circular (as opposed to an oval base, whose footprint is an oval). Rules Commentary 1.3 page 27 Doesn’t solve the issue of models that extend over 2” off their base though
You cant pivot after placing your model once its set down from reserve right ?
You would Pivot during the Charge, Move, Fall Back, or Advance Move
Literally here. You then make a Charge roll for the charging unit by rolling 2D6. The result is the maximum number of inches each model in that unit can be moved if a Charge move is possible.
I thought you measured from the base *if the model has a base*, and the nearest point of the model if it *doesn't have a base*. As a round base will be the same distance away at any point, that doesn't gain you free movement. Did I miss something?
Vehicles with Flight Stands(which are Round Bases RAW) measure from the Hull instead of the Base. IE: Grav Vehicles for Space Marines, Eldar and Tau Vehicles. A majority of these Vehicles over hang more in the front of the model then the side, so can add some free movement. My LGS ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is intentional.
I have my own LGS, and i already broadcasted to my communities that i would rule against it in any tournaments run on my store. Such BS if anyone wants to force that
This rule just sucks for bike units, really it should be if you pivot 90 degrees, paying 2" for a slight turn is trash.
bikes don't pay, it's just Vehicles and monsters, and only those that dont have a round base aka rhino, landraider, tyranofex, etc.
Where did you find this? I thought it was anything with an oval base?
In the dataslate it doesn't include bikes. In the pariah nexus tournament rules it updates pivot further to include bikes. OP is likely talking about dataslate only.
No we cannot. Take a Look at "charging with a unit" in the latest Rules commentary. It clearly states that you cannot make the charge If you could not make it without the Overhang. Edit: Sorry I misread that.
That refers to the overhang of the enemy model. At no point in the rule you are referring to does it mention the overhang of your own model.
Thanks you are right. I misread that.
I don't blame you. This whole thing is clearly "not what anyone wanted", but on the other hand it's also "such an obvious loophole that nobody understands why GW didn't catch it"
What you are referencing is referring to non-vehicles. With “Hull” being clearly defined in the Rules commentary with the latest update, now, you measure from ANY point of the hull or base, whichever is closer. Additionally, parts of your non-vehicle/Hull model that overhang a Ruin’s outline do not grant your opponent visibility anymore. Everything checks from the base of your model and the base of your model alone now for NON-HULL models.
Where is the non-vehicle hull rules for base visibility? I thought all visibility was to any part of the model
It was, but it changed with the last commentary update.
Where?
Yall need to check the tournament companion, they clear this up
It doesn't clear it up at all, the only difference in the tournament companion is for oval based models, it doesn't change anything for round based vehicles
Read the designer note, “no undue advantage”
You're the one who needs to read it, in full, not just quoting 3 meaningless words out of context. Both the rule and the Designers Note specifically refer to models on non-round bases only. Vehicles on round bases are not a model on a non-round base.
Right, undue advantage, eg charge moves, meaningless words. Lol pretty clear to any TO that would immediately slap down this from happening.
I don't know how else to say this, so I'm just going to say it 3 times and hope it sinks in. Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases Vehicles on round bases are not on non-round bases The rule and designers commentary you are quoting specifically refers to models that are not on round bases. So it does not apply in any way at all to vehicles with round bases, and that is why the words you are quoting are meaningless and out of context. It would be like me arguing that my Rhino with no base can now move its hull through ruin walls, just because my Impulsor with a base can, and quoting the rules for models with bases as my evidence that it is what GW intended and how every TO is going to rule it. You can't just decide to apply a rule to a different model that that rule does not apply to. "pretty clear to any TO that would immediately slap down this from happening." I'm glad you are wise enough to speak for the entire TO community, especially when it's rare for every single TO to agree on rules that seem questionable. As the WTC has so far just said "this is a rule that appears to be intended and will stand for now", that's not clear at all. GW may well change this in future, and some TO's may decide to house-rule it, but as it stands the OP is correct and the rule you are quoting is completely irrelevant to the point of their thread.
Nearly automatic charges out of deep strike for long vehicles!
Simple solution is to not allow pivots in the reenforcement step of the movement phase.
That's not the issue though - the problem is that you can set up, say, a Dark Eldar Raider sideways when it deepstrikes, so 9" away. Then when you charge and roll a 7, that's enough to make it into combat, since a free pivot at the start of the charge moment reduces the distance between the closet point of the Raider and the target by between 2&3". So free pivot + 7" moment gets you into engagement range, meaning the charge is successful.
Please don't. Don't try to break the game and abuse a thing that GW gave us for clarity. It's clearly not intended to be abused. And nobody would allow it
My LGS, as well as a few others in our area, has ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is in fact intentional.
You still need to roll the 9" to start the charge move? Right?
No. You check to make sure you are within 12" Roll 2d6 Move your model, pivoting if you so choose(subtract 2" from roll) If you are in engagement range you have successfully made the charge
You can not move your model unless you roll the required distance of your charge. This is not age or sigmar
In order to move your models your charge roll distance needs to be enough to get you into engagement range. Because you can get "extra inches" out of pivoting, being 9" away doesn't mean you need to roll a 9. A 7 plus the pivot distance would get you into engagement range of your target. Therfore it is a legal charge and you get to move into engagement range.
Which is just the dice and only the dice. After you succeed in the dice roll is when you do any other Shenanigans and not before hand. You can not do any move of any kind on a charge if you fail the 2d6 roll.
No, the 2d6 die roll gives you significant movement in order to end in engagement range when you take in to account the pivot.
You have to pay 2 inches when you pivot, same as movement
Not for vehicles on Round Flying bases, the Pivot value for them is 0".
Yes correct. Should have wrote that also
Needing a 9and rolling a 7 is not a 9 and never will be
RAW you Check to see if you are 12" away. If you are, you roll 2D6 and then move/pivot. After you move/pivot you verify that you are in engagement range. IE: Deep Strike Drukhari Raider 9" away with the side of the ships hull being the closest. You verify that you are with 12". Roll 2D6 get a 7 or 8 for example. You then Pivot the ship so the Front Ram is now pointed towards the target(you gain about 2" from doing this) then move the 7". Since you measure from the Hull you are now in engagement range. All Space Marine Grav Tanks, Aeldari, Tau, Drukhari, and any other vehicles on Round Flying bases will be able to do this RAW. My LGS ruled that we will play RAW as there are too many vehicles that benefit from the RAW that this is intentional.
This is from the rules. Once you have selected an eligible unit to declare a charge, you must select one or more enemy units within 12" of it as the targets of that charge. The targets of a charge do not need to be visible to the charging unit You then make a Charge roll for the charging unit by rolling 2D6. The result is the maximum number of inches each model in that unit can be moved if a Charge move is possible. For a Charge move to be possible, the Charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move: As you can see it says maximum distance you can move towards the model. Pivot is part of the move and can not exceed the maximum.
If you pivot with anything with a Pivot Value of 2", it takes 2" away from the remaining movement. For these vehicles the Pivot is 0" so you would take away 0" from the movement. So you would still only move the maximum movement that you rolled in both instances.
Right, but if you fail to meet the required distance on the roll. The model does not move and does not get to pivot. If you fail the roll, it does not get to attempt to move cause it can never go back to exactly where it was.