40K 9th ed

[Ish]

Yeah, but if the turret is rotated... it’s the point sticking out (the muzzle) that’s going to move the furthest.

[Inquisitor66]

8 minutes ago, Ish said:

Yeah, but if the turret is rotated... it’s the point sticking out (the muzzle) that’s going to move the furthest.

You measure the difference between the start and end point, you ca. Spin the turret around 10x as long as the tip is within 10 inches of where it started before you moved.

[Ish]

Not a according to the portion of the rules I highlighted above. You have to measure along the path actually traveled.

[jesselowe]

In the sentence "The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot)" does the word in bold refer to the model or to the base/hull/rotating part?

[Dusldorf]

1 minute ago, jesselowe said:

In the sentence "The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot)" does the word in bold refer to the model or to the base/hull/rotating part?

Whichever moved the furthest

[jesselowe]

Let me rephrase: Which of these would be the correct rewriting of the rule?

A) The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base (or hull) that moves furthest along the model's path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

B) The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base (or hull) that moves furthest along the base's, hull's, or rotating/pivoting part's path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

[Dusldorf]

Same answer. You're overthinking it, just find whatever piece moved furthest and find out how far it moved. 

[Ish]

Much simpler solution: don’t treat turrets, sponsons, gun barrels, and radio aerials as part of the hull.

[Dusldorf]

8 minutes ago, Ish said:

Much simpler solution: don’t treat turrets, sponsons, gun barrels, and radio aerials as part of the hull.

That'd be a house rule, since any part of a model with no base is now considered the hull:

[Sgt. Rock]

Considering that there are no fire arcs for vehicle weapons, this is all a bit of a meaningless discussion. You don't need to rotate the turret or sponsons or whatever unless you just think it looks better, and anyone who's going to nitpick against you for trying to bring in a tiny bit of "rule of cool" by rotating your weapons to face what you're shooting at is probably a dickbag not worth playing against. Movement is the same; measure from point A on the vehicle at the start of the move to point A on the vehicle at the end of the move. 

[Dusldorf]

5 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Considering that there are no fire arcs for vehicle weapons, this is all a bit of a meaningless discussion. You don't need to rotate the turret or sponsons or whatever unless you just think it looks better, and anyone who's going to nitpick against you for trying to bring in a tiny bit of "rule of cool" by rotating your weapons to face what you're shooting at is probably a dickbag not worth playing against. Movement is the same; measure from point A on the vehicle at the start of the move to point A on the vehicle at the end of the move. 

There are situations where you might need to rotate something. For example, if you are castling a Leman Russ behind an obscuring piece of terrain and surrounded it with a bunch of infantry, and don't want to move the infantry, then you can instead rotate a sponson or turret so that it can see around the terrain.

[Ish]

13 minutes ago, Sgt. Rock said:

Considering that there are no fire arcs for vehicle weapons, this is all a bit of a meaningless discussion. You don't need to rotate the turret or sponsons or whatever unless you just think it looks better, and anyone who's going to nitpick against you for trying to bring in a tiny bit of "rule of cool" by rotating your weapons to face what you're shooting at is probably a dickbag not worth playing against.

That’s how it should work, unfortunately the rules say it isn’t how it does work...

Movement is the same; measure from point A on the vehicle at the start of the move to point A on the vehicle at the end of the move.

But the rules say, explicitly, to measure along the path that it travels. If the rotating barrel moves 12”, then the model moved 12”... 

[VonVilkee]

Interesting thought... Rotate the turret as the tank moves so the barrel doesn't move at all...

[Dusldorf]

1 minute ago, VonVilkee said:

Interesting thought... Rotate the turret as the tank moves so the barrel doesn't move at all...

If the barrel doesn't move then it's not the part you use to measure your move distance. 

[Sgt. Rock]

13 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

There are situations where you might need to rotate something. For example, if you are castling a Leman Russ behind an obscuring piece of terrain and surrounded it with a bunch of infantry, and don't want to move the infantry, then you can instead rotate a sponson or turret so that it can see around the terrain.

I don't understand. Are you saying you could rotate the turret so that you're drawing LOS sideways from the end of the barrel, as though you're firing a magic bullet out of the muzzle break? Because the first person that tries that [big bad swear word] with me is getting dreadsocked. Or at the very least permanently losing an opponent. That's pure cheesedickery.

[Dusldorf]

1 minute ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I don't understand. Are you saying you could rotate the turret so that you're drawing LOS sideways from the end of the barrel, as though you're firing a magic bullet out of the muzzle break? Because the first person that tries that [big bad swear word] with me is getting dreadsocked. Or at the very least permanently losing an opponent. That's pure cheesedickery.

That's...literally how the game works now. In your last post you said this conversation was academic because facings are gone, and now you're saying the rules are dumb because they don't involve facings?

[VonVilkee]

1 minute ago, Dusldorf said:

If the barrel doesn't move then it's not the part you use to measure your move distance. 

Looks goofy but you could plan the tank movement to reduce the rotational movement of the turret... All tanks need turret off to the side about 45 degrees

[Sgt. Rock]

2 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

That's...literally how the game works now. In your last post you said this conversation was academic because facings are gone, and now you're saying the rules are dumb because they don't involve facings?

I'm saying that anyone who tries to draw LOS from the tip of a sideways gun barrel is cheesing the rules. Lack of facing is fine, I don't necessarily always agree with it, but it's one thing to draw LOS from a vehicle's hull in a reasonable position. It's something entirely different to take a corner case like that and abuse the rules to do something utterly ridiculous and stupid.

This is why I've become so selective about who I play 40k with. People who tout RAW over any semblance of reasonable thought and sensibility are people I don't want to play with. 

[Inquisitor66]

Rotating the turret does still count as moving the tank

[Ish]

Excuse the crude sketch, but here we can see a turret with a 2.5” distance between pivot and muzzle. If the turret rotates 90°, the straight line distance between A and B is a mere 3.5”, but the distance traveled along the circumference of the circle is 3.9”.

 

It gets worse the farther it rotates. If it rotated 180°, the straight-line distance between A and B would be 5”, but the path travelled would be 7.9”! 

And this is for a very short barrel, like a the twin-lascannon Predator Annihilator. With a battle cannon or a vanquisher cannon on a Leman Russ the problem literally becomes exponentially worse.

[Dusldorf]

1 minute ago, Sgt. Rock said:

I'm saying that anyone who tries to draw LOS from the tip of a sideways gun barrel is cheesing the rules. Lack of facing is fine, I don't necessarily always agree with it, but it's one thing to draw LOS from a vehicle's hull in a reasonable position. It's something entirely different to take a corner case like that and abuse the rules to do something utterly ridiculous and stupid.

This is why I've become so selective about who I play 40k with. People who tout RAW over any semblance of reasonable thought and sensibility are people I don't want to play with. 

It's not a corner case, it's explicitly addressed in the rules... I mean, enjoy your smaller pool of opponents I guess? Some people and their house rules, smh. 

[Ish]

I shouldn’t have to ever invoke π when playing with toy soldiers.

[Inquisitor66]

2 minutes ago, Ish said:

I shouldn’t have to ever invoke π when playing with toy soldiers.

Don't rotate the turret

[Ish]

These two tanks can legally shoot at each other, despite the only way they can “see” each other is by drawing a 90° angle from the muzzle of their gun:

This Chaos Rhino can use the tips of its radio aerials to see (and thus, shoot) at the Marine on the other side of the barrier:

 

I don’t care what the rules say, this is dumb.

[Sgt. Rock]

1 minute ago, Ish said:

These two tanks can legally shoot at each other, despite the only way they can “see” each other is by drawing a 90° angle from the muzzle of their gun:

This Chaos Rhino can use the tips of its radio aerials to see (and thus, shoot) at the Marine on the other side of the barrier:

 

I don’t care what the rules say, this is dumb.

My point exactly. This is one of those BS things that will probably get abused until GW FAQ's it into oblivion. At least, I hope so.