40k's Movement Rules Were TOTALLY Rewritten... here's how they work now | 40k Ridiculous Rules

#Warhammer40k
More TacticalTortoise: linktr.ee/tacticaltortoise
Download the update documents here: www.warhammer-community.com/w...

[@Kattbirb]

Wow, Games Workshop really needs to look at their old rules and bring back what they've forgotten instead of constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. Or the pivot.

[@CapAdGroup]

Thats why I play 30k ;)

[@Kattbirb]

@CapAdGroup I've honestly gone and written my own rules for my friends and me. Took what I liked best from 3rd, 4th, and 5th, added most of Codex: Cityfight, then borrowed heavily from some Battlefleet Gothic, Battletech and Star Wars: Legion. Still hammering out things as we find them, but it's fun to have rules that make sense.

[@_Morph1ne_]

Being on a base or not is so arbitrary. A land raider angles by 15 degrees and gets 20% of its movement taken away, while a repulsor do a fucking triple backflip and nothing happens

[@dicedoom7162]

welllll repulsor is a over tank. kinda fits. but i dont like the rules either

[@mrwookie72]

Stupid thing is.. a tracked tank is easier to maneuver than any hover vehicle... just ask Jeremy clarkson!!!

[@KaratePath]

@@mrwookie72 with today's tech... who knows with 40k tech

[@foolofatook7708]

The time of the old man marine is over, the time of the dorky Primaris cash grab marine is here

[@laszlopolyak4353]

@@dicedoom7162ok, I move 12” with my repulsor (or whatever is the max move of it) in a straight line SIDEWAYS, then pivot it for free 90degree, now its front is approx 2-3 inches closer to your unit, so I cheated 2-3” for my shooting range or charge. Do you still think it is correct?

[@andrewcrane5105]

At this point I don't even care about the rules I just want things to stay the same for one year so I can actually get used to a playstyle for once...

[@DmanDrums]

Yea and also build and paint an army and not have it completely change before I’m done.

[@wayoflifefitness5622]

This, casual players get about 10 games in before a bunch of new rules

[@JustMonikaOk]

I've got good news - Epic's rules havn't been changed for almost forever, and Battlefleet Gothic is going on 14 years without a rules update. :)

[@DmanDrums]

@@JustMonikaOk hahaha, good old GW, then can never get the balance right. As long as they are making money hand over fist they don’t care.

[@kdhlkjhdlk]

@@wayoflifefitness5622 Try none. Ork codex dropped while I was painting 900pts of grot tanks, to have them fuck off to legends. I just get done with fixing it, and now this 10.5 bullshit has destroyed meganobz for dread mob, making them shitty. I've had zero games with this army.

[@KaratePath]

so every figurine basically became a Chess Knight ...

[@SnowWolf2150]

Remember when 40K use to be fun and not a logistical nightmare? Pepperidge Farm who played during 3rd to 7th remembers.

[@ImperialDiecast]

7th without partaking in the datasheet formation cheese was the last good ruleset.

[@wischfulthinking]

7th was bad bad

[@TheBoboni]

I've been here since 4th and it was literally never, buddy.

[@Advent22mix]

Honestly, you'd think that after 10 editions and 40 years, they'd have figured out something as simple as movement. I can't believe this is even a thing. I could count on one hand the number of times I've had the minutia of movement rules as written come up in a game.

[@punchyMiddleEarth]

Yep 40K has been a steaming pile of 💩 for 40 years!

[@timothydienaar]

the moment my opponent picks up their tank and places it down couldn't you argue that they have pivoted because there is no feasible way they can place it down in the exact orientation even if they want to move straight? in a friendly game I wouldn't care, but competitive people will use any rule they can to get an advantage

[@nurglematthew893]

What the heck is all this? What did you guys do to 40k while I was in meetings today?!

[@chris_dietz]

Pivoted.

[@sluggaboyzWC3]

For 2"

[@huffinLeeroy]

Not even GW knows

[@niallcampbell]

This is exactly how I feel. Trying to catch up!!

[@TacticalTortoise]

@@sluggaboyzWC3 mine was free because I'm round

[@jonasschmidt1596]

Flesh Hounds do NOT have to pay the pivot cost as they do not have the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword. Which also means that Flesh Hounds and many other oval based units now can gain at least a 1" extra move from pivoting if facing sideways to the depolyment zone. And something like a Deffkilla Wartrike would gain an extra 2" move, combined with its always advance 6", would make alpha striking quite likely.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Flesh Hounds need to pay to pivot. See 5:22

[@jonasschmidt1596]

@@TacticalTortoise Ah my bad, didn't see this tournament rules update, thank you for the clarification. Where can I find these changes, cant seem to find them on warhammer community. Seems to me that it makes sense with the large oval bases, but that small bases like fleshhounds etc. should be excluded.

[@bigyeticane]

Your channel is my #1 stop when I want to consider more ways than I can think of for new rules like these to affect different parts of the game. Thanks for keeping things relevant, fair, engaging, and for keeping the videos down to a digestible time frame.

[@zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba0]

These changes have added "Upset" and "Confused' to my keywords haha

[@malefic5254]

That first rule is why "true line of sight" is ass cancer. Superfluous parts on a model shouldn't even be in consideration unless it's literally preventing you from placing the model. It also makes rotation of *round bases* a consideration, and it just shouldn't be.

[@AFnord]

Yeah, 4th edition really had the right idea with its LoS rules. I don't think any edition, before or after, ran so smoothly as 4th due to how clear the LoS rules actually were (4th isn't my favourite edition for other reasons, but the LoS rules is something I wish they would have kept)

[@cruelmole]

Everything should be on a base. LOS should be drawn base to base on a flat line. True los is the worst possible system for it.

[@Bobzonthejob]

​@AFnord Gotta agree with that. 4th is my favorite edition (though I wouldn't say it's miles ahead of other editions). For all its issues, 4th felt like a genuine improvment over 3rd as they tightened up the rule set and improved issues. Since then, it feels like GW just prints new editions to change up the rules and give them an excuse to print new codex books.

[@Triceratopping]

GW: "Simplified, not simple!" Also GW: "Okay so here's this rules document specifically about how you have to move your models now."

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

A thorough ruleset might appear intimidating, but the rules could be simple or not, depending on the design. Leaving things vague and then constantly clarifying things with multiple update documents is definitely not simple.

[@pkslade5276]

What happens with vertus praetors for custodes who can pick either a round flying base or an oval base? What a pickle!

[@Templer776]

Do you realy think the Inter GW put on this spent the time to look at any of the minis these rules would be applied too?

[@ObsceneSuperMatt]

5:26 wait does "not on a round base" include oval bases or only no bases? That would be funny AF if the type of base you chose now affects your movement! Rebasing isn't too hard, usually ...

[@boredmagala5701]

Pretty sure they count as flying base?

[@boredmagala5701]

Well if they’re vehicles they get the pivot anyways, but they’re prob meant to have the 2 inches based on being mounted units

[@Lavendeer201]

Quite the pickle it is ☹️

[@JamesSerapio]

DEMONstration with Be'lakor, the DEMON prince. Smart! 😉

[@TacticalTortoise]

;)

[@Thetracker69]

Man, I'm so freaking glad I never really cared to actually PLAY 40k. Kill Team is clunky enough as is, 40k just seems so much more pointlessly complex. I saw it best described this way: "Come for the models, stay for the lore, suffer the rules."

[@rogeirskjoldson9037]

Yeah. I got into it for the painting, though I have a fairly active friend group who play now. We have since moved almost exclusively to OnePageRules. Compared to the bloated, overly complicated mess that is 40k, OPR is actually fun, it's balanced properly, it's not changed more or less completely every few months, and best of all, the rules are free. And you can pretty much play your existing army as-is, every faction you may want exists, and if you do miss a unit or want it to be different, you can simply build your own.

[@Jason-35D]

Seems like you can really model for advantage with something like chaos spikes to change the center for the pivots.

[@dras-pv8qv]

that person needs to reevaluate their priorities in life

[@wesleyw7908]

Luckily modeling for advantage is universally banned in all major tournaments, and will get you kicked out of most gaming groups and clubs.

[@DarthMalaclypse]

@@wesleyw7908 how are you going to prove it though? I just like all my Chaos vehicles to have spike....its a terrible rule all together and needs to be removed ASAP

[@yurisei6732]

I'm not sure I like pivot being this paid unlock in a move, it means that a vehicle navigating a tight twisting path, making multiple 90 degree turns, moves the same distance as a vehicle that is driving in a straight line down an open road if that latter vehicle had to make so much as a 5 degree turn.

[@j.rivera1974]

Free pivoting to gain extra inches was a thing in 5th edition. You could line up your Raiders flat along the deployment line then pivot, move, and disembark your unit 2" from the hull which would almost always be the tip of the shock prow which every Raider/Ravager had modeled onto it even if you did not pay the optional points for it. Talk about non deep strike Alpha Strike madness... yep those were crazy times.

[@ollep9142]

One way to get away from that type of behavior is to go back to the 1st edition type rules where the vehicles have different armor on front and flanks. If you want to make your vehicle more vulnerable by exposing its lesser protected and easier to hit side towards the enemy then it's fine...

[@j.rivera1974]

@@ollep9142 Those rules still applied in 5th. Rear offered the least protection and some vehicles allowed you to purchase additional armor. Except skimmers, poor skimmers used to pop at a blink of an eye.

[@AFnord]

@@j.rivera1974 Skimmers still followed the armour facing rules of other vehicles, it was just common for them to be lighter than ground-based tanks (though it was not a universal truth), and the Dark Eldar raiders were basically made out of tissue paper on all sides.

[@j.rivera1974]

@@AFnord I think you misread my reply. The "except for skimmers" was referring to the ability to purchase extra armor not the exemption from having any... But yeah paper airplanes for sure. Lol.

[@redfoz1]

i did this back in the day. I used to have a landraider w assault terminators and cassius. Deploy sideways, gain 3 inches by pivoting, move 12, disembark 3 inches get 1.5 inches from terminator bases, charge 6 inches = (25.5 inches). So turn 1 charge....

[@wilsimpson9170]

thanks so much for translating this!!

[@Tryptic214]

I have to totally disagree with your idea that pivots are easier to do than the old system of farthest-traveling-point. The introduction of the concept of "a move where the model keeps its orientation" is so vulnerable to being broken and abused. What do you do when, after a unit has moved 3 times without paying for pivots, you notice that it has turned slightly? An illegal move has clearly occurred, but it's hard to determine the exact time when it happened. How do you respond to the player in your group who hates paying for pivots and tries to play without ever pivoting? What happens when a player puts his model with a 12" move 12" away from an objective he wants to take next turn, but another unit ends up in such a position that he would have to rotate it 10 degrees to fit? You can lock vehicles out of the last 2 inches of their movement just by blocking something about their current orientation. You could block an enemy from reaching an objective, using a unit that's several inches away from that objective, because your unit blocks some wingtip or something and they aren't allowed to rotate to fit next to you. Pivoting during a charge from deep strike is a good example, but I don't believe the problem is as easy to fix as you implied. There will always be some weird edge case unit that gains or loses the flyer keyword, some stupid way to gain or lose inches or change line of sight. Models with big asymmetry (like a Devilfish with a low, narrow front and a high, wide rear) are able to do 180-degree rotations that they couldn't before, which could lead to games of line-of-sight tetris where you just need to get the model behind cover however it fits. This new rule functions well for players who are intending to follow its intention. But the quality of rules is based on how they handle players who ignore the spirit behind them and follow the letter of the law, trying to exploit them. I don't think this pivot ruleset works as well as the old rules when it's being used by people trying to gain an advantage.

[@andrewnewell1142]

So how does this affect bikes? As an example, Hernkyn Pioneers have an oval base but lack the VEHICLE tag. My interpretation is that it has a pivot value of 0, R.A.W. E: Ah, two versions of the rule. One that applies specifically to Vehicles/Monsters with a carve-out for circular bases, and another that targets models without a circular base

[@bigdaveyeo350]

yeah same so pioneers don't use the 2inch pivot, but our hekaton fortress would lose its 2inch to do a pivot cause no base

[@Haloister]

I feel like we could have just gone back to the pre 10th way to handle pivoting where it just didn't cost movement and you could pivot freely. In fact I'm gonna bring up at my FLGS just ignoring this contrived penalty to certain vehicles and models with oblong bases and just allow for free pivoting, because 40k has thoroughly proven you don't need to do this, and it's asinine at best.

[@itxi]

I was trying to convince a friend to play battletech but he refused because the core rules hadn't changed since it was released (which was incorrect anyway) I can only imagine how much he's enjoying 40k now

[@smokapopierdolio1157]

my scorpion heavy grav tank is verry happy with that change

[@redcorsair14]

How weird. We just put down a tape measure and moved the vehicle point to point on the tape measure. Is this a TTS thing?

[@McCowski]

This is a normal human being thing. This is how it was, and should be.

[@kudosbudo]

did not realise 40k vehicles riles were so over thought.

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

Both under and over thought.

[@Uri1991]

thanks trevy, that was very clarifying. Also, does this mean that if you pivot during pile in and consolodation, you can only move 1" with monsters and vehicles who are not in round bases?

[@Pookie2112]

had no problem with vehicles before. pivot seems kinda pointless

[@simm4290]

Thanks for making this make sense!

[@ImperialDiecast]

back in 6th edition we were complaining about how a core rulebook had only lasted for 2.5 years instead of the usual 4, when 7th came out. Now it seems everybody's rules get updated every few months for every season. lol

[@kevinbech6757]

I dont know if anyone has addressed this or asked this, but I have a question. If I would charge with a bike model. In the core rules, it says I have to base the targeting model if I can. Does that restrict you from using the ability to pivot? Example 1 (can't use it) Let's say it's a 9' charge, and I roll a 10. I have to slightly pivot it to make the model fit. Then it's a fail? Example 2 (Can use it regardless) Let's say it's a 9' charge. I roll 11. I choose to pivot to made movement 9 so I don't have to base. Legal? I hope you understand😅

[@DungeonGoatStudio]

One Page Rules welcomes you.

[@rictusnithor5602]

Per the core rules update, 1) pivot is 0 unless otherwise noted, and 2) only vehicles and mosters that are not flyers or on a round base have a pivot value of 2. It's odd that GW would introduce a new rules mechanic, only to have it conflicting with itself (but not surprising). No clue where it's printed in Pariah Nexus (haven't gotten a hold of it yet).

[@SaltheWriter]

In the tournament companion. It's a pdf seperate for how to run in tournaments.

[@illumin4t152]

the funny thing is the first update, all players allready just used it like that, since we are not stupid, a model like belacor could MOVE their fings in real. who sticks to rules like they were before? maybe someone who plays tournaments but even then -.-

[@vanillaicecream2385]

tournament players have a stick up the ass about these things

[@devotedtodestruction]

THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO

[@lonecolamarine]

Oh god is Facing about to come back?

[@mrwookie72]

Ive been playking 40k since 3rd edition..they need to Scrap 10th and reintroduce a re-worked 5-6th edition ruleset.. (9th and 10th rules dont make sense) .also we dont need datacards AND codexes... (this is just GW gouging us for cash..!) I would drop the codexes and core book as the app has all the rules ect in it.. And stop hiding the functionality of the app behind a paywall.. Ultimately GW are still operating on a decades old outdated business model.. which worked (until 3d printers became an easily affordable home item ) . If they dont urgently reevaluate how they operate going forward they run the extreme risk of the same fate as kodak, blockbuster video and many other (one time market leaders in their respective feilds) as they refused to adapt to modernity.

[@Lord_Aussem]

@@mrwookie72I completely agree. Horus Heresy is in a decent place right now, they could use it for 40K, and just streamline some of the rules and they’d have a fantastic game. There are still some things they could keep from the new editions though. Like AP being a modifier instead of the binary system. It’s crazy to me how units in 40K have e to have tons of wounds because multi damage weapons are so common. Turn it back to almost everything doing 1 damage , and things having less wounds / hull points. It’s way easier to track a vehicle having 4 hull points instead of 16 wounds.

[@mrwookie72]

@@Lord_Aussem yup i love the HH 2.0 rules. (I've slowly built up around 5,400pts of dark mechanicum) just wish there were more peeps local to me that play HH.

[@Errtuabyss]

​@@Lord_Aussem unfortunately the number of wounds is a direct consequence of AP as a modifier (at least on infantry). AP 5+ is Not the same as AP -1 since one is irrelevant for Marines, the other is having a huge Impact in the survivability of elite units. It's why Players where screaming for 2 wound marines (and 3 wound terminators), followed by more 2dmg weapons as it was in turn too strong without them. More multi-wound Models and multi-dmg weapons are the consequence of modified AP, so you can't have one without the other. In case of vehicles it's mostly about the chart being stupid (making stuff like cc dreads almost unplayable while it Sometimes was almost impossible to destroy a stupid rhino), causing people to demand wounds for vehicles instead of the all or nothing system. And since it took GW multiple editions to give them decent toughness they have them tons of wounds instead. Meaning anti-tank had to get a higher dmg-profile to be useful. The randomness of what happens to the vehicles is now the random dmg-value and the additional role for potential Explosion.. It's all a mess but Most is a direct result of what people demanded.

[@Lord_Aussem]

@@Errtuabyss That's an interesting point. If they did the binary "AP = the Save ignores it" system, and have less wounds to track, I'd probably prefer that. And having the dice rolls affect armour penetration. Such as breaching and rending. I'm really liking the look of Warhammer The Old World. They have modifiers, but they're very conservative about them, and having dice rolls improve the AP. But Fantasy also has less 2+ and 3+ saves.

[@HurtLoker]

They could fix all of those edge cases with oval bases by just saying pivoting is locked to the movement phase

[@jesperbecker6412]

This will be confusing regarding oval bases and pile in/consolidation moves. The tax of 2” means they will more or less not be able to use these kind of “moves” or are these not affected by the rules?

[@BrotherErekose]

Trev - I have a Scorpion II Grav tank ... the one that is 11.5 x 8.5". It comes with a round base. Heh, two inches two swing that long bow around? 😁 I'll shelve it in favor of MSU for a while, but these new rules do give it a longer lease on life with narrow laned uk/wtc/GW layouts. I like your explanation around <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="472">7:52</a>, "maneuverable, pseudo aircraft". Keep up the good work.

[@kris220b]

i cant help but think, the skitari rangers box, has one unit with an elongated base, and the rest are round

[@CocoHutzpah]

Hold on a minute. I've heard many times armour facings were removed because it was too confusing and contentious to decide which facing was showing within a 45 degree arc of the center of the vehicle. So now we use those same diagonal lines to determine the center of the vehicle? Is this a sign that GW is getting closer to giving up on reinventing the wheel?

[@benkai09]

I fell out of love with 40k this edition (firm believer that 8th was the best overall) but like to keep somewhat upto date. But dear lord. This last 2 weeks has reminded me why I stopped doing tournements a longtime ago

[@Fenris86]

Now I wonder what this means to my two Repulsors which I mounted on leftover oval bases because they came second hand without bases.

[@Eschatonin6666]

A good way to explain the pivot tax; you pay a 2" subscription fee for unlimited pivot access each turn

[@Templer776]

Unless you are on a hover base then you get to spin like a top for free and make your deep strike charge shorter.

[@adamwellman7865]

How I look at it, my landraider only has a 10" move now. Next thing you know, GW is going to put facings back on vehicles.

[@maximusest40kwarfare73]

whats the program you are using ?? thanks for the upload well put together as always.

[@hiddendragon6437]

Looks like Tabletop Simulator to me

[@TacticalTortoise]

tts40k.com

[@isawaryokage]

that pivoting on a charge after a deep strike just flat out doesn't work, you can only move during a charge if the roll makes it a sucessful charge, so if you don't roll a 9, you can't move so you can't pivot. People just can't read

[@Kitbash.Carnage]

😮 I'm used to this more as just back to the hobby after 15years away 😅

[@Arizona-kj4yp]

*Land's Raider <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="226">3:46</a>

[@mrwookie72]

Question is if you have primaris repulsor (floaty) tanks ..they have a round bases.. .whats the rule for them????

[@Saieden]

Well, considering those models do in fact have Fly, I think it would it be fitting that they can pivot for free, though they should clarify if that is the intention. Otherwise, if the model completely overhangs it's round base, it gets the -2".

[@meh1994able]

with the shorter charges from deep strike. wouldn't you still need to measure the charge to get the distance in this case. 9inches. then you roll and if you get the 9 then you can pivot/move? like it may give you more wiggle room in how far you move but you would still need to roll a 9 right?

[@superlaser6000]

Why did I ever try to get back into this game.......

[@McCowski]

Play for fun, play with friends. Ignore whatever is coming out of the black, greasy pit that is GW.

[@superlaser6000]

@@McCowski We just cant keep up with the rule changes and disentangle the necessary errata from the changes. Every few days I wonder what a 40k fan written game would look like with a D10 system rather than D6, and if I could ever take up that task.

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

@@superlaser6000 You don't need d10's to improve the game. Just better rules design.

[@DeathKorpsCommander-sm1um]

As a guard player with lots of vehicles I approve these rules. Measuring distance for vehicles turning was a pain in the butt. It was time consuming when you have 11 vehicles to move around dense terrain boards. I also hated when my vehicles were facing the enemy backwards due to pivots costing a lot of inches to completely turn around.

[@DarthMalaclypse]

of course you like it...its gives you the most advantage...everyone wants extra movement for free, thats why you like it lol

[@zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba0]

So if its a large model just add. UNSTABLE TERRAIN to its key words.

[@scotkov5356]

Why in the example released did the bloodthirster pivot to square up to the marines? monster facing matters ?

[@crapko1449]

CENTER MASS!! as past traumas unlock

[@elzordack4589]

Pívot toll for Chaos/imperial Knights?😮

[@SpaceMarine_]

The real question is how much money these changes will increase the cost of new armies.

[@FulcanMal]

As a newbie, I'm not sure I understand how this is any different for models with bases. This is literally what I've been doing in every game, and no one has corrected me on it. (Talking about the pivot part, not the moving models through stuff part)

[@LinkiePup]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="327">5:27</a> or... a Monolith?? :D It is on a 160mm base.

[@christianmorson3945]

Well done GW, you've nerfed us Scars even more by making the only unit of bikes we have left potentially slower.

[@owenh3459]

In the flesh hounds charge example. Isn't the measurement made before the move?

[@HereticNinjetik]

I think if you needed a 6" charge to get in and you rolled a 6, then you couldn't pivot to gain more base contact, but if you rolled 8 or higher you could use the extra 2" to pivot your bases.

[@Magnumsonly]

The math is super simple you originally would have had to pay for the circumference distance you would spin. For the smallest oval base i can think of you would need to turn more than 34 degrees to use 2 inches for the 120mm oval you would need to turn 24 degrees. So you will almost always gain movement with this change. Not to mention the time it will save.

[@magicalawnmower4764]

tbh I was against the 2" for bikers when you mentioned it (my dumbass didnt check that on the Pariah companion) but then those DS charge cheeses were enough to sway me lmao

[@lilv3966]

Is the only difference to this update and a new edition is a lack of space marines boxed with another faction?

[@RMCbreezy]

My tin foil hat take is that the difference between editions might be less pronounced and mainly centered around model releases/lore updates. The faqs, errata and updates will be frequent

[@MadDoodles]

@@RMCbreezyThat sounds like a living document system, with GW giving it extra steps. I don’t think that’s too tin foil hat-y

[@RMCbreezy]

@@MadDoodles purely put the disclaimer so i wouldnt get burnt at the stake by a neckbeard

[@whatigottaroll]

GW loves fucking up the rules so they can sell a revised edition every few years.

[@hermes667]

I played 40k 8th edition and stopped when the 9th arrived. I still look videos like this on 40k. I am also used to other tabletops so I can compare. I never seen a good movement rule in 40k. They are all either too simple or need to much explanation or errata to be done right. First of all: Why on earth thread models a different way which have a round base, just because the base is clear and the model is flying? Or why not thread a oval base the way a round base is done? It is not easy to measure from the hull of an eldar tank which is two inch in the air and place the model exactly. Why haven´t the calculated the overhang over its 60 mm base in the movement, giving the tank around 2 or 3" inch more but measure from the base? Measure all models on bases from their base and allow them to move any direction with curves or whatever, no need for pivots. For baseless models which are mostly tanks: measure from the hull, give them directions like front sides and back. They need to make turns and give them maybe some free pivots based on their speed of movement. In Bolt Action tanks have direction. They could make a "run" at full speed, with turns or an advance with a turn. The rules are quite more advanced: based on tacked, halftrack or wheels they are faster or slower, could go over difficult terrain or not and make more or less turns. Also all ground vehicles in bolt action double their speed on roads. Vehicles could also be hit in sides, top or back where armor is less thick than the frontal armor. In 40k 8th edition it does not make sense to outmaneuver a tank to hit him from a weak side, because all sides are the same. In bolt action it makes sense. This gives the game quite more tactical deepness. Or take the artillery rules from Bolt Action: base it whatever you want, place crew on the base the way you like. It has a frontal direction which is indicated by the barrel with 45 degrees left and right. I it wants to shoot at a target outside that direction, it needs to pivot on the spot (or a special rule) which can be done with an "advance" order. Then it gets a malus of -1 for shooting. It may also move without shooting in any direction and end the movement with a direction it likes. If shoot at artillery its breach is the mesure point, assuming the crew is 1" around the breach. Artillery shoots less effective if only manned by the last gunner and some rule additions allow that artillery loosing all its crew stays on the battlefield an could be used by infantry.

[@badboibubby1878]

What an absolute garbage company. Ppl are suckers for paying for any of this.

[@joevespaziani]

Sounds like Warmachine

[@chaosfreak83]

Not quite, warmachine never made the critical mistake of oval bases, and models without bases.

[@dantran3628]

I think the movement video may have motivated GW to do this, haha, I had players who used to care less about pivot, be very keen on vehicle pivots suddenly.

[@acrpprca6951]

I think you're right TBH

[@acrpprca6951]

Haha thanks for the shoutout!

[@MadDoodles]

Please tell me that’s not you at 0:35…

[@acrpprca6951]

@@MadDoodles Lol yep. Taken slightly out of context as it was a comment about this channel altogether and not the movement rule specifically. Given I had never heard anyone discuss how to measure movement with pivots since the days of hull facings (and can very specifically recall having pretty serious players handwave it after that rule was removed), only to have that video very conspicuously come out and then be addressed in a rules update within a manner of weeks, I'm tempted to leave the tinfoil hat on and say I've been proven right.

[@mortenbrandtjensen6470]

It's the rise of the Toxicrene!

[@phillipbritton3836]

Thunder wolves aren't a monster or vehicle but are on oblong oval bases. I wonder if we're going to have to pivot

[@Templer776]

The Tournment Rule pack makes all non round bases (ovals square ect) are subject to piviot so ya if you play at a GW event.

[@MountainKing88771]

What? No, thunderwolf cavalry are on 60mm round bases. I have no idea where you got oval bases from.

[@Templer776]

@@MountainKing88771 If he bought them second hand they might have been someones outrider Proxies

[@phillipbritton3836]

@@MountainKing88771 eBay for mine. Guess I'm going shopping!

[@theroguegeneralhunter2206]

Movement rules and vehicle movement rules in particular have been an issue in 40K since Rogue Trader. GW will never fix it. There is no money in a solid no issue game system.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

Will this effect consolidate and pile ins?

[@Templer776]

It sems so as it it when a unit "Moves" and consolidation and Pile in is a "Move"

[@Ng-zg4dq]

@@Templer776 interesting change for vehicles and oval base monsters

[@Badbufon]

perfect, now make a video about having less dice rolls to see if they change the rules again.

[@gealgain2420]

i'm happy with the new rules, I had an opponent at an RTT last month get real anal about my movement, called a TO over and though the path that I wanted to move wasn't good, I could wind up in the exact same place using another path (thank you fly)

[@sjhhej]

How can a set of wargame rules make a mess of something as simple as moving models about?!? What are GW rules designers doing over there? We literally have been writing wargames rules for 200 years. The basics should not be difficult.

[@acrpprca6951]

This is what happens when you pay your staff so poorly that you can't hold on to the same designers for more than 5 years.

[@Tharosthegreat]

The new movement mechanic is pretty strange.. Because we dont have "facing" i mean why would i pivot for a charge? (unless not fitting the base ofc)

[@DarthMalaclypse]

because pivoting gives you extra movement for charges and LOS for shooting...its broken

[@raze667]

What a great idea for a video :D <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="115">1:55</a> HOLY SHIT. This map brings back memories. I for one look forward to setting my DDAs up on the line, and pivoting for free to get like 4 additional inches of movement.

[@MikeScarbro]

I really like this solution. It removes a lot of the contention from the movement rules and provides a baseline that's easy to understand. I think once folks have some reps under their belt they'll start adding different pivot values to help shore up some of the edge cases. Hopefully they also take the charge distance implications seriously since it won't be fun giving certain vehicles a 7 or 8 inch charge out of deep strike.

[@asukamagnis3148]

After deepstriking you cant move I thought so how would someone rotate to get an advantage?

[@DarthMalaclypse]

@@asukamagnis3148 its free so its not technically moving at all...its a trash rule

[@iambryansimpson]

Since when are fleshounds vehicles?

[@acrpprca6951]

According to the mission pack ALL oval bases have the 2" pivot tax.

[@huntercoleherr]

I'm done buying core rulebooks for 40k. The rules change so often and so drastically that the core books are completely inaccurate.

[@DeathInTheSnow]

Love that the Venomcrawler can whizz around unhindered, while the Warpsmith is going to have to move _even more slowly than before._ Thanks, GW. Oh, who am I kidding? I'm not using either after those horrendous points updates.

[@paul80085]

A warpsmith would have a pivot of 0" because he isn't a monster. So np

[@SaltyDutchman]

@@paul80085 That's using the core rules wording not the tournament wording. If playing at a tournament the warpsmith would have the pivot tax

[@acrpprca6951]

@@SaltyDutchman What? Warpsmiths are on round bases.

[@SaltyDutchman]

@@acrpprca6951 Warpsmiths are on a 60mm x 35.5mm Oval Base

[@matthewrumsey356]

So does this affect consolidation moves also? 🤷🏼.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Yes

[@matthewrumsey356]

@@TacticalTortoise it’ll be funny to watch Ork biker players try to consolidate with that in mind.

[@BB-pn2qv]

Whelp there goes the big waste of paper

[@000NULL]

They should have factored in large base pivoting on the MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTIC. Could have made it simple, but no.

[@sirderik]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="98">1:38</a> and already we are seeing GW being retareds.... every other model company have like "base decide model official size" rules or "size is N" instead of like cavemen still use the model sculpt as a mechanical piece...this ain't the worse but its like, it took them 3 edtions to make it "you have to be able to like fit the model where it is, please don't push terrain around or break your knight." <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="262">4:22</a> remember when we used to have rules for this....and armour facing, and actually have rules fitting vics in general.... instead of improving those we have to drag parts of them back 4-5 edtions later. GW make shit simple until it ain't. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="334">5:34</a> ah 2" for everyone will obviously never be weirdly restrive for slower vics <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="400">6:40</a> ohhhh we are in 4th edition all over again, gloryus badly made rules showcases for simple things. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="500">8:20</a> if only there was some simple way to word this all, like a keyword or a subtype, we can only hope that the technology for that will one day be invented " looking at a old world rule book and the stat block of any 10th ed model"

[@JachymorDota]

10 editions in and they are still struggling with moving and targeting rules.

[@greenthousands]

By a 10th edition it should be perfect.

[@yurisei6732]

Which is to be expected, because they're actively trying to expand the playerbase through streamlining while also not too significantly changing the identity of the game and having to contend with the fact that war games will always have a certain degree of clunk.

[@adamwellman7865]

Can we all agree that GW didn't play test this edition at all?

[@In_Purple_Clad]

Agreed. We are the playtesters.

[@McCowski]

They don't even care about the rules. They care about money. And sadly, many people are actually addicted to buying their products.

[@ronantheronin3521]

Yvraine got such a huge nerf. Yeah, no I will not follow the pivot rules this is a stupid rule.

[@thetimebinder]

That's the neat part. They don't.

[@mikejohnson3293]

Ah good old 3rd Ed rules return - best edition ever

[@ImperialDiecast]

5th was basically 3rd with run moves and more fleshed out armies.

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

I've given up on 40k due to the constant rules updates. Every time I turn around, the game has changed extensively. Catering to tournament play is ruining the game.

[@Whitt23]

I think they should clear up that there is a difference between a base and a flight stand. That would resolve the hover vehicle confusion.

[@HardCoil]

Just bring TRR back already :D

[@DarthMalaclypse]

GW made up a problem and then gave us a solution that made the problem worse...pivoting needs to be removed, its broken, and gives out A LOT of extra movement...this change wasnt needed...it makes you wonder, do GW employees actually PLAY Warhammer?

[@CharlesRichelieu-hv7sn]

GW is rearranging the deck chairs on their sinking ship.

[@McCowski]

An apt description.

[@588holly]

If winged characters could in reality FOLD THEIR FRIGGIN WINGS.... why cant they walk through an alley? Dumb.

[@hermes667]

Oh just ask GW to go for a "WINGED" keyword which could allow them to fold their wings when not use the "FLY" keyword.XD