Why 40k's New Movement Rules are BROKEN... And How To Fix Them

#Warhammer40k
More TacticalTortoise: linktr.ee/tacticaltortoise
Check out these rules for yourself: www.warhammer-community.com/w...
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:26 The Changes
02:42 The Problems
08:35 The thing they probably meant but forgot to write down
10:20 The Solution
16:24 Outro

[@bremsklotz7740]

Isn't it so, when you are triying to charge, that you only allowed to move after a successful charge role? So you cannot pivot to shorten your charge distance before you roll for charging.

[@mikhailivanov9570]

Show me the wording of successful charge, it was a thing in older editions

[@bremsklotz7740]

@@mikhailivanov9570 Page 29 of the Core Rules: "If the charge is successful, each model makes a Charge move less than or equal to the Charge roll, and must move into base-to-base contact with an enemy model if possible."

[@Onkel_Ranger]

@bremsklotz7740 This is exactly what I am thinking all the time! I just dont get it

[@phoenixpills]

@@Onkel_Ranger A lot of the community just tries to break rules and then basically play that way and go around telling everyone else thats how it works and create a problem out of something that is already solved. The Overwatch Critting on 5+'s thing is completely nonsensical and the rules make no question of whether its intended or not.

[@steave435]

@@bremsklotz7740 "For a Charge move to be possible, the Charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move: ■ Within Engagement Range of every unit that you selected as a target of the charge. ■ Without moving within Engagement Range of any enemy units that were not a target of the charge. ■ In Unit Coherency. If any of these conditions cannot be met, the charge fails and no models in the charging unit move this phase. Otherwise, the charge is successful" The charge roll is how far you can move. By pivoting for free during the charge, you need a lower roll to be able to move into engagement range.

[@Trueflights]

2nd edition had the solution to this rule. Vehicles had a 45 degree template to rotate them and they could make as many turns as they wanted at slow speed, 3 turns at normal speed, 2 turns at combat speed, and 1 turn at fast speed. It wouldn't be too hard to bring back a version of that as it worked really well at the time.

[@meanestgreen3320]

Introduce the keyword "maneuverable". Units with this keyword don't pay the 2 inches. Leave it on anything else that needs it to keep them balanced

[@about99ninjas56]

This was always depicted by.... you know.... giving faster units more movement..... not making things more complicated

[@FulcanMal]

Either or both of these is a much better solution than what is in the video.

[@ChazCharlie1]

It has to be related to base shape rather than unit name. There may be some models with the same name but different versions with different base shapes. This rule is important about oval bases, it must affect all of them

[@tacosamurai1]

I mean the charge argument is only related to sweaty tournament players. I know that demographic is the focus of this channel, but basically anyone I play with and even those at my FLG would just understand that if you deep strike it just means you need to roll a 9 to make the charge. Anyone who tries to game this is just an asshole.

[@nathanstruble2177]

They also already addressed this, you can't gain movement by pivoting, it's in the update that created the Pivot rule

[@Archaneus]

@@nathanstruble2177 Ah, no. Did you read it? they said the opposite. They basically officially endorsed the pivot from deep strike making charges shorter.

[@SumsieBun]

Hear hear

[@samuelsadgrove1705]

Couldn’t agree more 👌

[@RyukMenmoria]

I believe for charging it is meant to be you roll 2d6 and the value has to be the result pre-pivot is applied to make the charge

[@parko246]

What ever happened to just measuring the fucking distance and going that far?

[@McCowski]

Exactly

[@toferkrz946]

It died when both the community and the game designers started insisting 40k should be a perfectly balanced tournament e-sport.

[@balemoran3168]

far to simple GW needed 3 more pages of rules so they can break it properly.

[@parko246]

They will do their best to kill their game via rules changes. Then they'll kill it via lore changes too.

[@lekoro1]

what I don't get 8th 9th and 10th were supposed to be a simplification of the rules to make things "more accessible" for "a wider audience" (both in my opinion are terrible ideas because the wider audience usually never exists or precludes the existing audience) yet it seems 10th is more complicated than horus heresy that is itself based on 7th edition including the massive rulebook you could kill a man with

[@gamer_geek_jason]

I thought the rule was all models have a pivot value of 0" except for Monsters and Vehicles unless they are on a round base. Outriders, Logan are all Mounted and don't have the Vehicle or Monster keyword... 🤔

[@hypersloth8139]

i think it would be healthier long term for them to just give every model a pivot value on their data sheet instead of trying to write out a hyper specific rule in order to assign pivot values across a handful of particular models. It would take more time and work, as well as make any currently printed datasheet cards obsolete to some degree, but ultimately the majority of units will simply gain a 0" or 2" pivot value with a handful being able to get a 1" pivot value where it makes sense to.

[@SumsieBun]

I’m sorry, if my opponent turns his model and then goes “nah uh it’s in the rules” Imma just pick up my models. You’re just cheating, you’re not clever, you’re exploiting loopholes and I’m not gonna play with you because if you’ll do that here, you’ll do it anywhere you can. The new movement rule is fine.

[@47slogra]

Exactly this, it's the same as going into an esports tournament and start using bugs. It should be the same punishment, not counting or getting banned, it is basic sportsmanship and integrity

[@CornerGuy]

Its probably not going to happen, but it would be really nice if all models in the game (tanks included) had an appropriately sized base. Giving the Raider a 105x70 base, or the Land Raider a 160mm base would go a long way to fixing a lot of the gameyness of measuring from the hull. It would also be a step towards measuring to and from a base as opposed to any part of the model, limiting modeling for advantage.

[@travishayton1183]

One has to be a real prick to try and game this movement. Rules simply should say. Charging from Reserves must equal 9 on the charge roll to be successful.

[@palwinderdhillon8242]

“If you want to win so bad I will concede. The rules don’t say I can’t concede” always makes them rage so hard 😂

[@BK-js5mt]

Are there not some rules that let you set up reserves closer than 9" tho? They would be 3 inches away or something and need a 9

[@primarchvulkan5097]

​@@BK-js5mtthere are...

[@BK-js5mt]

@@primarchvulkan5097 yeah, so adding a rule that there has to be a 9 to charge from reserves would interfere with them

[@Onkel_Ranger]

@BK-js5mt But they always come with the trade-off of no charges allowed.

[@FnRenner]

My confusion comes from turrets. If the direction a tanks guns face doesn't matter, why does the pivot matter?

[@TacticalTortoise]

It matters for fitting the model through space/around terrain etc. gun turrets actually can be useful for getting LOS around stuff tbf

[@cmagee79]

"You may not pivot at the beginning of a Charge move".

[@florianpal9633]

So I move 0.1 inch and then pivot? That doesnt resolve it

[@fatewalker]

​@florianpal9633 you have to successfully roll a 9" to be able to move. The pivot dosen't matter if you fail the charge roll.

[@MiyusRibbons]

@@florianpal9633 you aren't allowed to move your model during the charge phase, pivot is part of movement thus why its in the movement phase of the rules. Using Trevy's logic you could also pivot something on an oval base because you are in the charge phase so movement and movement cost doesn't matter anymore, this is straight up breaking the rules as written. It doesn't need to be fixed, people just need to read the rules.

[@HenryFitsroy]

​@MiyusRibbons I'm thrilled to hear that my guard gun line is now unchangeable as no charge move occurs anymore. Sarcasm aside charge moves are moves. The current charge phase does not say anything about your dice roller having to be equal to distance. It says must be enough to bring a model into engagement. As the pivot is in core concepts movement not limited to the movement phase as some rules are a pivot can be made at any stage during the charge or any other move for that matter. The so what of those 2 things is while this is almost certainly not what a designer had in mind it's definitely how that works. Turn your model with a round base for 0" of movement and then move the remainder. Or say move around a building.

[@laszlopolyak4353]

Yes, But I still can pivot for free at the end of my normal move, to gain on the charge, or on my shooting range, which still shouldn't be right.

[@garrettmorgan4430]

why isn't the rule. "No part of the model may move farther than the total movement" so you can measure from the side of a vehicle and if you want to rotate the model to fit a tight space ect, you can "pivot" the model so long as no point of the model is moved farter then the model would have been allowed to move. basically any pivoting pushes the model back whatever variable distance the size of the model would have added.

[@droid-droidsson]

that used to be the rule in 9th edition, but now they wanted curved movement to no longer be a thing, so they "simplified" it by saying that a model's movement has to be a series of straight-line moves and pivots. suddenly pivots on large models would drain their movement massively, since they can no longer combine the move costs of rotation and straight-line movement into one move, adding sometimes a couple inches to a previously possible move around a corner.

[@EmilyAllen-eo6xc]

why not just "No part of the model can end a move further from where it began that the model's move value." Surely that's sufficient?

[@sliderkyon2145]

I've seen you do the bubble measurement on TTS a few times, but how do you do it? would be hella useful in my games

[@TacticalTortoise]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horJonqLlrebfJIsi=YKeHzdAb4zDQOc5t&t=258

[@kirkcarson3433]

Question for people? When does the pivot happen when you measure the distance or when you move? I ask cause charge sequence is measure distance, then roll to see if you can make that distance, then move the model. If pivot happens when you move then pivot won't give you extra during the charge cause you don't even get to move the model. So if the model is set up 9" away then you would need to roll a 9 on the dice but only need to use 6" with thr raider due to pivot. If I am wrong please let me know why with the current sequence of charge phase. Thank you.

[@Echion]

It's a weird nuance that never came up before now, but the sequence as written is technically "roll, attempt the move, put the model back if it can't make it"

[@ThatSupportTho]

question? what allows your model to rotate outside the movement faze. 0 and free dose not mean you can do it out side of movement faze. and if u are in charge faze doint you need to make the roll first be for movement / rotation?

[@MrDUCKMAN5555]

The whole charge thing could be fix just by fixing the order of events. measure from were the model is -> roll, if the number you roll doesn't = measure you don't move.

[@47slogra]

That is how it works, that is how it has always worked. Problem is that a lot of Warhammer players are tryhards that try to abuse rules, that is why GW sometimes have to clarify things that were evident how they work with logic but teyharda were doing it different to win more

[@marauder340]

It could do with a new clause or FAQ to account for this new factor. "When a unit is selected to do a Charge action, measure only from it's position when the Charge was declared for determining the result needed on the Charge roll." It does away with disputing trying to pivot before measurement to game the distance and a model doesn't move unless the roll succeeds anyway. It'd also discourage the gamey sideways placement shenanigans. What really trips the pivot mechanic up, though, is being only half-baked without vehicle facing rules.

[@dainepalinkas5787]

" counts as completed. A normal move" is the end of deploying a unit by deep strike? So saying that you can pivot thereafter is a fallacy.

[@steave435]

You can pivot during the charge move.

[@dainepalinkas5787]

@@steave435 you measure before moving those models so the minimum charge distance you need roll does not change.

[@steave435]

@@dainepalinkas5787 No, you don't. The requirement for a successful charge is that the movement rolled is enough to get you into engagement range. By pivoting during the movement, you can do so.

[@dainepalinkas5787]

@@steave435 *You do not move the models to determine if a roll is successful. You measure and if the roll was unsuccessful no models move. RAW in the core rules. Nothing changed the rule for measuring the distance to engagement range to: *A successful charge roll is measured by charge distance minus pivot length to reach engagement range' Or *When measuring the distance to engagement range during a charge roll remember your model can pivot. Poor writing choices on the pivot rule have enabled toxic interpretations. No sensible TO will rule against RAW for measuring distance to engagement range. Most established circuits&events encourage players to measure and agree on required distance for a successful charge before rolling the dice and hey (Anyone who chooses to) if you think your argument "well if I pivot" will hold up when determining your charge distance or you want to be THAT GUY at a LGS who gets 3' charges for a winged hive tyrant then good luck and good day to you.

[@steave435]

@@dainepalinkas5787 no, indeed, the rule did not change. It's still "the movement you need to make it". The rule for movement did though. RAW working as the video says is simply fact. Ruling otherwise may be good, but it is a house rule.

[@envirobloomtv7363]

What if like daemons you get a +1 to charge. You would have to add *before any modifiers* in the bracketed section

[@ExecratedPlaysGaming]

It makes sense that "floating" models have better maneuvering than standard ground units.

[@kraye0789]

Its so weird that mounted models on bikes/horses which are supposed to be them maneuverable troops and this rule makes them incredibly maneuverable lol

[@ska3041]

How about when coming in out of reserves a charge roll must 9 inches

[@irakhlin]

Do the new rules supersede the part of the rules that state no part of a model can move more than it's movement characteristic? I thought both rules applied.

[@dalemallon2924]

Could we not potentially fix the pivot-charge thing by either making it so you cannot pivot on the charge, or give everything that measures from the hull the pivot tax, regardless of what shape base it's on.

[@Spacefrisian]

Just wondering, how does this apply to Bikes that are still on Square bases, those they came with so many years ago.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Most playgroups (and events) ask that you rebase minis on the base size included in their most recent packaging (it usually gets listed on warhammer.com), or at least play like they are. So the rules don't have special exemptions for square bases.

[@SteveB182]

I don't understand the charge issue. If you have come out of reserves then the movement phase has ended, so the model can't pivot, as they would be considered movement, it could pivot after rolling a successful charge but the charge roll would still be 9"

[@balemoran3168]

"charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move with in engagement range of every unit that you selected as a target of the charge" its end the move and pivot is part of that move.

[@SteveB182]

@@balemoran3168 I'm gonna need a clearer explanation to get on board with this idea. How is the charge distance needed from the roll getting affected? We can't move models before we measure the distance of a charge, so if a model is just over 9" away then the player must roll a 9 or the charge fails, being able to pivot the model is irrelevant.

[@laszlopolyak4353]

Yes, you still need a 9 to have a successfull charge roll, and start moving the model, but that also means that you can move the model in the charge move up to 9". In that 9" move you can pivot it for free, to get 2-3" of extra movement, and sometimes that actually does make a difference, as you can charge around the models, getting closer to something else, getting onto an objective, or whatever.

[@balemoran3168]

@@SteveB182 The check is at the end of the charge move, Not when you roll the dice. I'm O inch away and roll a 7 I can move forward 7 inches pivot and gain 2 inches ending my move in engagement range. As I am able to end my charge move in the engagement range is a valid charge.

[@WraithRaider]

You can never charge infiltrators, you reserve more than 12" away and you cannot charge more than 12".... Just give all vehicles a 2" pivot, fixes most of the issues.

[@enoontnatropmi7174]

i got 9 bikes, in my ravenwing detechment? how the heck is this going to work. any slight turn costs 2" that's crazy...

[@stewbenson]

Think I've missed a rule somewhere, can someone point me towards where it lets you pivot in the charge phase?

[@kevinishki]

I don't understand how people think they can pivot before measuring the charge distance. You have to set up outside of 9 and if the charge roll isn't enough there's no movement. The maximum movement stays the same too. A flying base model can't move 14 then pivot to get extra movement. It should be obvious that you cant exceed your maximum movement with a pivot

[@Souldestroyer22]

Add a pivot value to datasheet of models, 0" unless stated otherwise. With pivot value being the max distance one could gain from a pivot. They pay it the first time they pivot.

[@BTTFF]

I play conquest and they handle charge very interestingly. You measure how far away the target is, and it's how much you need to roll on your charge. Even if you end up needing more then that to close in physically.

[@gealgain2420]

i'd say that any movement in the charge phase keeps the same orientation for the entire movement. seeing as facings aren't a thing anymore

[@Moldveien]

But does these apply to Tigerius and his defence against dev wounds?

[@meanmachine6328]

So the round base rule will punish bloodthirsters or see arguments for them since they are the only greater daemon with a overall base

[@Kurgish]

I like the new movement rules, but I also feel they could be tighter and I pretty much agree with your suggestions. I think you still need to reflect bonuses to charge from reserves. So you need a line saying those still apply. Pivot value of 2 for bikers is nuts and hurts them a lot. Outriders are terrible even without this change and they really need value of 1 max.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Bonuses are added to the charge roll; so a natural 7 on 2d6 with a +2 bonus (total of 9) would still succeed if you were placed 9" away for example.

[@TWMist]

11:14 that rule can misinterpreted. let's say a unit deep strikes, and has to be more than 9" away, but the player sets up a 20" your rules says that they can successfully change with a 9 or greater on the dice. two i don't think this is an issue as you cannot move the model before rolling the dice for a change. so if you measure the distance at 9" and roll an 8 or less the charge has failed, you can only move a model if you successfully roll the required distance. if you do get the 9" charge move yes you could gain a couple of inches with the model example you provided, but it doesn't really matter as there is only one model in the unit. i'm not aware of any units that contain models on that scale with round bases where they may gain an advantage to get more units into base contact.

[@Luzarioth]

how about this: You have to roll a charge, at least high enough than the first, unmodified measurement. So if your Model stands sideways and needs a 9" charge, you need to roll 9+, even if you could pivot your model and charge with 6".

[@robertmitchell3495]

Outriders dont have the vehicle or monster keyword so are they not excluded from the 2'' pivot rule

[@curvycommissar7419]

Dont you have to roll a successful charge before moving.... if my opponent rotates his model beofre rolling a charge isnt that like.... not legal?

[@TacticalTortoise]

A successful charge roll is not just the distance between the models - it's successful if a movement of up to the distance rolled would get into engagement. So a movement beginning with a pivot could be easier than one just taken in a straight line (if the pivot is free).

[@triforce005]

Don't you have to succeed on the charge roll before you make a move? At least that's what the app shows, meaning the pivot wouldn't matter bc you'd have to roll a 9 to be able to move at all for a standard unit arriving from reserve

[@Sairresh]

I'm not sure if this is a real problem I understand the rule for charging as u measure before rolling and if u can't reach with the original number u can't pivot because u can't start moving without succeeding on the charge, the stuff with pivoting bikes that a bit clunky and uve got good points there

[@moogaming5305]

I think many people in this comment section do make a fair point, the idea of 'deep striking' isn't a complicated issue since when a unit finishes 'deep striking' "Reserves units always count as having made a Normal move in the turn they are set up on the battlefield, and so cannot move further during this phase." This then shows the fact that pivoting, even when the value is 0, still counts as moving, as it counts as a movement. (This could be clarified specifically to confirm this fully) The only thing that needs to change is the charging rule to state, you must roll the distance between the closest model in the unit to the target unit and the target unit (round down), in addition to the other conditions for a successful charge. This means that rotating of any kind doesn't effect the minimum roll you need to succeed the charge as the measurement is made before movement is allowed. (Which then allows the small amount of out-of-phase movements like Blood Surge to still work as intended without giving any extra special exceptions to bloat up the rules or reduce their effectiveness). I agree with the idea of vehicles that use hull based measurements do not count as "Round-Based" as that makes sense.

[@garrettfamilyaquatics6704]

I went to a GT this weekend, and the TO emailed the GW dev team and they confirmed that a "pivot and charge" for less than 9"out of deepstrike IS LEGAL, and they are "trying it out". I saw the email.....

[@MrHoneuma]

Which GT so they can be potentially contacted for confirmation?

[@Mat_O.]

Just go back to “the model measures from the point that travels the longest”. That was such an elegant rule. Pivoting is stupid.

[@laszlopolyak4353]

This dumb pivot rule is bleeding from many wounds. Just a few came in my mind: 1. However it doesn't make a difference regarding of the successfull charge, as you measure, roll, then if the rolled amount is enough, you can do the charge, and start moving the models. BUT, during the moving of the model in the charge, you can pivot, and get some extra inches, which makes a difference a lot of the times. Like getting around the enemy unit, and get behind them. Or getting onto an objective while still doing the successful charge. 2. It's dumb even in the regular move phase. Nothing is against moving anything SIDEWAYS to it's hull. Let's get a drukhari ship, or an impulsor for eg. Let's move it up to it's full movement (whatever it is) sideways, and then pivot 90deg at the end of the movement. Now the closest point of the hull is closer 2-3" to the enemy model, having shorter range for shooting, shorter range of charge, whatever. It is ridiculous. 3. Also in Fall back move. I fall back in a straight line perpendicular to the model's longer axis, then pivot 90deg away for free, to get 2-3" more far from your enemy close combat unit. Still sounds like a cheat. If they wan't to keep this dumb pivot-sht (which they absolutely shouldn't, because it's a dumb sht), they should at least add a general rule that not any part of any unit can get more far away in any kind of movement higher than it's max move value, regardless of any other rule (like pivot, or whatever). Anyhow, I'm playing 40k more than 20 years now, and neither me nor my oppenents never ever had have any friggin issues with measuring with a bendy tape-measure around a corner, or whatever like that, until we measured the turning around the corner from the inner side of the vehicle, just as anyone would do it with a bit of brain.

[@David-ku5fy]

why would the raider get an oppertunity to pivot? if the charge roll is taken BEFORE the move. ??? if you rolled a 6 why would you get to piviot first and then use the 6?

[@aekiel5990]

It's because you don't technically measure up and then roll the dice to see if you match that value. You roll the dice and then see if you can get into engagement range.

[@David-ku5fy]

@@aekiel5990 so why would you get to move the tank when measuring? you measure not move then measure.

[@aekiel5990]

@@David-ku5fy Have a read through of the charge rules again. Everyone plays it as measure first, then roll to meet it because it's easier, but that's not actually how they're written. By the rules, you declare charge targets, check if you're within 12", roll the dice, then see if you can get into engagement range with the movement you have from the dice roll + modifiers. With the new pivot rules there's nothing stopping you from pivoting during your charge move, so units like Raiders can exploit that to huge effect.

[@BenjaminHolbrook-tz6pw]

Call me crazy but i thought pivoting was part of the movement phase. How are you moving a model prior to a charge in the charge phase?

[@simonplumaj5542]

This is a great question. The reddit circlejerk has failed to recognize it.

[@balemoran3168]

"charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move with in engagement range of every unit that you selected as a target of the charge" its end the move and pivot is part of that move.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

​@@balemoran3168but the distance is measure at 9. Need to roll the 9. Can't take the pivot discount retroactively

[@balemoran3168]

@@Ng-zg4dq nothing in the rules states what you need to roll. Just that at the end of the charge move you must be within engagement range for it to be a valid charge.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

@@balemoran3168 and the distance that has to be travelled would be 9 inches out of deep strike

[@yurisei6732]

I wonder what a rule like "if the total angle pivoted in a move is less than 30 degrees, the pivot costs 0" would do? That would allow some small rotations for pile in or aesthetics and only give a fraction of an inch charge advantage.

[@droid-droidsson]

a fraction of an inch is all you need when you've positioned yourself 9.0000001 inches away from the closest enemy model

[@swaslaukinonome]

I think determining 30 degrees wd be gamed even more than an inch measurement, I don't want to need a protractor on top of everything else I got to haul, but I like the idea.

[@yurisei6732]

@@swaslaukinonome Yeah there's got to be a more elegant solution, but I think here we're running up against a conflict between what is needed at high level, competitive play, and what would hinder more flavour-oriented, casual play, so there's always going to be a degree to which the possibility of gaming the rules can't be avoided.

[@horst5558]

why can you pivot your modle before making a charge roll? you deepstrike 9" away, you roll your 9" you can move, and while moving pivot, why pivot while say you charge? i'm a casual player so i think i play like gw intedned, because i don't need a lawyer for every rule i use...

[@QuinnHoward]

you don't get a pivot move in a charge, you would have to roll an 11 to get a 9 inch charge if that was the case.

[@primarchvulkan5097]

Round bases pivot for free

[@converseroo101]

Would need some tweaking to the words added to account for reactive moves so you don’t need a 9 to charge a unit that reactively moved closer to you

[@gotdemthangs434]

What i dont get it how youre rotating for free, before you roll. Like if its 9 inch charge, how are people rotating and then moving?

[@TacticalTortoise]

A successful charge roll is not just the distance between the models - it's successful if a movement of up to the distance rolled would get into engagement. So a movement beginning with a pivot could be easier than one just taken in a straight line (if the pivot is free).

[@gotdemthangs434]

@@TacticalTortoise ahh

[@FrostbyteVA]

While this is cool for raiders, it really does make the tantalus playable. With out the count only the base, the model can't move on the table in 10th. That said, moving it up to a larger base size would be more than reasonable as there is no reason for a venom and a Tantalus to be on the same base.

[@timothydienaar]

"you may not rotate during the charge phase" is so much easier the movement phase is done you shouldn't be positioning your models again, if you wanna rotate after do it during consolidation

[@TacticalTortoise]

Eh I think that imposes too big a penalty on oval bases; they'd get stuck behind all sorts of models and terrain and stuff

[@timothydienaar]

@TacticalTortoise i feel like you should have to account for that during your movement phase. As a player you should be able to see where your model could get stuck and if it can, maybe charging isnt a good idea

[@furkasielzoeker]

I wouldn't be surprised if in 11th edition 'pivot x' is going to be a rule added to individual data sheets (similar to scout x) that way GW will be able to give different units different values, and will be able to give it to models with round bases such as raiders.

[@bobbob2564]

I thought you had to get base to base with at least 1 model in a unit to successfully charge, not within 1". Example: deep strike 9" away requires a 9" charge, Not an 8" to get into engagement.

[@SteveB182]

@@bobbob2564 A unit that is charging out of deep strike is more han 9 inches away, so to get within a inch they need to move at least 9 inches. For example, if a unit is 9.1" away and moves 8", then they would be 8.1" away.

[@TacticalTortoise]

No; you have to be able to get into engagement range for a charge to be successful, but you only *have to* base if you have the movement to do so.

[@bobbob2564]

@@TacticalTortoise 👍 ty for confirming

[@discourses3]

This is overcomplicated. Just make it so that the charge distance is measured at the beginning of the charge phase, and that is the distance that needs to be rolled. Then pivoting is irrelevant.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

The charge thing doesnt work. In order to pivot you must make a successful charge roll. Which is 9. Without the 9+ you cannot pivot. You dont do the pivot before you roll the charge.

[@TacticalTortoise]

A charge roll isn't 'the distance that you're away from the target' tho - it gives you a movement up to that distance to make your charge if you can end it in engagement range.

[@Ng-zg4dq]

@@TacticalTortoise can't pivot unless you can move. Can't move without the 9🤷‍♂️

[@legatusnavium7060]

You still have to roll the 9 before you can start pivoting and gaining those inches though.. Regardless of anything, the clear intent has always been 9" inches for cgarge after deep strike. Anything donr to avoid that without strats or abilities, ia cheating. I really don't see the problem.

[@alexs7670]

​@@Ng-zg4dq the issue isn't that the distance between charger and target has to be met, it is that the roll has to be hypothetically enough to get the charger in engagement range. A charge move is a regular move. At the beginning of a normal move you can pivot. So in the video's example a successful charge would be distance minus approximately 2 inches. That's not an opinion it is the rule as written. It is inelegant and clunky and it is GWs fault. Don't be mad at players for playing this way, be mad at Gamesworkshop. It is not your responsibility to fix their game for them or to "play as intended"

[@Ng-zg4dq]

@@alexs7670 to me its simple, the distance is 9, you must roll a nine. if you have free pivot to change your position along the way thats great, but that 9 inch distance much be rolled for first

[@Majere613]

The proposed change to Charging out of Reserve is exactly how I was thinking it should work. Effectively you just measure the charge as if the model wasn't allowed to pivot at all and take the required distance from that. I think in future (perhaps 11th Ed) if GW want to stick with the Pivot idea they should simply add a Pivot stat on the unit datasheets, which is assumed to be 0 if not specified, so bikes and cavalry might well have 1" whilst something like a Tantalus or Shadowsword might be 3" or more. I'd also personally prefer to require vehicles to always move straight forwards or backwards, with them pivoting on the spot to change direction so that we don't get weird situations like Land Raiders apparently side-stepping, which would make exactly how far a vehicle can move a bit clearer. (You could possibly except Walkers from this, but most Walkers are on round bases and would have Pivot 0 anyway so it doesn't really matter. I'll leave the question of whether a Knight suit can sidestep to more dedicated lore-hounds.) EDIT: Noticed the other comment to the same general effect below, so consider this a +1

[@adamrowell1588]

Rather than try to write categories, GW could go through each unit not on a circle base and assign a pivot value

[@TheMagicalPinata]

Just make it so they need to make the charge roll without being able to pivot? Then, if they can make it, they will be allowed to pivot.

[@LittleIAO]

I think we should just not allow a pivot as the last part of a move that alters how close it ends to an enemy unit. Once you've moved your full distance or you are setting up with a distance restriction, 9" or 12", you can't pivot on that spot. If you begin a move you should measure the distance to your end position before any pivots, if you make a pivot subtracting any penalty, and place the mode there in any legal orientation.

[@markorosz7571]

100% agree at minimum the pivot should be reduced down to 1” for small cav. Especially factoring in that this update basically allows additional move for round bases with their rotation. So it seems more of an ease of gameplay fix that buffs round bases but penalizes ovals. Those outriders when they rotate 90 dgrees gain 0.75” in either direction. So to break even on the 2” tax in the current system and not lose movement i need to rotate 3 tines. In the older style movement using the longest distance method i could rotate 90 degrees and still move the full 12” so long as the back of the model moved less than the 12” which was often. Going broadside to pointy. But i acknowledge that some people found measuring an issue so a 1” tax seems like it would leave most people happy. Slight penalty to 90% of the pivots and a chance to gain some at 2+. I also am more likely to pay the 1” tax to make my models positioned so that they look cooler and natural on thr battlefield.

[@TideUltra13-ex3xl]

Add a pivot value to datasheets. Just like the movement characteristic that was added in 8ed.

[@vitev009]

Adding the sniper to my AdMech squads adds an oval base. Now it must pay pivot?

[@TacticalTortoise]

yep :(

[@michealhamilton9125]

In the core rules it states you must satisfy all the conditions of a charge, specifically that the models charge roll must be sufficient to end its move within engagement range of its declared target. This must be satisfied before any movement is taken and since pivot is applied during the models move it would still have to roll its 9” charge roll, then move ( pivot and move ). RAW the charge roll is made before any movement has taken place. Or am I wrong? It seems to make sense to me lol

[@balemoran3168]

nah your grasping at straws for that one. "charge roll must be sufficient to enable the charging unit to end that move with in engagement range of every unit that you selected as a target of the charge" its end the move and pivot is part of that move.

[@47slogra]

​@balemoran3168 not really that is what a normal person would do, what you are saying is a rules lawyer tryhard way of doing things

[@BrianSmith-ek6he]

I'd like to see the pivot value added to datasheets, but that means waiting for a new edition.

[@Hector-do7gn]

and I always thought that you measure the gray first and then move, but according to what you say, you can move the model before charging, which is a huge over-interpretation, I think so

[@GallantLee]

Why not just define movement in the data cards since they’re digital. So straight movement / pivot movement. Then they can balance it regardless of base etc

[@GallantLee]

This also eliminates the issue with non-regular bases. Since GW never specified what bases models are actually supposed to be mounted on.

[@tradingjedi63]

If anyone tries to shorten their charge distance on me using pivoting in a tournament I will make sure they get a yellow card. That’s a bad faith move. Anyone who actively plays this game understands the intent of the rule AND the RAW in terms of making a charge move.

[@AlainPilon]

What about just adding a note on each unit datacard telling its pivot value? Obviously, AM and GSC players will get shafted by this as GW would probably assign a 6" pivot value to the baneblade

[@poolhustler0220]

why not...just give all models a new characteristic: "Pivot Value". I do like "you must roll a charge equal to your distance at time of rolling" style charge update but I think pivot could be expanded to a full characteristic (hopefully one that is never modifiable in any way) and just do a sweep of the game with the new stat

[@steave435]

Do you want to wait for months while GW goes trough every single model in the game and figures out what their individual pivot values should be?

@@steave435 If it stops all the arguments, yes.

[@poolhustler0220]

@@steave435 I wasn't suggesting an immediate fix. But the video discusses not using house rules and how GW needs to fix it...that was my suggestion for fixing it.

[@steave435]

A more general rule that doesn't require going trough every single unit in the game would also stop the arguments and could do so in a much shorter time. The "unless otherwise stated" by the default rules definitively already opens the door for that to happen long term, but we need something else in the meantime.

[@nurglematthew893]

Poor Raider. Targeted so hard as an example for rotate, hahah.

[@mikhailivanov9570]

The most strongest vehicle

[@dasheldog]

Because dark elder raiders are the problem in 40k Maybe they are trying to The make the flying rule worth a fuck again.

[@johngrammaticus861]

Your assomption ain't true I think. Because the model has a base, you have to measure from it and not from the model itself, regardless of it's a vehicule or not. So even if it rotates, it doesn't change anything. The base is still at 9.

[@cxsanchez28]

I just wish that 40k would have better rules, not just more words and "band-aids". The rules are written in such a way that create just more questions as 40k designers seem to not take the time to create a robust base of fundamentals considering all the different types of models the game has. I just played a Pariah game yesterday and the way the errata for "Cull the Horde" is written in such a way that can confuse anyone just because the model points rules are too open.

[@AlainPilon]

Funny enough, this is because GW wants 40k to be "accessible". If they wrote rules like complex games do (ex: Advanced Squad Leader), it would be much much simpler. ASL is the most complex game I know and the rules havent changed much in over 20 years.

[@cxsanchez28]

@@AlainPilon totally. Dealing with legacy and wanting to be "accessible" turns into weird writing and confusing rules.

[@WHPL4SH]

Give each vehicle a specific Pivot value for up to 90*. Issue fixed.

[@barryeverard1002]

So in a charge phase you allowed to move all your models around . Na you 9 inchs away you roll a nine then you pivot You can't just start moving models then roll for a charge. If you do move your models first and then roll your scum. And no one at the club will give you a game.

[@michaelmaddox2536]

Guys, wtf.. just say that the charge is a snapshot. Exactly how it works in shooting when you have multiple shots and you shoot your blast weapon last, you still get blast bonus.

[@austinschumacher9288]

The only major problem i have with the rule you want to implement for deep striking units is all the stuff that has pluses to charge. It would conpletely invalidate entire part of indexes, such as world eaters getting +1 charge. Not that theyre deep striking, but those bonuses shoukd still apply on a deep strike

[@oinked]

Or moving on from a table edge...

[@Majere613]

Not really, no, because that's a modifier to the roll. You need 9" to charge from Deep Strike, you have a modifier to that roll, you apply the modifier to the rolled amount so you effectively need 8". As with everything else in 40k you set the value first, then apply modifiers.

[@Newominus]

Bikes will just have to akira slide across the tabletop then

[@LordBelakor]

yeah that charge exmaple it totally broken and stupid

[@es4058]

Tyranid Toxicrine BASE is 9" away from an enemy unit. It rolls a10" charge which fails as RULES written it cannot get its BASE withing engagement range due to the stupid modeling design by GW. Intent is fine, but rules should be just that, not something that has to be adjusted over and over for every different situation.

[@TacticalTortoise]

IMO only the base should count when positioning a model; how it's posed, outstretched wings/swords etc. shouldn't impact its ability to stand in places that its base fits. 40k played like that for *years* with wobbly model but decided to get rid of it recently - could stand to return and would dramatically improve the game. But I don't write the rules 🥺

[@chromehunter2074]

If you deep strike and are 9" away...your charge is still 9" away. Movement only happens during Movement phase. You cannot pivot a model in a non movement phase. So, anyone moving their model like shown to gain a 3" advantage for a charge is cheating. That player still needs to roll a 9. The charge phase is not a second movement phase. Anyone trying to do this is just straight up cheating.

[@nurglematthew893]

Teach me

[@pst5345]

Why not just take the base a reference. The base determines everthing then. Cover yes no, visible yes no.

[@AlainPilon]

What about vehicules on tinny bases (like the eldar/drukari raider?). GW would need to go back over all the mini and standardize their bases and update box content. Not going to happen!

[@idonotlikethisonebit]

In regards to pile in's and consolidates. These are not considered part of the movement phase and therefore are not subject to the pivot rule. Pivot rules are only specified for the movement phase and movement phase rules (Movement Phase 1. Move units, Paragraphs 5 through 8) Pile in and consolidate are classified as a 'Pile in move' and 'Consolidate move' which are completely separate from the standard movement rules (Fight, 1. Pile in Paragraph 1 and 3. Consolidate Paragraph 1)

[@TacticalTortoise]

The section you quoted govern *all* movements, not just those in the Movement Phase (they apply "each time you move a unit"). Warhammer traditionally contains rules for general concepts inside the phase during which they normally happen (Battleshock can occur in many phases but the rules are contained in the Command Phase section for example). Not to mention that if the general movement rules didn't apply to charges all sorts of things would break down pretty hard - you could phase through and end inside enemy models in your target unit etc. xD

[@robouteguilliman6662]

Just remove the movement phase and movement characteristics altogether

[@TacticalTortoise]

#onlycharges

[@shlinn]

Why is this a problem? I like the new rules, I don't see the reason for your rules at all. And I play guard and knight, the amount of deepstrike+charge I do is not high.

[@TheTheloraxster]

The way you wrote the deepstrike charging thing turns off any bonuses to charge for units coming in from deepstrike (like Draigo's ability or any + to charge really). This is why writing rule for 40k is so tricky at this point; if you fix one thing you usually break something else because there are so many abilities and exceptions to rules.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Charge bonuses apply to the charge roll (Draigo literally says "add 3 to the Charge roll"); so a natural 6 on a charge roll using Draigo's ability would be a modified 9 and stuff successful.

[@David-so9ct]

People worry way too much about if their opponents are cheating....😂

[@johnchiotis4323]

Nice

[@adamwellman7865]

This is why I don't care for 40K anymore. GW needs to make up their minds if the game is abstract or absolute on models and terrain. That model is not always in that pose. That monsters' wings are not always up and out. That wall is not sold for a line of sight. They have flipped flopped on this so many times. Pick one.

[@danielpaoli1093]

What GW needs to do is clarify that vehicles can only move forward and back. I think it's so stupid that I can take a vehicle and move it side to side without having to pivot first

[@legatusnavium7060]

How is this even an issue? You have to end deep strike movement beyond 9" of opponent AND you cannot pivot before charge roll. How complicated is that? In my area this has not even been a discussion topic. Sounds like asshats creating problems out of thin air and overly nice people accommodating them.

[@simonplumaj5542]

I honest don't like the changes you've proposed. They add a certain bad type of complexity to the game, while (and you admit this) still ignoring edge cases like "movement before a charge" abilities. I'm not sure why you think you can just handwave the parts you don't want to deal with and then claim that this is how it should be for everyone. I also think the argument that two rules sets shouldn't exist because that makes it hard to transition into other 'communities' is valid. Tournament/competitive 40k is perhaps the worse way to play the game IMO, and asserting that all rules sets should be the same - when those rules increasingly favor tournament play - is a bad take. It leaves out the ~90% of players who enjoy the game without the autistic interpretations and attitudes that tournament players bring with them. Even the so-called "friendly" tournament players have the same shit-eating, sheepish grin when they know they are doing something "technically allowed" but clearly stupid. I hate catering to those people.

[@TacticalTortoise]

Eh, you can make any competitive game into a fun casual experience, but you can't do the reverse. Competition creates tighter rulesets that all formats benefit from; but the goal of the design team should be to develop rules that *don't have* these kind of cornercases. The problem is that the Warhammer team isn't great at that... but they're slowly getting better xD

[@browncaramelboba8408]

I think the easy temporary solution is 1. You can't pivot before charging. 2. After use have used up all of your movement you cannot pivot anymore.

[@balemoran3168]

following your 2 rules, you can pivot at any point during the charge. so it does not fix the issue. 0.01 inch in to my move I pivot and gain 2-3 inches

[@browncaramelboba8408]

@@balemoran3168 If my assumption is correct when you pivot and moving at the same times, your model base or the overhanging part will reach it endpoint at the same distance as you should have be able to move. It would not provide you with anymore over advantage inches like when you pivot at the end of moving distance. Since the advantage inches were created when you finish your movement by using the side of the model that didnot overhang and try to pivot the overhanging part after move so it will gain extra inches. This solution might prevent that from happening.

[@browncaramelboba8408]

However, it a house rule which other might not except it as they might see they will lose their advantage with this rule, but if that happens I wouldn't want to play with that kind of people in the first place. Since this means that they are "That guy".