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



#Warhammer40k
More TacticalTortoise: https://linktr.ee/tacticaltortoise
Check out these rules for yourself: https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/

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

source

40 thoughts on “Why 40k's New Movement Rules are BROKEN… And How To Fix Them”

  1. 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)

    Reply
  2. 5:00 that's not legal… you can not place any part of your model in 9 inches during reserve placement. You can not in the charge phase move any part of the model until you roll dice for the charge and can not move at all if your original distance is made on the dice

    Reply
  3. 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.

    Reply
  4. "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

    Reply
  5. 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.

    Reply
  6. 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.

    Reply
  7. 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.

    Reply
  8. 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 105×70 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.

    Reply
  9. 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

    Reply
  10. 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… 🤔

    Reply
  11. This is why competitive play has completely broken this game. We shouldn't even be having these "rules as written" conversations. It's OBVIOUS that hull measured models shouldn't be able to just pivot for free, regardless of what kind of base it's on.

    Reply
  12. Sure seems like every 40K "content creator" creates the same content. This like the umpteenth video about move rules freaking about the way you can "game the system" with certain units. 99% of players wouldn't think of this or do it in game. Only the neckbeardiest tournament geeks will do this stuff and nobody likes those guys anyhow

    Reply
  13. 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.

    Reply
  14. 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.

    Reply
  15. 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.

    Reply
  16. 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.

    Reply
  17. 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.

    Reply
  18. 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.

    Reply
  19. 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.

    Reply
  20. I see only the same problems as always…. Tournaments players!
    Now 40k is made for tournaments players…. who can't play without trying to find how they can break the game to "cheat" (e.g. that rule or the famous "I can make that 'cause nothin' says I can't in rules!!".

    But that's with ALL games! Competition kill every part of fun….

    Reply

Leave a Comment