So one thing im finding extremely frustrating with vehicles such as any walker or repulsor unit, is when you move the unit close to a building on an angle.

What happens next is this.

Because you move along the tool and treating the building as impassable (same for a T47 if the building is bigger than height 2), it cant be done, no matter which tool you use and how you bend it. The only thing you can do to get out of this jam is to pivot or reverse.

What i suggest is a vehicle action that allows you to Side Step (walker) or Barrel Roll (repulsors, like Xwing). Yeah it has the same action economy as pivoting or reversing, but allowing a small side step options up movement options and even firing solutions. Sometimes a target becomes presentable with a simple shuffle to the side, but right now it takes 2 actions to get out of the above jam.

You can argue that the vehicle shouldnt have moved there, but sometimes its unavoidable especially those with a compulsory move on a map full of impassable terrain.

Thoughts?

I think the rules are fine as is. The issue you're describing is not one I've seen while playing, and I'm afraid that's a consequence of the terrain rules. They are so relaxed, it will be hard for a large group of people to have the same experience. Playing with a lot of impassable terrain is more of an issue for you than it is for me, so I'm not sure how FFG is supposed to correct the "problem" when you can play with less impassable terrain.

That said, I don't know how or why the AT-ST would end up in that situation. The previous movement has 90 degrees of rotation so you should have avoided that placement. You should have at least range 1 between terrain so that also provides a lot of free space to move as well.

Personally, I prefer a higher skill level to utilize large units. If you could just move where ever you want with no consequence, they game would be boring. Plan ahead.

I think the rules are there to avoid running in to things already. Pivot and reverse are the tool we have to fix those mistakes. Otherwise its just learning how to control your vehicles better.

I'm not against adding something like a barrel roll as an upgrade where it would make sense, for example the T47. It would need to be costed appropriately though. since more maneuverability has offensive applications as well.

29 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think the rules are fine as is. The issue you're describing is not one I've seen while playing, and I'm afraid that's a consequence of the terrain rules. They are so relaxed, it will be hard for a large group of people to have the same experience. Playing with a lot of impassable terrain is more of an issue for you than it is for me, so I'm not sure how FFG is supposed to correct the "problem" when you can play with less impassable terrain.

That said, I don't know how or why the AT-ST would end up in that situation. The previous movement has 90 degrees of rotation so you should have avoided that placement. You should have at least range 1 between terrain so that also provides a lot of free space to move as well.

Personally, I prefer a higher skill level to utilize large units. If you could just move where ever you want with no consequence, they game would be boring. Plan ahead.

Its not really a choice if i turn up to a store event and thats the terrain on the table. I don't find it sporting either to ask for a reset of the terrain just because i have vehicles.

There are a meriad of reasons why a unit can end up like that, deployment, angle of terrain placement, charging enemy units in melee, previous pivots, base contact for key positions, maybe you wanted cover etc.

A side step / barrel roll of something like half of a spd 1 has consequences.

But i get your point. Play with less impassable terrain and get gud ?

Why did you walk that close to the building? did you set up that way with the front pointing into the building?

If you walked that close, why didn't you plan your next move?

Big vehicles require skill in driving, adding rules so skills are not needed seems way to destroy the level of strategy we look for in FFG games. Pivoting is the movement given to correct that issue, so not sure why you didn't use that. one action to pivote and then move. You would be around that building in a turn.

Any movement on large base minis is anything but "small," and adding a new way of moving with a different tool (since the existing ones will not fit on the sides of the base) is more rules for an issue that is alleviated with Pivot. Additionally, your example only works if there is no other terrain nearby, whereas my local tables typically do not have just one building in the middle of nowhere.

Also, I don't think that any of the walkers are shown to be nimble enough to "Sidestep." Pivoting in a walker is a series of small steps, while "Sidestepping" entails large steps to one side.

1 hour ago, Irokenics said:

Its not really a choice if i turn up to a store event and thats the terrain on the table. I don't find it sporting either to ask for a reset of the terrain just because i have vehicles.

There are a meriad of reasons why a unit can end up like that, deployment, angle of terrain placement, charging enemy units in melee, previous pivots, base contact for key positions, maybe you wanted cover etc.

A side step / barrel roll of something like half of a spd 1 has consequences.

But i get your point. Play with less impassable terrain and get gud ?

Fair enough. I play casually and have yet to go to a tournament. The store does get to set up the tables.

I will say I am disappointed with the movement tool for vehicles. I much rather prefer the tool for armada.

6 hours ago, Gridloc said:

Why did you walk that close to the building? did you set up that way with the front pointing into the building?

It's just an example to make the point.

6 hours ago, Gridloc said:

If you walked that close, why didn't you plan your next move?

Because maybe plans go out the window sometimes? Thats like asking why didnt you plan to win the game. Like i said its just an example that i see happen sometimes.
It's not just the ATST, this could be ATRT's providing mobile cover for troops, this could've been key positions and you needed throw in that vehicle to be able to contest the victory point.

6 hours ago, Gridloc said:

Big vehicles require skill in driving, adding rules so skills are not needed seems way to destroy the level of strategy we look for in FFG games. Pivoting is the movement given to correct that issue, so not sure why you didn't use that. one action to pivote and then move. You would be around that building in a turn.

I'm not saying i didn't use it the pivot or reverse, in fact thats something i did highlight as the only option available. My issue with that is it takes a full activation to get around a building doing that to acquire a target. A small side step wouldnt get you around the building either, but at least you can still attack something that the building is blocking LoS with.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Additionally, your example only works if there is no other terrain nearby, whereas my local tables typically do not have just one building in the middle of nowhere.

It was only an example. But thinking about what you said, would you have more than 1 building or terrain piece in non-nowhere places? If so the problem i've described should show up more often.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Also, I don't think that any of the walkers are shown to be nimble enough to "Sidestep." Pivoting in a walker is a series of small steps, while "Sidestepping" entails large steps to one side.

ATST's are shown doing this in Battlefront, ATRTs are shown doing it in Clone Wars. A chicken leg walker can't take large side steps.

Treaded vehicles are coming into this game too, so i imagine they wouldnt have to be able to use that action.

But guys look, it was just a suggestion to something i've experienced that i wished to highlight. Most of the time, when people encounter the above situation they don't actually realise and just move through the building anyway which i believe sometimes contributes to the 'everything is fine as it is' scenario.

While i can accept the answers of 'get gud', 'play with less terrain', 'this doesn't happen to me so its okay', at the same time a lot of those answers have variables which are not consistent from table to table, game to game which is what makes Legion a great and diverse game.

On page 38 any ground vehicle can “step over” any terrain feature that is less than half the models size

2 hours ago, Steelgolem said:

On page 38 any ground vehicle can “step over” any terrain feature that is less than half the models size

Exactly. The example given is one where the ATST can move with no issues.

4 hours ago, Steelgolem said:

On page 38 any ground vehicle can “step over” any terrain feature that is less than half the models size

2 hours ago, colki said:

Exactly. The example given is one where the ATST can move with no issues.

Gentlemen, i think you have missed the point of the original post and are too focused on the provided image example.

1. As previously stated in the original post building was treated as impassable as per RRG page 34.

2. The ATST was just one example, this could apply to the smaller ATRT that finds itself in a similar position.

6 hours ago, Irokenics said:

But guys look, it was just a suggestion to something i've experienced that i wished to highlight. Most of the time, when people encounter the above situation they don't actually realise and just move through the building anyway which i believe sometimes contributes to the 'everything is fine as it is' scenario.

That is more a problem of people not entirely understanding the rules, and therefore playing it wrong (unless agreed upon at the beginning of the game with opponent). We still have people at my FLGS that don't understand/use the newish cover clarifications.

As you indicated in your original post, performing a pivot is the way out of that sort of situation, a rule that is already in the game and solves the issue you outlined. Creating two solutions for the same problem makes the rules complex without necessarily making them better.

1 hour ago, Irokenics said:

Gentlemen, i think you have missed the point of the original post and are too focused on the provided image example.

1. As previously stated in the original post building was treated as impassable as per RRG page 34.

2. The ATST was just one example, this could apply to the smaller ATRT that finds itself in a similar position.

Ok, fair, but it makes a big difference to me. I used to run 3* AT-RT lists, where vehicle movement is a big deal. In a situation where the offending object is big, like a cliff face, it makes sense to me that the pilot is going to need to slam on the brakes and manuever carefully (ie: pivot or use a lower speed move) if my poor piloting has left him steering straight into the wall.

If, like in the example above, the offending barrier is something I can easily images the vehicle stepping over, then I would find it annoying to have to fiddle about with movement. The "half the height" rule models this well in my opinion.

Honestly, after a couple of games of active movement (especially 3*Flamer ATRTs that need to move fast every turn!) you learn to pilot them better and avoid the annoyance. I will always point out to my opponent (unless I know the well and know they know better!) when they manuever themselves into a position that will make life hard in future turns.

3 hours ago, Irokenics said:

Gentlemen, i think you have missed the point of the original post and are too focused on the provided image example.

1. As previously stated in the original post building was treated as impassable as per RRG page 34.

2. The ATST was just one example, this could apply to the smaller ATRT that finds itself in a similar position.

Thatll learn ya....

Reverse or pivot. Easy as that

12 hours ago, Irokenics said:

My issue with that is it takes a full activation to get around a building doing that to acquire a target. A small side step wouldnt get you around the building either, but at least you can still attack something that the building is blocking LoS with.

Yes exactly, how are troops suppose to hide if you can attack them on every activation even with no LoS? Pivot and Reverse are the way bad moves are punished... You must plan your next turn when positioning