when a Blog gets too big for its britches, tripe can occasionally come flowing out.
Recently, an article appeared on a Blog nearly everyone knows referencing vehicle movement and how one writer doesn't...well... like the actual rules, apparently.
It was an entire video on how an accepted movement convention was 'illegal'.
The video, following article (and days worth of argumentative thread within said post) continued to support the position that anyone who supported this movement convention is 'cheating'.
Though not spoken with every line, or argument against, the clear intent was there...and the word was bandied about more than once.
That's a harsh word to throw out in print. Quite a bit of harsh, when referencing how (at least in my neck of the woods...which involves a tri-state area, some further traveling, and a larger pool of friends about the nation) everyone I know plays.
Condescending when considering it is being stated in near absolutes with little room for disagreement, instead of discussion of how the writer feels the general public may be 'off the mark' and needs to discuss the possibility that the rules should be looked at with a fresh eye.
The verbal meandering I have just finished has a point, of sorts...but also assumes the reader understands(has read) the post/article/video I am referring to.
Suffice it to say, the argument arose from deployment tactics based on this rule;
BRB pg 57, last paragraph left column;
"Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than 'wheeling' round. Turning does not reduce the vehicles move...."
You deploy, on the line (let's assume 'pitched battle') broadside. On your first turn, you pivot and charge. Simple, yes? For some units, this garners an additional few inches. For open topped transports, it forces your opponent to deploy a little shallower to avoid potential first turn charges.
Honestly, it is a method to manage your opponent's deployment a little. Not immensely, but a little. Throughout the game, it also makes your opponent give a slightly wider birth to units...again, forcing greater thought about maneuver.
It's been a VERY long time since I have even seen this argument come up (years).
I really thought it was 'all cleared up' within the community.
Yet here we are, in the twilight of 5e, and it's stirred up a shite-storm on one of the 'biggest' blogs out there,
and that's having a ripple effect across other forums...and lending credence to 'arguments' from those that never really liked the fact that the rules functioned in a fashion that they disagree with (generally with a 'but it never worked/shouldn't work/RAI isn't' kind of flippancy).
So, twofold query...for those that actually read me out here ;-)
A) does anyone I know think that this is an illegal maneuver (the aforementioned deployment/pivot tactic)? I really want to know if it's just my 'pool' that accepts this with little/no misunderstanding
B) if you are a 'Big online Light, Shining' in the internet blogosphere, are you obligated to edit/manage your postings clearly in order to insure your larger reader base is not misled by less/incorrectly informed meanderings?