If the models dont fit in a space, you cant just stack them on top of each other. Clearly doing it to take advantage of cover in areas they would not fit, with the best line of sight available to them. Its against the rules, I dont care how good the army looks or how much care someone takes in making them. This is rules abuse.

If you think otherwise I would like to hear why.

Are those Sniper Teams?

Technically they could be on 2 25mm bases, but since the player has opted to put them on 60mms, then they need to abide by any rules where bases are involved, unless they can agree on a compromise with their opponent before the game starts. Stacking bases is definitely an illegal move regardless.

Some context would be good to determine if he is *cheating* or not though.

G.A

That's iffy. RAW I think it is cheating, but I would let them do it. Heavy weapon teams got nerfed back in 5th and used to be two models that were separate, only on one base for convenience. So I don't personally care, but you could certainly call a judge at an event or whatever!

1st picture - I'm going with "yes" because one base is physically sitting on top of another one. If he'd had a 25mm model sitting "underneath" the perched HWT I'd be tempted to allow that.

2nd picture - Unambiguous yes.

If you are going to vote no, please elaborate. I would love to hear this.

I'm ambivalent (I don't play current 40K but here's my take anyway) towards it.

On one hand I hate stupidly large bases (and buckets of cork on every base, etc.) and part of me thinks "hah, that's the price you pay for ridiculous basing of wargames miniatures!".

On the other hand they're snipers and heavy weapons teams and it appears that...sans ridiculous bases, they would fit fine where they are. In the first picture for example, you could easily fit three heavy bolter teams on the top of that bunker, so I wouldn't think much of it if I was playing against a friend (despite giving said friend unending amounts of gak for basing figures on 60-80mm discs...).

Same goes for the snipers. They're based as modeling dioramas forced into a wargame so...shame on the builder - that's dumb. But, I don't see why the sniper team couldn't fit in that building where they're posted.

On the same topic, I would absolutely not allow any Space Marine diving off a 6" plinth to ever have a cover save...ever.

Depends on what the units are, from the pictures it looks like at least some of them are "normal" infantry on 60mm scenic bases? If that's the case then no, not cheating. You count them as being on 25mm bases and ignore the 60mm base if it has any impact on gameplay, since the model is supposed to be on a 25mm base. If those are HWTs then it's cheating, they're supposed to be on 60mm bases and you can't just stack them on top of each other to remove the drawbacks of a 60mm base. However, in the first picture it looks like the models would still fit if you carefully rearranged them, so it's more a case of WMS and not taking the effort to carefully balance everything in a situation where it doesn't matter, not cheating to gain an advantage.

 Orock wrote:
If you are going to vote no, please elaborate. I would love to hear this.

I'll vote no if you cannot clarify the situation further - it is possible that the player agreed with his opponent that this would be okay before the move was made, as typically Special Weapon Teams are 6 separate models on 25mm bases (not 3 on 60mms like Heavy Weapon Teams), which would probably fit fine in those spaces.

It's certainly an illegal move in terms of RAW, but that does not mean this player was necessarily cheating.

I don't think it's cheating.

The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space. However, if I were the IG player, I would say that any of my opponents weapons that could draw range to the squad and LOS to the front wall of the building can target the squad. Also I would happily allow for templates to affect the base hidden underneath another bases.

It's also worth noting that they are IG heavy weapon teams, so the models are designed to be crouching and kneeling.

It's also worth noting that I am a very laid back and relaxed tabletop gamer, and a heavy weapons squad on the ramparts laying down fire is lore-compliant and meets my criteria for "rule of cool" sufficiently to make notable exceptions for.

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So? Cover not having space to fit all the models you want is part of the game. Should the IG player be able to pile a 50-man conscript squad onto the top of the building and justify the model stacking with "I can't fit it any other way"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So? Cover not having space to fit all the models you want is part of the game. Should the IG player be able to pile a 50-man conscript squad onto the top of the building and justify the model stacking with "I can't fit it any other way"?

Yeah, my main anti-tank weapon can't shoot in any direction but up according to the actual rules of the game. I am beyond caring about strict adherence to RAW when it comes to playing 40k, so I don't really care about bending or outright breaking the rules of the game if my opponent and I agree it would make the game more fun.

SO many times i've put something that had a very large base on something where it obviously could not fit, but no where in the rules is there something that prevents me from doing it.

Its not cheating if the space is obviously open and if the model without the basecould fit, because more then enough you have rubble or gaks in the way that are put there on the terrain to make it look pretty/good.

i mean the interior of some ruins in our LGS while gorgeous is just a Pain in the Arse to actually fit the models, and we end up with 3 models perfectly straigth and all the rest just dumped next to them or behind them in some kind of mess.

thats why there is the WMS rule...

on the second pic its pretty clear that the guy wouldn't do otherwise, i mean the small walls on the last floor is in the way, but since its a ruin and not something with impassable terrain/walls, its not like it would make any change.

he could have put the model wiht the base half over the edge, but the guy maybe doesn't want the model to fall from this height?

If it was an impassible terrain piece, yup that would be cheating, because he wants to avoid the consequances, but here?, no its just practicallity.

I'm not going to vote because I'd say the answer is "it depends".
Technically any kind of stacking would be cheating, but often times they would fit but they don't actually fit due to wobbly model syndrome. I'm totally fine with stacking them in that case.

In your pictures, the heavy weapon teams and infantry look like they might fit if you could place the 25mm ones on the platform around the gun, so I'd give it a pass. And for the second picture, I thought the snipers come on bike bases? In that case they would fit and I'd let this ass too.

I'm alright with the first photo, overall the top of the building is large and filled with obstacles, and I think some fudging is ok. However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm alright with the first photo, overall the top of the building is large and filled with obstacles, and I think some fudging is ok. However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

I agree with this.

The first photo to me is fine, that's to me just practical acknowledgement that bases and scenic terrain don't always mix, there's enough 2D surface area but because of the artificiality of the bases stuff gets weird, wobbly model syndrome stuff. That's ok.

The second pic however, one of those dudes has to move down, there's not enough area for them up there, that's not an issue of bases doing weird things, that's straight up no room and is something I would call out.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Its not cheating if the space is obviously open and if the model without the basecould fit

That's not the rule. Rule is that you can't stack bases on top of other bases. You can sit a model with a big base on top of terrain, or even leave it out of the terrain and have it count as being in there, that's absolutely fine - but you can't sit bases on top of other bases under any circumstances.

If you ask and your opponent agrees that is what it is - personally I'd probably be fine with it provided you didn't gain some undue advantage from doing it. If an opponent went ahead and did it without asking though, I'd pull him up.

Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

Regarding the modeling choices for the snipers, I think the creator was going for sniper/spotter teams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, for the love of...

Those are Armageddon Steel Legion snipers. From what I recall they come with those bases and the models may quite easily be old enough they predate the days of Special Weapon Squads. I played IG back in 3e, some of my Catachan models didn't have bases at all.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

You can't put bases on top of other bases. Period. Pic 1 is borderline, because the bases are just touching and not really "stacked" per se, but pic 2 has a base sitting on top of two other bases. That's pretty flagrant.

 BBAP wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Ambiguous based on the pictures. It looks to me like the player has both handicapped himself by putting single models on team bases, and positioned models in wonky ways when it looks like there's space to position them more normally. I wouldn't call it abuse of the rules (given the ambiguous wording of the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule) without more context.

You can't put bases on top of other bases. Period. Pic 1 is borderline, because the bases are just touching and not really "stacked" per se, but pic 2 has a base sitting on top of two other bases. That's pretty flagrant.

How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

 Pouncey wrote:
How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

If the one on top isn't being directly supported by the one below it that'd be good enough for me. That first picture seems like a base sitting beneath another base that's supported by the terrain piece. I'd be happy with that, although it's a borderline case, like I said.

The second one is a base sitting directly on top of two other bases, which is not allowed. If it won't fit then split the unit between levels. The "no stacking" rule exists precisely to keep people from cramming units into spaces where they won't fit.

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

 BBAP wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
How much vertical separation is required for bases to no longer be considered stacked?

If the one on top isn't being directly supported by the one below it that'd be good enough for me. That first picture seems like a base sitting beneath another base that's supported by the terrain piece. I'd be happy with that, although it's a borderline case, like I said.

The second one is a base sitting directly on top of two other bases, which is not allowed. If it won't fit then split the unit between levels. The "no stacking" rule exists precisely to keep people from cramming units into spaces where they won't fit.

That's a reasonable line to draw, and I agree with it.

Edit: Every time I look at that second picture, it's different from what I remember. What the feth, brain?

Is it against the rules?
Yes.
Would I demand the judge for it?
Depends. If it's just the first one, probably not. If there's multiple units doing it or he does it again, probably.

Is it cheating? Yes.
Would I call him on it? Not if I have barrage weapons. . .

I don't know about "cheating", but those bases looked really big, and they looked like they were ultimately stacked upon each other. Maybe modeling for advantage (so he could stack on the terrain)? If not, he was still stacking, which is a no-go.

A model(s) should be able to stand in/on the terrain it is placed upon, without stacking on or over other bases (on the same level). Like others have said, you can't stack bases.

In real life, there might be a building where only a few soldiers can deploy on a certain floor because parts of the floor have collapsed. Because of that constraint, they might not be able to deploy heavy weapons.

Most ruins in 40K are just that, ruins, which have spatial limitations. There aren't intact floors.

I don't like what I saw. Not ready to call it cheating (unless the dude doing it claimed it was legit by the rules, and pressed it, in which case, yes, he was cheating.). I wouldn't give it a green light, unless it was a friendly game, and even then, I would call him on obvious BS.

Would anyone be cool with an opponent trying to fit a larger model up there, like a Knight or a dreadnought that can't fit, yet still claiming cover, maybe using a dowel or another part of the terrain piece as support, nevermind the obvious stacking of bases on a level?

I don't think so.

As said a few times now:

If we're doing RAW, then it is cheating.

That being said, did you and the other player come to an agreement about whether or not it was cheating? In other words: Do you agree that, in spite of the base size, these Heavy Weapons Teams would have been able to realistically traverse such terrain and, as such, allow for the picture model placement?

Because it's cheating if you're going with RAW, but it becomes legal if you and all other players agree that it's reasonable and allow it. If you guys can't agree, then it remains illegal and thus is cheating.

I personally wouldn't allow it, but that's just me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

If they it is meant to be 6 models on 25mm I would probably allow it. However when my small blast hits directly on the middle base in the second pic I am claiming 6 hits, if you aren't taking the penalty for bigger bases then I'm not letting you benefit from it in the form of fewer hit's from blasts. (This is just considering the 3 bases on the top I would claim 2 more for each other base underneath)

If they are meant to be on that sized base however then you are not doing it.

 roflmajog wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However the second photo crosses the line in my opinion. The "Square footage" of the top level clearly isn't enough to accommodate the large bases, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to stack as shown.

The issue here is that the models in the second picture are clearly guardsmen with sniper rifles, which are normally on 25mm bases that would fit just fine in the available space. You shouldn't be able to gain any advantages by putting your models on fancy scenic bases, but you also shouldn't suffer any penalties.

If they it is meant to be 6 models on 25mm I would probably allow it. However when my small blast hits directly on the middle base in the second pic I am claiming 6 hits, if you aren't taking the penalty for bigger bases then I'm not letting you benefit from it in the form of fewer hit's from blasts. (This is just considering the 3 bases on the top I would claim 2 more for each other base underneath)

If they are meant to be on that sized base however then you are not doing it.

Pretty much this Pie plate Everyone, if he calls judge you can just point out the bases stacking, win win

I am gonna say no, wobbly model syndrome is still a thing right?

But If the models cant stand in a building due to the fact that their models are put of stupidly oversized bases I would probably say that it is their fault and not allow it

Annoyed at the size of the base, but we have no idea if the model is "actually" hanging off the front and not touching anything while being placed as such to show relative position.

So, with just the pi three to look at they most assuredly are NOT cheating. They are following pure RAW and when their opponent shoots they will hold their base in the proper position to allow for combat resolution.

 Peregrine wrote:
Depends on what the units are, from the pictures it looks like at least some of them are "normal" infantry on 60mm scenic bases? If that's the case then no, not cheating. You count them as being on 25mm bases and ignore the 60mm base if it has any impact on gameplay, since the model is supposed to be on a 25mm base.

This is wrong both in terms of the BRB and the FAQs.

The rules assume that you are taking the base that the model came with, but if you opt to use a different base, then that's your prerogative, and the same rules apply just the same to the larger base. Ditto if you have a smaller base than you "should" have.

If you have a ridiculously large base, then yes, the rules apply, as written, to your ridiculously large base. You don't get a "pass" because it "should" be on a smaller base.

IoW: The rules work with what you actually have, not with what you "should" have.

 Traditio wrote:
This is wrong both in terms of the BRB and the FAQs.

The rules assume that you are taking the base that the model came with, but if you opt to use a different base, then that's your prerogative, and the same rules apply just the same to the larger base. Ditto if you have a smaller base than you "should" have.

If you have a ridiculously large base, then yes, the rules apply, as written, to your ridiculously large base. You don't get a "pass" because it "should" be on a smaller base.

IoW: The rules work with what you actually have, not with what you "should" have.

Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

I'm not actually sure it's against the rules. because of the wobbly models syndrome rule. Which allows flyers to have their spot marked if they end their move on top of a unit. the same with models ending movement precariously in terrain.
I think it's against the spirit of the game or maybe unsporting but I don't think it's actually illegal. I could be wrong.

Pic 1: I think the models could of been placed so they didn't overlap and would of been fine with them being there if adjusted.

Pic 2: They aren't going to fit with those bases so they need to move to different floor levels to not overlap.

In either case I wouldn't call it cheating so much as its just a rules violation as I don't think the intent is to gain an advantage so much as it is to just get the models to fit up there due to their giant bases. Also I know HWT's have giant bases but is it normal for IG snipers to be on large 60mm bases? They look cool but seem extremely impractical when they take up that much space.

No it's not, snipers come on 25mm bases and have for several editions.

I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
No it's not, snipers come on 25mm bases and have for several editions.

Oh hai.

They're meant to be on 25mm bases so I mean, it's the guys onus if he wants to base them on something bigger. For seriousness though, I would not like playing an opponent that based them like this: if your models are individuals, don't base them as couples. That would drive me batty. If he wanted scenic bases he could have built something out of cork that let him fit 2 25mm bases onto a scenic round base, so he could detach them as needed. This is what I do with my Riptide and his drones: they both have peg holes on his bases because it looks great as its done, but in a game they're flying on their own stems.

Oversized bases are double edged, if you want one you get 'slightly better shooting range' but also leave yourself more open to attack.

Either way in the first case if that's all he was doing I wouldn't have ruled against it. If those are heavy weap teams on the emplacement then they belong on those bases and I'm not giving that derp in front a cover save because he's stationed above it.

The 2nd picture is taking the piss. I'd point out that half of them aren't even in cover. This is the same situation if I jetpack a Riptide on top of a building: if it's not obscured in any way, I don't feel any justification for benefiting from a cover save. I would have insisted if he wanted to pull that, that he needs to find other 25mm models to proxy. As for HWTs, I mean I can understand the pain, but it has to be reasonable. In either case, have proxies available.

General Annoyance wrote:Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:Even so, a simple agreement with your opponent can rectify the problem - keeping in mind that these are Steel Legion metal miniatures converted from Heavy Weapon Teams, it seems like the player wouldn't have been able to put them on 25mms. I'd personally be fine with those models being there if they asked me beforehand.

I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

Also I should stress that putting a larger miniature on a smaller base is certainly modelling for advantage.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

Breathe out and remember.........it's only a game.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm sorry, but "I couldn't put them on a smaller base, so you should give me a pass" is not an excuse to overlap bases. Having a larger base has benefits and drawbacks. If you're using that larger base, are you going to mark carefully on the base what counts as 25 mm for determining range? Or are you going to use the whole base?

Oh, you're going to use the whole base?

What about when it comes to determining where my models can move? Oh, I can't move within an inch of your ENTIRE base?

Then one of the drawbacks of having a bigger base is that they take up more space.

Move your fething models so that they don't overlap.

It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference. The real problem is with taking casualties, but again, simply agree on where the remaining models are. It doesn't take a diplomat and a council of bystanders to make a reasonable compromise, unless you are enough of a stuck up to not want to compromise on one unit that, ultimately, will not affect any of your attacks against it.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

Not necessarily. Scale creep in this game is a thing. Some models used to come on smaller bases. I shouldn't have to swap out bases simply because GW decided to start using a slightly bigger base in new releases.

What's modeling for advantage is if you put your model on a base that it clearly doesn't and shouldn't fit on for rules advantages.

Though I will say this:

Ruleswise, it's permitted. If you put a tactical marine on an actual fething pie plate, you can do that. But don't you dare object when I tell you that you can't put them all on the table on turn one because you can't actually fit them on the table.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

Still, in the example from the OP, this is hardly modelling for advantage or disadvantage. By all means say that you'd prefer that they stick to being 60mm bases for simplicity later on, but being a dick about it will only motivate the player to pack up their things and leave. And unless you live in a spite and anger filled head, that's not a good thing to motivate anyone to do.

Techincally, it's not playing by the rules. I guess the question is, is this a big issue? I mean, everyone draws their own lines on what's acceptable and what's not. Some people require measuring each individual model in a unit when moving. Some people are ok with moving the front row and then ballparking the rest of the moves.

The point is, technically illegal, but probably not worth stressing over. Talk with your opponent about how to treat a situation before you attempt to resolve it. Simple situation for the snipers would be, as the owner, allowing 2 hits if a marker touches any part of the base. Gives the benefit to the opponent. As for the overlapping HWT, they're incredibly unwieldy models, so just give the guy a break. They really suck to work with.

If I moved my models as shown in the pics, I'd feel as if I were cheating. If I found myself trying to defend those moves, I'd feel like an arsehole. If I told someone else they should be OK with someone else doing it, I'd feel.....hmmm.....dirty.

General Annoyance wrote:It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

I'm not really that much of a "stickler" about anything in-game. I generally only call out clear, obvious cases of "No, that's not a thing."

Examples in the last game I played:

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. There's a literal mountain in the way. Your dude has scenic view of...rocks. He is staring face to face at a giant wall of stone."

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. He's not taller than that rhino that's in the way."

Another example:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

But when it comes to borderline cases? I'll give it to my opponent practically every time. "Eeeeh? Is that 25 percent? Don't care. Roll that 5+ for your vehicle." "Does this really count as intervening models? Eh. Whatevs. 5+! Line of sight questionable? Eeeeeeeh. Good enough. Go for it."

I'm not a competitive player. I'm not a rules lawyer.

That said:

Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

Does anyone actually know what the base sizes for those Steel Legion Snipers is supposed to be? I've never seen those models before, so I can't be sure.

I'd say No for his placement in terrain where the base isn't entirely supported.

But a definite yes for putting the bases on top of each other. If I started stacking my Dire Avengers to fit them behind cover I'd be cheating so I'd call this the same.

 Traditio wrote:
Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

If you claim to be a fully non competitive player and not a rules laywer, then surely you see merit in allowing this player to make this move, even if it is an illegal one in terms of RAW, and in practically any scenario bar this one.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

It literally takes ten seconds to work that out with an opponent. Also wobbly model syndrome is a thing - not that it applies in this circumstance really, but your rule of putting models somewhere else couldn't apply then.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

Precisely the point here - it's not that big a deal. If you really did think he was cheating in this case for an unfair advantage, then you wouldn't drop an argument over it.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

And yet people still do it, at least in my experience; that is, to me at least, certainly modelling for advantage, and doesn't really compare to this scenario at all.

 Traditio wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:It's practically a miracle that anyone plays with you at this point given your attitude, Traditio.

I'm not really that much of a "stickler" about anything in-game. I generally only call out clear, obvious cases of "No, that's not a thing."

Examples in the last game I played:

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. There's a literal mountain in the way. Your dude has scenic view of...rocks. He is staring face to face at a giant wall of stone."

"No, your dude cannot shoot my dude. He's not taller than that rhino that's in the way."

Another example:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

But when it comes to borderline cases? I'll give it to my opponent practically every time. "Eeeeh? Is that 25 percent? Don't care. Roll that 5+ for your vehicle." "Does this really count as intervening models? Eh. Whatevs. 5+! Line of sight questionable? Eeeeeeeh. Good enough. Go for it."

I'm not a competitive player. I'm not a rules lawyer.

That said:

Some cases are just very clear. "Your bases cannot overlap. Period. A forteriori, you can't STACK models on top of each other."

Once again, simple agreements when it comes to shooting and assault can rectify both problems you may have with this; just grab a 25mm base, hold it over the model, and ask your opponent "where would you like me to count the model as existing on the board?" then make a note of it for future reference.

That is waaaaay too much of a hassle. I have an easier proposal: don't stack your bases. Can't fit them all in that piece of terrain? Then put them somewhere else.

I'd understand the argument if the situation was more extreme. This is certainly not an extreme abuse of the rules to merit an argument over with your opponent.

An argument? No. I would make the comment: "Um...are those bases stacked on top of each other? That's...that's not a thing, bro."

Would I pursue the argument if my opponent refused to separate them? No. Those are sniper rifles. Not that big of a deal.

I can understand the Space Marine thing with the transition to 25mm to 32 - I was talking more along the lines of sticking a Daemon Prince on 2 25mm bases (yup, that's happened to me before), and such a scenario you said in your final statement, which would obviously ring alarm bells in your head the moment the guy took them out of his box.

That's not a thing. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you can have 2 bases for a model. In that case, I'd say: "Look, your model clearly is not based. Having a base under each of his feet does not a single base make. We're using vehicle rules for your demon prince for determining line of sight, range, etc."

Afraid it sounds nes like you spend your games bossing people about and pointing out why are doing it wrong and should listen to you.

A game, a hobby, a pastime. That's all it is.

I wouldn't call it cheating.

It just some models in a game.

If something like this stresses you out (in a non-tourny event), you shouldn't be involved in table top games.

The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

In a game that otherwise strictly adheres to TLOS, it seems really weird to me to say that two people can't stand on a platform where two people could very obviously fit, because they're dragging a 15 foot circle of dirt around their feet that has to be accommodated also.

It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

I would not put my models in a manner where the bases overlap, and I would not let my opponent, either. Cheating is a strong word for this instance. I would say "Not Allowed."

I disagree with the 'they would fit on a smaller base' argument. Because if you use that you would have to apply it to blast templates, or deep striking or any of that

if the regular bases fit sure, I'd let him. I'm not going to demand he precariously balance his showcase models on some terrain because I'm worried about literally one single model getting a slightly better los unfairly. Paint jobs on metal models chips incredibly easy. You guys sound like tons of fun to play with.

 Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I voted no.
I am a Guard player, and like all of us I too know the agony of placing a HWT in any for of cover, especially on GW buildings and in GW trenches. They should fit, and in real life the unit would easily be able too, but GW insist that they have to be mounted on 60mm bases, and thanks to the masses of gun mounts, pedestals, broken floors and gribbly bits on 40K terrain these huge bases never fit. Therefore I ill have to say no, he is not cheating, he is just trying to make the best of a very poor situation.

The rules work with what you do have, not with what you should have. The sizes of the models that you use and the bases on which they are placed are part of the game. You use a bigger model with a bigger base? That means fewer of them fit on the table, and especially in "tight spots."

Okay Tradito, lets rebase all of your Dev's and HW Marines on 60mm bases and see what happens. Oh, whats that? You wont?

EXACTLY

Shut up Tradito and stop whining. You have no idea how hard WHT are to use as is, and now you want us to nerf them even furhter by stating that they cannot be placed anywhere on any citadel terrain? Well do you know what, it is not our fault that GW decided to force us to use bases that are normally reserved for Dreadnoughts and the like. If it where not for them then HWT would easily fit into the small spaces on Citadel terrain, so you know what? In future shut up and actually think about the perspective of things for once. Or would that be too hard, seeing as ten amrines with a ML and Flamer cannot overcome it?

This is one f those don't do it before you ask it kind of things.
Like peeing on your nigbours lawn or having sex with their mailbox. Some might be OK with it but most will not like it if you surprise them with it.

Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to either case. Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

If the IG player wanted to put in a more precarious position, then yes, he could place a marker and say: "My guy's there."

But bases cannot overlap. The only exception to this is zooming fliers, but even then, you can only move "through" the base. You can't end the turn with two bases in the same place. The only exception to this seems to be when a flier crashes and burns...for reasons I don't entirely understand.

 Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

 Traditio wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.

Look again at the rule, if you are charging you can go within an inch of any enemy unit, not just the one you are charging. I do believe it has worked the way you are saying in previous editions though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So?

Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

There is, and selectively quoting my post to make it look like a one-word response and support your "that's rude" accusation would be testing that boundary, IMO.

As long as it's passive aggressive it's okay.

Edit: not a dig at anyone in particular, just having a laugh at the fact on dakkadakka you can imply anything you want about someone but as soon as you explicitly state it you've crossed the line.

I think 'So?' is quite rude. But whatever

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

Can you quote a rule that you can? Rules are permissive they tell you what you are allowed to do in a game, if there isn't a rule about it then you can't do it.

 slip wrote:
As long as it's passive aggressive it's okay.

Edit: not a dig at anyone in particular, just having a laugh at the fact on dakkadakka you can imply anything you want about someone but as soon as you explicitly state it you've crossed the line.

Yeah, it's a pretty weird rule.

If you're skilled enough with the literary definition of irony you can say some pretty offensive things and be untouchable because you didn't technically break any rules.

 Traditio wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to either case. Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

If the IG player wanted to put in a more precarious position, then yes, he could place a marker and say: "My guy's there."

But bases cannot overlap. The only exception to this is zooming fliers, but even then, you can only move "through" the base. You can't end the turn with two bases in the same place. The only exception to this seems to be when a flier crashes and burns...for reasons I don't entirely understand.

Their bases aren't overlapping for gameplay, it is just how they are sitting on the table until they are targeted in any way. Hence, wobbly model syndrome.

whirlwindstruggle wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So?

Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

Yes, there is also one about staying on topic.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

Which page is it that states about gentlemanly play, the spirit of the game and not being a howling TFG about utterly minor things?

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

I would have thought that this post would have constituted as violating rule no.1; a bit too far, even if it concerns a poster such as Traditio.

Still, questioning the point of someone's argument is hardly rude.


On topic, I don't think it's explicitly stated anywhere that bases cannot overlap each other, however I think it's just a given that you aren't meant to.

 General Annoyance wrote:

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

I would have thought that this post would have constituted as violating rule no.1; a bit too far, even if it concerns a poster such as Traditio.

Still, questioning the point of someone's argument is hardly rude.

Agreed.

The comment in question in this thread was directed at me, and I didn't really take offense at what was said. Mostly I was baffled at why he said what he did, since I thought I explained my viewpoint clearly in the part of the post he cut out, so my reply to him was to explain in more detail.

Topic, folks. If you see a post that you feel is not appropriate, report it and let the mods deal with it as they deem appropriate. Don't drag the thread off topic talking about it.


On topic:

 roflmajog wrote:
Look again at the rule, if you are charging you can go within an inch of any enemy unit, not just the one you are charging. I do believe it has worked the way you are saying in previous editions though.

Only in 3rd edition, which prompted the 'chequerboard' deployment tactic, whereby you could make two units unassaultable by mixing them together. That loophole was removed in 4th edition, when they simply removed the 1" restriction when charging.

 Traditio wrote:
I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

The first one there is a rule. The second isn't.

 insaniak wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

The first one there is a rule. The second isn't.

The second is a consequence of the first, actually. If you can't move two bases through each other (the base is considered part of the model), you cannot ever end up with two bases overlapping.

Moving over something is not the same as moving through it.

When you walk across a floor, you're not walking through the floor.

 insaniak wrote:
Moving over something is not the same as moving through it.

When you walk across a floor, you're not walking through the floor.

So then essentially the first rule is unenforceable, since you could simply say you're moving "over" the other model, yes?

Pretty much, yes.

Previous editions got around this by declaring other models as impassable terrain, although whether or not that's included friendly models has varied from edition to edition, IIRC.

For the record, I'm not a fan of base stacking in general, although am more than happy to allow it when it makes sense (and either of the examples in the OP look fine to me... The base is, after all, ultimately just there to give the model a defined boundary for when that matters and (more importantly) to make it stand up).

But it's not actually breaking any rules to do it.

 insaniak wrote:
Pretty much, yes.

Previous editions got around this by declaring other models as impassable terrain, although whether or not that's included friendly models has varied from edition to edition, IIRC.

For the record, I'm not a fan of base stacking in general, although am more than happy to allow it when it makes sense (and either of the examples in the OP look fine to me... The base is, after all, ultimately just there to give the model a defined boundary for when that matters and (more importantly) to make it stand up).

But it's not actually breaking any rules to do it.

Then essentially, when any opponent of yours moves a model through a gap too small for the model to fit, you don't call it out, since you rationalize it as moving over the other models?

I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do, as I can easily imagine models flattening to the sides of a passage or moving out of the way to allow an important squad member passage to a more advantageous position, I'm just curious if you actually practice what you just preached.

No, I play the way most players assume the rules should work, and move around other models' bases.

Pointing out that the rules don't say what people are claiming they say isn't the same as saying that I play by the rules as written. Over the years there have been any number of rules absurdities in this ruleset that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of just getting on with playing the game.

Of course the dude accused of cheating just so happens to be a Steel Legion player.

I mean how many of us are left out there in the world? Like 10? Everyone either rolled DKoK or Cadian. Not that I blame them.

That said, his models actually look pretty awesome. I like the capes he added onto the back of them. I do agree that bases overlapping is a big no no. Heavy weapons teams do have exceedingly large bases however. Like unnecessarily so and just so happen to be one of the worst units in the codex. Do I think this is cheating? Well the rules state you can't overlap bases so yeah I guess but its probably one most minor offenses I've come across.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I play the way most players assume the rules should work, and move around other models' bases.

Pointing out that the rules don't say what people are claiming they say isn't the same as saying that I play by the rules as written. Over the years there have been any number of rules absurdities in this ruleset that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of just getting on with playing the game.

Fair point.

Hugs?

Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

I don't think they read this far before replying.

Surely as a moderator you've noticed that people often don't read an entire thread before responding.

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

So what you are saying is that if a player wanted to, he/she could stack his/her entire army on top of one another and it would be perfectly legal?

Absolutely not.
Its just how they are modelled on the base. Other peeps put there guns/figs on separate bases so could fir on that model.
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

licclerich wrote:
Absolutely not.
Its just how they are modelled on the base. Other peeps put there guns/figs on separate bases so could fir on that model.
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

Well I learned something today. Interesting discussion and good thread! Glad I found it!

licclerich wrote:
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

Depends how hardcore a roleplayer you are.

I'd allow both examples if it was me playing against him. It's supposed to be an abstract game and you have to be flexible to a certain degree, in my opinion at least.
I recently saw on another thread a kind of similar discussion regarding a superheavy tank starting the game balanced on top of a water tower (can't remember the exact circumstances) this would be something I wouldn't allow, simply because despite it not breaking any rules, it wouldn't be able to get up/down and would probably crush the tower through it's own weight.
Common sense should prevail.

This is cheating.

On page 366 of the core rules it defines unit coherency as follows:

"Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model."

Thus the squads pictured above are not in coherency. Therefore this is against the rules. Insisting you can do it may not be cheating, it could be ignorance, but common sense should dictate that this is absurd.

Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

 Marmatag wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

Common sense should dictate that in the first photo, the bases aren't seriously overlapping, and may in fact not be overlapping at all but instead merely tilted one way or another due to the shape of the roof of the bunker.

Also, if you wanna tell me how those Centurions climbed their tree without their three tons of armor, gun, and ammo snapping the limbs, I'm all ears for your Centurions opting to hide in wait for an enemy to lumber past only to be blasted from existence.

Seems like something the Reasonable Marines might do with some anti-grav devices, actually...

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

Common sense should dictate that in the first photo, the bases aren't seriously overlapping, and may in fact not be overlapping at all but instead merely tilted one way or another due to the shape of the roof of the bunker.

Also, if you wanna tell me how those Centurions climbed their tree without their three tons of armor, gun, and ammo snapping the limbs, I'm all ears for your Centurions opting to hide in wait for an enemy to lumber past only to be blasted from existence.

Seems like something the Reasonable Marines might do with some anti-grav devices, actually...

It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Sounds more like you are trying to illustrate how right you are.

I play by the rule of "whatever makes for a gentlemanly and sporting game"

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Fair enough. It's a good point, actually. We do actually rely on the RAW to play a common game and house ruling everything for the sake of common sense would lead to simply abandoning a ruleset and LARPing the battle instead.

I think the first image could've been solved by someone saying, "Uh, hey, your models are overlapping a bit, wanna spread em out?" and the owner of the models saying, "Oh, you're right, sorry," and then just scootching them apart, since there's enough room up there for both squads if you spread the heavy weapons out a bit and scootch the regular infantry together a bit. Maybe they're simply that way because they wouldn't rest easily in the proper position, and kept sliding out of position and they actually did make use of the proper "Wobbly Model Syndrome" rule as it was intended. Poorly designed bunker, for sure.

The second one is obviously the result of an agreement between the two players that those sniper models are 20 years old, the player didn't want to rebase them, and in the modern version of the rules where you don't have sniper teams they would actually fit (which they would, as the squad is only 6 25mm base models strong), so whatever.

I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

Jacksmiles wrote:
Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

I know it's an older version of the rules, but one of the old IG Doctrines required all models in the squad to be in base-to-base contact. Close Order Drills, I think it was called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

It wouldn't be a discussion if no one took a photo of the models, that's for sure.

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

And this hits the nail on the head. Just reach and agreement and have fun!

If this happened in a tournament and a judge ruled in favor of the guy stacking his models i'd be shocked.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

And this hits the nail on the head. Just reach and agreement and have fun!

If this happened in a tournament and a judge ruled in favor of the guy stacking his models i'd be shocked.

It loops so far around to the egregious side it's impossible to conclude any rules are actually being broken, since the opponent obviously consented to that.

 Marmatag wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

So your models are straight up not allowed to be in base contact. How does deep strike work then?

Rules come into play when you're playing a game with rules.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

So your models are straight up not allowed to be in base contact. How does deep strike work then?

Rules come into play when you're playing a game with rules.

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

 Marmatag wrote:

so much snip

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

"Fairly clear" leaves some wiggle room, such as how people have been expressing that wobbly model syndrome could be applied to the first picture, and how apparently typically the models in the second picture would be on their own separate 25mm base. For me, I'm fine with the first picture. However, the rules all go by bases, and don't enforce any base sizes for any models, so the second picture is something I'd have trouble with.

I was just arguing the unit coherency wording you would try to enforce in a vacuum of one sentence takes it a different direction entirely, making it so models in a unit can't touch each other at all and we all know that's actually allowed. Hence my surprise at your initial comment not being satirical.

 Marmatag wrote:
And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

Yup.

And this is a tabletop game, so the rules exist in the minds of players. Should all players involved in a match choose to alter the rules in any way, one of the strengths of games like WH40k is that they can do that.

If you want a game where the rules are controlled by an impartial host who will not allow any violations at all, might I suggest computer or video games instead of a tabletop game?

 Marmatag wrote:

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone. .

They also often get thrown out because they don't make any sense in the given situation.

A human-sized model being unable to stand on a human-sized balcony because GW's model designers chose to give it a ridiculously large base so it would look cool fits into that scenario, for me.

YMMV, obviously.

Look I get it, if people agree to allow something that isn't in the rules that is totally fine. I view this game as playing with someone, not against someone.

Throughout this thread the statement has been made that no rules are broken by that setup - this is where I disagreed. (Not that it matters if both players agree, or it's a house rule).

If there is a disagreement in a competitive format, or in a scenario where a gentleman's agreement can't be reached, I would say that insisting upon this placement would be wrong.

 Orock wrote:
If the models dont fit in a space, you cant just stack them on top of each other. Clearly doing it to take advantage of cover in areas they would not fit, with the best line of sight available to them. Its against the rules, I dont care how good the army looks or how much care someone takes in making them. This is rules abuse.

If you think otherwise I would like to hear why.

1st picture: No, it looks ugly and unrealistic

2nd picture: Yes, one could technically put their heavy weapons on the top of a building if they were suffering from a chronic condition of the crazies.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is cheating.

On page 366 of the core rules it defines unit coherency as follows:

"Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model."

Thus the squads pictured above are not in coherency. Therefore this is against the rules. Insisting you can do it may not be cheating, it could be ignorance, but common sense should dictate that this is absurd.

Are those words in italics? If so, you know that the words in italics aren't actual rules?

It's not against the rules to have friendly models in base to base contact with each other.

 Marmatag wrote:
Look I get it, if people agree to allow something that isn't in the rules that is totally fine. I view this game as playing with someone, not against someone.

Throughout this thread the statement has been made that no rules are broken by that setup - this is where I disagreed. (Not that it matters if both players agree, or it's a house rule).

If there is a disagreement in a competitive format, or in a scenario where a gentleman's agreement can't be reached, I would say that insisting upon this placement would be wrong.

In the second picture, the violation of RAW is so egregious and blatant that there is no conclusion other than that a gentleman's agreement was reached in the game from which that photo was taken.

I don't think anyone really thinks that everyone would have to make the same agreement, only that obviously in that game, it was, otherwise it never would have been allowed and the models would've been arranged differently as it would've been disallowed.

The general agreement with both photos people have been expressing is more that they personally would not consider it a violation, for a variety of personal reasons.

And as the wise Mod said, YMMV.

 insaniak wrote:
Moving over something is not the same as moving through it.

When you walk across a floor, you're not walking through the floor.

To quote the FAQs, "You have to use a little common sense here."

The only models that can "move over" another model are:

1. Jump/Jet units

2. Fliers

Unless those heavy weapons teams have the jump special rule or are able to fly, they can't move "over" anything. And even then, they still can't end the turn occupying the same space.

The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

roflmajog wrote:Look again at the rule, if you are charging you can go within an inch of any enemy unit, not just the one you are charging. I do believe it has worked the way you are saying in previous editions though.

Didn't know! Thanks for pointing it out. I'll look into this later on to verify.

But those weren't the only factors, IIRC. It was more: "In order to charge this unit, you have to go through my rhino. You'd have to move within an inch of the rhino, and I don't think that there's enough space between the rhino and that thick, solid piece of terrain, for you to actually squeeze through anyway."

One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Yes, the intention was clearly for models top not move post one another. The rules fall short of actually saying that, however.

 insaniak wrote:
One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Is there any place in the rules where you are given permission to move a model vertically except with respect to terrain pieces?

Posts like the above annoy me. People complain about how bad GW is at writing rules. To an extent, that might be true. But I imagine that a big part of it is people trying to twist the words to say something contrary to what they were obviously intended to say.

Yes. GW doesn't write their rules like business attorneys writing up a contract.

No, that doesn't make the rule about movement unclear, so long as you are willing "to use a little common sense here."

There is no explicit permission in the rules that says that an infantry model can "jump" or move vertically onto a friendly model's base.

This doesn't even happen in cqc. Nor can it happen when models are forced to disembark. If I have a rhino, it's wrecked, and it's surrounded by a circle of models, no, I can't put my unit on top of the rhino to avoid the unit being destroyed.

 insaniak wrote:
One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Yes, the intention was clearly for models top not move post one another. The rules fall short of actually saying that, however.

It's starting to remind me of World of Warcraft lore, actually.

The lore says one thing about what the player does. The actual gameplay says another about what the player's doing.

The lore says the player is vanquishing demons to save her planet. The gameplay says the player is slaughtering innocent people in their homes for phat lootz.

You try to tell people what the player ACTUALLY does, they come back at you with the lore description that is not factually represented by gameplay.

(Seriously, I think my main character in WoW is the most evil character in the game. There's an 'achievement' which gives me the title, "Pouncey the Insane" which is totally optional and there are zero other tangible benefits for doing it. So I went and did it when I was bored and had nothing to do for a few weeks. Basically I killed like 50,000 innocent guards defending their own territory to call myself Insane. Then the NPCs think I'm a hero. It's absurd, yes.)

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

So when you have a hill...?

 Traditio wrote:
Is there any place in the rules where you are given permission to move a model vertically except with respect to terrain pieces?

You are given permission to move models, that permission does not include any difference between horizontal and vertical movement. You measure the model's movement in 3d space, from starting point to ending point.

Posts like the above annoy me. People complain about how bad GW is at writing rules. To an extent, that might be true. But I imagine that a big part of it is people trying to twist the words to say something contrary to what they were obviously intended to say.

Nope. Other companies get it right and the rules can't be exploited no matter how hard you try (and if you succeed it's quickly FAQed), GW just sucks at writing rules.

If I have a rhino, it's wrecked, and it's surrounded by a circle of models, no, I can't put my unit on top of the rhino to avoid the unit being destroyed.

{citation needed}

Remember, a destroyed vehicle model is a piece of terrain which includes rules for moving onto or through it.

 Traditio wrote:


There is no explicit permission in the rules that says that an infantry model can "jump" or move vertically onto a friendly model's base.

Who needs to jump? GW's bases are less than knee height for most models. Common sense would tell me that a model can step that high. Or it would tell me that the base is primarily there to help the model stand up, and so having them overlapping simply isn't a big deal.

You can find a common sense argument for allowing or disallowing just about anything.

 Traditio wrote:
Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

 Pouncey wrote:
In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

Which is why I'm asking for a specific 7th edition rule to be cited. I acknowledge that the rules may prohibit it, but it's not a case of "prove that you're allowed to do it". The burden of proof is on the person opposing model stacking to cite a rule that does not allow it, and I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

Peregrine wrote:]You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:]You don't need explicit permission. The rules say that if I have a model that moves 6" I can move it anywhere within 6" of movement distance, except for specific places I can't move it (impassible terrain, within 1" of enemy models except when charging, etc). To prohibit movement onto friendly models you would need to cite a similar "except for this place" restriction on where the model can be placed.

By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

Yup.

Then when someone wants to shoot it, you have to hold that tac marine where it actually is so your opponent can measure LoS and range properly.

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

They're Space Marines.

They'll fly when the plot demands them to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

"Let me know on your turn if you want to shoot it. I'll hold it up in the air! Just don't wait too long to shoot it! If the game lasts long enough, I might need a stepping stool!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
In some editions, models are impassable terrain.

Which is why I'm asking for a specific 7th edition rule to be cited. I acknowledge that the rules may prohibit it, but it's not a case of "prove that you're allowed to do it". The burden of proof is on the person opposing model stacking to cite a rule that does not allow it, and I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

Whatever happened to all the talk of "permissive ruleset" and all of that hullabaloo?

I'm not sure that countering a claim that the rules are flawed by pointing out that the rules are flawed will actually get the result you're looking for, Traditio...

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not sure that countering a claim that the rules are flawed by pointing out that the rules are flawed will actually get the result you're looking for, Traditio...

Are you conceding that you think that the rules literally allow my space marines to...you know...literally fly around in space?

Is that what you are saying?

 Traditio wrote:
Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

Holding a model in position because it can't be placed there =/= placing it.

Whatever happened to all the talk of "permissive ruleset" and all of that hullabaloo?

You just don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. A permissive ruleset is one where the rules tell you what you can do, not one where the answer to any rules question is "no" unless explicitly stated otherwise. The general rules for movement give you permission to place a model anywhere within its movement distance. Then specific rules impose additional restrictions: no moving through impassible terrain, no moving within 1" of enemy models except when charging, shorter movement distances through certain terrain types, etc. If no such specific restriction exists for a particular case then the general rule of "anywhere within movement distance" applies.

 Traditio wrote:


Are you conceding that you think that the rules literally allow my space marines to...you know...literally fly around in space?

Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that claiming that the rules are silly doesn't prove that the rules aren't silly.

Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Of course it's possible to place a model there. Of course, given the fact that my arm will eventually get tired, there will be an excessive risk of me dropping it, thereby bumping it off of the spot. Therefore: WMS.

Holding a model in position because it can't be placed there =/= placing it.

Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
By your reasoning:

I could start with a tactical marine on the table. I then could draw up a 3 dimensional map of the table. I then could move that tac marine 6 inches straight up, appeal to wobbly model syndrome, mark it down on the map that the tac marine is literally flying, and then remove the model from the table.

No you can't. WMS applies only to situations where it is possible to place a model but it would be at an excessive risk of being bumped off its spot. A model can not be placed at an arbitrary spot 6" above the table, so WMS does not apply.

http://i.imgur.com/TX3MufR.png
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

roflmajog wrote:
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

You have officially made my day!

Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

 Traditio wrote:

roflmajog wrote:
This question from the FAQ would imply that it doesn't have to be possible to put the model there.
Q: There is no room for my model what do I do?
GW: It is flying, WMS
So according to that FAQ WMS doesn't involve the model actually being able to stand there without you holding it.

You have officially made my day!

Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

Is that so? I can't see or identify any "something" that your Space Marine is standing on. There's no game surface that your model can occupy, so it can't fly. Unless we're calling air a game surface, in which case models can't even move because they would be physically encased by air at all times.

 Traditio wrote:
Well, there you have it, Peregrine. According to your argument, my space marines can, in fact, fly. Good game.

If you take the sheer idiocy of the FAQ that way and ignore the actual rules. And, as has already been pointed out, arguing that the rules are broken in some other way doesn't really answer the question in the OP. It just means that 40k's rules are really badly written.

If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

 Huron black heart wrote:
This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

There's also the fact that most opponents, if you tried to claim your Marines can fly, would respond by packing up their army and finding someone else to play with.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
This discussion is taking a strange turn. Although I don't have it to hand, I'm pretty sure the BRB does say somewhere about using common sense, therefore negating any floating model predicaments.
In fact I'd say that being advised to use common sense would negate a heck of a lot of silly rules theories. Wish I could quote the page

There's also the fact that most opponents, if you tried to claim your Marines can fly, would respond by packing up their army and finding someone else to play with.

Which I would. Play with and not against your opponent, allow common sense to prevail and stop when it's no longer fun

 Huron black heart wrote:
Which I would. Play with and not against your opponent, allow common sense to prevail and stop when it's no longer fun

Agreed. Many of these technicalities in the rules are fun to explore as sort of a "Hahaha, look what the rules technically say I can do!" but in an actual game no one ever tries to insist on this stuff.

In regards to Marines flying, I once read a Baen sci-fi novel by John Ringo where the power armored infantry made use of their armor's inertial dampeners and hologram generators to disguise a squad as the "heads" of a large hydra creature, to fool their enemy into wasting shots on the body, which was in fact a hologram. Of course, the power armor in that series was fully capable of taking a nuclear explosion point-blank without the occupant dying.

 Pouncey wrote:
If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

Wait, fully armored Marines are invisible and blind?

 Verviedi wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
If you want to go for sheer, unadulterated idiocy in overly-literal interpretations of rules, look no further than interpreting the LoS rules with the knowledge that a uniform or armor is not, in fact, a "body part" and that helmet lenses are not, in fact, "eyes."

Wait, fully armored Marines are invisible and blind?

Technically, yes. As are Sisters of Battle models who have their helmets on. And Eldar. Tau too.

They also cannot move, as you need to be able to see the location you're moving to.

Guardsmen are now OP beyond words. Congratulations, GW, you went full slow. Never go full slow.

 Verviedi wrote:
Guardsmen are now OP beyond words. Congratulations, GW, you went full slow. Never go full slow.

Necrons and Tyranids are mostly-unaffected, because as sentient machines and biomorphs with extreme natural weapons/defenses, the Necron and Tyranid models are in fact their bodies (and they're naked!). Wraith constructs can be targeted, as their bodies are made of Wraithbone, but they can't see as they have no eyes. The Mechanicum guys are cyborgs, so bionic eyes count as part of their bodies, but they wear enough clothing to hamper the ability to target them. Dark Eldar often don't wear helmets so they're in the same state as IG.

Hm, so who has the best situation here? A model with everything covered except eyes.... Eldar Rangers? Skitarii? Maybe Kataphron Breachers/Destroyers?

 Verviedi wrote:
Hm, so who has the best situation here? A model with everything covered except eyes.... Eldar Rangers? Skitarii? Maybe Kataphron Breachers/Destroyers?

The Orbital Strike from the 3e Witch Hunters Codex, actually.

It gets to deal damage to stuff all game but you can never kill it since it deliberately has no model.

Sounds reasonable enough. I only have Daemonhunters for reference, is it the same as the lance strikes in that?

 Verviedi wrote:
Sounds reasonable enough. I only have Daemonhunters for reference, is it the same as the lance strikes in that?

Probably.

There were three different types of Orbital Strike you could pick from, with different types of weapon profiles. Each one had a different points value and you could only have 1 Orbital Strike in your army roster at most.

You had to pick a terrain piece at the start of the game and make a note of which one you picked. Then during the game you could start the orbital bombardment, and were allowed to use the Orbital Strike attack with the template located anywhere within that terrain piece, which would then scatter (it may have had extra-than-normal scatter as well, such as always scattering even if you got a direct hit with the scatter die). The Orbital Strike would then continue during each of your shooting phases for the rest of the game.

According to GW:

Q: What are the official rules regarding specific base sizes for specific models (if any)? A: The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with, but it’s entirely fine to mount them on whichever base you think is appropriate. Sometimes, a player may have models in their collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

I would take this to mean that the base itself doesn't matter. I'd go further to say that in game terms, the soldier is represented by the figure and not its base (since its implied they are standing on grass, dirt, pavement, etc.) and as such they would simply move around as possible to make room. This allows for some base overlap.

Now if they were assaulted, then things my get difficult, but as it stands, for ranged combat, not cheating.

 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
According to GW:

Q: What are the official rules regarding specific base sizes for specific models (if any)? A: The rules assume that models are mounted on the base they are supplied with, but it’s entirely fine to mount them on whichever base you think is appropriate. Sometimes, a player may have models in their collection on unusually modelled bases. Some models aren’t supplied with a base at all. In these cases you should always feel free to mount the model on a base of appropriate size if you wish, using models of a similar type as guidance.

I would take this to mean that the base itself doesn't matter. I'd go further to say that in game terms, the soldier is represented by the figure and not its base (since its implied they are standing on grass, dirt, pavement, etc.) and as such they would simply move around as possible to make room. This allows for some base overlap.

Now if they were assaulted, then things my get difficult, but as it stands, for ranged combat, not cheating.

For example, this model:

http://i.imgur.com/T2b27qj.png

Is not actually a Terminator, yet uses Terminator parts and a 40mm base because the RP character it represents is a god damned enormous, hulking creature (12 feet tall and packing tons of muscle, the tallest humans IRL would not even come up to his pecs, and ordinary Astartes would be dwarfed by him). IIRC, I use him as a Sternguard with a Heavy Bolter.

Just want to show an example of a model with a non-standard base for its type that has a decent reason for having a non-standard base.

The base mostly matters for measuring distances between models and template weapons. Line of Sight is done to the actual figure itself. In an assault, overlapping bases aren't a big issue either. It's not at all uncommon to be in base contact with multiple models at once, which is basically the effect this would have, and there's always been rules for how to allocate attacks/wounds in those situations.