Do i have to move around a friendly vehicle, or could i move my infantry on top of a rhino ? I wouldnt move through it, thats not allowed. I would treat it like a piece of scenery, and add vertical plus horizontal distance to get on top of it.

The movement rules are : "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery."

No. If you can't move through a model, how can you move on top of a model?

There are no vehicles. Only models with different rules.

You can't just treat a model as a piece of scenery.

p5freak wrote:
Do i have to move around a friendly vehicle, or could i move my infantry on top of a rhino ? I wouldnt move through it, thats not allowed. I would treat it like a piece of scenery, and add vertical plus horizontal distance to get on top of it.

The movement rules are : "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery."

Your quoted text answers your own question.
No.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
No. If you can't move through a model, how can you move on top of a model?

Because i am not moving through it ? I'm moving on top of it.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

There are no vehicles. Only models with different rules.

Thats odd. My index says the rhino is a vehicle.

Cool man, guess I'll pile my guys in on top of your models so I can get more in range to fight then. I'm not moving through your model, I'm moving on top of it.

p5freak wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
No. If you can't move through a model, how can you move on top of a model?

Because i am not moving through it ? I'm moving on top of it.

Yes, you are. How else would you get on top of another model, if not moving through the space it blocks?

p5freak wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

There are no vehicles. Only models with different rules.

Thats odd. My index says the rhino is a vehicle.

No, your Rhino has the Keyword 'Vehicle'. It's still a model. If you're of a different opinion, please quote the Core/Advanced rules for vehicles for me.

You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

The VEHICLE keyword doesn't mean it doesnt move and shoot and CC like any other infantry or other model in the game. Some weapons and abilities will have abilities that only proc when a VEHICLE is involved. Nothing about the keyword itself has any inherent special rules the way 7th did/had monstrous creatures all have like 4-6 special rules that weren't in the codex but in the BRB.....

If you couldn't walk your model on top of a Greater Demon of Nurgle, there is nothing about having the keyword VEHICLE that will grant you the ability to do so either.

 Blackie wrote:
You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

Where would one find that in the rulebook?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

Where would one find that in the rulebook?

I think you won't find it at all. Destroyed models are removed, if I remember correctly (but I didn't check before posting).

For what it's worth, I'd probably let my opponent place models on top of vehicles. The Tactical Squad Marine with the missile launcher getting up onto the Rhino for a better shot makes sense from a fluff perspective and, let's be honest, it does look cool!
Of course, the complications this brings with it as soon as said vehicle wants to start moving might make the whole thing suddenly seem less apealing.

Snugiraffe wrote:

Of course, the complications this brings with it as soon as said vehicle wants to start moving might make the whole thing suddenly seem less apealing.

Basically this. Plus it opens the door for other things. Such as piling in on top of enemy models to get more models in range to fight or charging over enemy/friendly vehicles to deny overwatch to units on the other side.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

Where would one find that in the rulebook?

Not disagreeing, I just really wish the whole 'vehicle stays as terrain' thing existed. But as it stands they go poof even if they don't blow up which is stupid.

 mmzero252 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

Where would one find that in the rulebook?

Not disagreeing, I just really wish the whole 'vehicle stays as terrain' thing existed. But as it stands they go poof even if they don't blow up which is stupid.

Last editions vehicle wrecks were all over the field with the rare exception. Now they've entirely vanished.

Suggested Optional Rule: If a Vehicle rolls to explode, on an unmodified roll of 1 do not remove the model. Mark the vehicle to represent that it is a Wreck or replace it with a Crater. It is now a piece of battlefield terrain.

Jacksmiles wrote:Cool man, guess I'll pile my guys in on top of your models so I can get more in range to fight then. I'm not moving through your model, I'm moving on top of it.

To bad you have to stay 1" away from enemy models.

Hanskrampf wrote:No. If you can't move through a model, how can you move on top of a model?

Like you would move infantry on a piece of scenery. See here, example one : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/735347.page The model wants to move on top of the tower, the distance is 7". The model is not moving through the scenery. It moves towards the tower, then climbs up vertically.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

No, your Rhino has the Keyword 'Vehicle'. It's still a model. If you're of a different opinion, please quote the Core/Advanced rules for vehicles for me.

The rulebook update 1.1 says that vehicles must be setup on the ground floor of ruins, and they can only end their movement at the ground floor. Loosely translated from german, i dont have the english version. There are rules for vehicles.

Snugiraffe wrote:
For what it's worth, I'd probably let my opponent place models on top of vehicles. The Tactical Squad Marine with the missile launcher getting up onto the Rhino for a better shot makes sense from a fluff perspective and, let's be honest, it does look cool!

Yes, it does look cool.

Jacksmiles wrote:
Plus it opens the door for other things. Such as piling in on top of enemy models to get more models in range to fight or charging over enemy/friendly vehicles to deny overwatch to units on the other side.

You cant charge over enemy units, you must keep 1" distance.

A strict Rule Lawyer answer would be to underline the part where it says you can move vertical to transfer scenery, and point out the Model in question is not scenery.
But... and this is the kicker... from that sort of reading as well, I would highlight a very important word that is missing from the sentence: Horizontally.

Sure, it goes on to grant permission to move Vertically in order to go over scenery, but the model already has permission to move in 'any direction' as stated prior in the Rule. Due to the fact that Up and Down are common directions, there is nothing stopping us from moving the Model vertically upwards and leaving it hovering mid-air from a Rule as Written point of view. Gravity, after all, is a real world problem that we can overcome by using rules such as Wobbly Model Syndrome and a gullible opponent. Yet... at this point I need to feel the urge to remind everyone that this is not a new problem at all, Game Workshop has always had a problem writing Rules involving three dimensions so why should we assume today would be any different.

Remember: Every reference to 'Base' is a deliberate attempt to get rid of the three dimensional nature of a Model....

Of Course:
I do not give you consent to use Wobbly Model Syndrome to levitate Models in midair... thus my own argument for levitating Models is now nullified.

Imma just start piling Pathfinders on top of a Stormsurge then, so they can markerlight over everything...

Imma claim that objective by crowd surfing your troops, fair right?

p5freak wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:Cool man, guess I'll pile my guys in on top of your models so I can get more in range to fight then. I'm not moving through your model, I'm moving on top of it.

To bad you have to stay 1" away from enemy models.

What are you talking about? Pile in is part of the fight phase, not movement phase. If I'm not in base contact with your model, by moving on top I get closer to your model as part of my pile in, and I'm following your own guidelines of "it's not moving through models."

Jacksmiles wrote:
Plus it opens the door for other things. Such as piling in on top of enemy models to get more models in range to fight or charging over enemy/friendly vehicles to deny overwatch to units on the other side.

You cant charge over enemy units, you must keep 1" distance.

Oh wow you got me there, guess I'll revise that to just charging over friendly vehicles then


Automatically Appended Next Post:

p5freak wrote:

Hanskrampf wrote:No. If you can't move through a model, how can you move on top of a model?

Like you would move infantry on a piece of scenery. See here, example one : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/735347.page The model wants to move on top of the tower, the distance is 7". The model is not moving through the scenery. It moves towards the tower, then climbs up vertically.

Except a model is not scenery.

Unfortunately from a strict RAW perspective OP is right moving on top of friendly models violates no rules of movement. 1 Models can be moved in any direction including diagonally. 2 can't be moved through terrain or models, a diagonal move takes care of that. As long as no part of the infantry's base move farther than it's move characteristic and it's not and enemy model that's the only rules for movement we have.

Man I'm sorry to say but from the grenade in CC thread you wrote I formed the opinion that you're TFG that wants to do nonsensical stuff in the game all the time because you read Da Vinci Code once and now think every sentence in the rulebook has an hidden secret meaning that rewards people who overthink.

No it doesn't.

The movement rule says you can move your models vertically, in order to climb or traverse scenery. A vehicle is not scenery so therefore you can't even begin thinking about moving vertically over it because nothing says you can. You can't place your model on another model, a vehicle is a model, therefore you can't do that.

I don't know how you find people willing to play against you with the lack of common sense and tricks you're trying to pull out.

So I can create a tower of models, stacking one model on top of another, to get a bird's eye view of the whole table?

Sounds stupid.

Rhino-surfing is not a thing in 8th.

 Blackie wrote:
You can place a model on top on a destroyed vehicle though. If that rhino gets wrecked it becomes a piece of terrain and you can move you models on top of it if you want.

That may have been a thing in some past editions, but it's not part of this edition. RAW the model is removed.

Snugiraffe wrote:

I think you won't find it at all. Destroyed models are removed, if I remember correctly (but I didn't check before posting).

For what it's worth, I'd probably let my opponent place models on top of vehicles. The Tactical Squad Marine with the missile launcher getting up onto the Rhino for a better shot makes sense from a fluff perspective and, let's be honest, it does look cool!
Of course, the complications this brings with it as soon as said vehicle wants to start moving might make the whole thing suddenly seem less apealing.

It comes down to the context of the game you're playing and who you're playing it with. In a friendly, fun game with friends, I'll be fine with leaving destroyed vehicles on the table as scenery, and probably even be fine with climbing on top of the Rhino as house rules. Playing a game with people I don't know well, or in a competitive environment? Nope.

No, you can't. It's that simple.

Yes you can the stepping into the new edition faq says you must measure in three dimensions. The base rules says you can move in any direction. I wish this wasn't true but from RAW this is what happens when you condense your rules down to 5 pages. If you say it doesn't make logical sense a fixed gun turret firing through it's own vehicle at a target doesn't make sense either. Try to find in that movement section something that says you cannot place it on top of a friendly model. I would love to be proven wrong.

The trolls seem to be out in force today.

 Hades wrote:
Yes you can the stepping into the new edition faq says you must measure in three dimensions. The base rules says you can move in any direction. I wish this wasn't true but from RAW this is what happens when you condense your rules down to 5 pages. If you say it doesn't make logical sense a fixed gun turret firing through it's own vehicle at a target doesn't make sense either. Try to find in that movement section something that says you cannot place it on top of a friendly model. I would love to be proven wrong.

Ok... Core Rules page 3

It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

This says you can move vertically to traverse scenery; you have no permission to move vertically to climb your own models.

 Hades wrote:
Unfortunately from a strict RAW perspective OP is right moving on top of friendly models violates no rules of movement. 1 Models can be moved in any direction including diagonally. 2 can't be moved through terrain or models, a diagonal move takes care of that. As long as no part of the infantry's base move farther than it's move characteristic and it's not and enemy model that's the only rules for movement we have.

2. If you move diagonally to get on top of a rhino, you have just floated around. We don't get to just float around. You would have to move straight up and straight over, like OP is trying to insist is okay.

Again, though, this just means I'm putting my models on top of yours when I pile in during the fight phase to make sure more of my horde is in range to attack.

But you don't have to move through it. You can move in any direction so you can move on an angle that doesn't clip the think in any way.

 Hades wrote:
But you don't have to move through it. You can move in any direction so you can move on an angle that doesn't clip the think in any way.

Diagonally through the air, then? Okay lol. Who needs the ground anyway?

Everything here is still a no, though. Unless you want me throwing my models on top of yours in the fight phase. You have permission to walk on scenery, not on models.

 Hades wrote:
But you don't have to move through it. You can move in any direction so you can move on an angle that doesn't clip the think in any way.

Except you're not given permission to move vertically except to traverse scenery. A rhino is not scenery.

Hades, you asked for proof and I gave it on Page 1, and BCB has repeated the same above. Your idea is not valid, sorry dude.

Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

 Hades wrote:
Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

No, you are not. The rule was quoted for you.

 Hades wrote:
Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

So now everything can fly. Great news for my movement phase, I'll never need to measure both horizontally and vertically again, I can just diagonal it up from the ground to the 2nd floor.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Hades wrote:
Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

So now everything can fly. Great news for my movement phase, I'll never need to measure both horizontally and vertically again, I can just diagonal it up from the ground to the 2nd floor.

Go flat out and jump your Leman Russ' over forests too

Go reread the "stepping into the new edition" faq. It's full of things to shake the 7th edition dust off you. "All distances a measured in three dimensions."

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Hades wrote:
Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

So now everything can fly. Great news for my movement phase, I'll never need to measure both horizontally and vertically again, I can just diagonal it up from the ground to the 2nd floor.

Go flat out and jump your Leman Russ' over forests too

Flying tank regiment here I come!

 Hades wrote:
Go reread the "stepping into the new edition" faq. It's full of things to shake the 7th edition dust off you. "All distances a measured in three dimensions."

OK, and when does it say you're allowed to move vertically? Please quote the exact bit of the rule. Hint: I did on page 1.

 Hades wrote:
"All distances a measured in three dimensions."

Yeah, width, depth, and time. You only get the 4th dimension, height, when it explicitly says you get it. And it's only given permission for scenery.

I think we can safely assume that Hades and p5freak are trolls and can disregard anything they say.

Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

The three dimensions are width, depth and height. Time is the fourth.

p5freak wrote:
The three dimensions are width, depth and height. Time is the fourth.

Where in the rulebook does it say this?

I'm parsing the latest comments a bit

But if you allow this what stops someone from saying
"Okay so 50 conscripts are deploying as a Totem Pole..."

 Overheal wrote:
I'm parsing the latest comments a bit

But if you allow this what stops someone from saying
"Okay so 50 conscripts are deploying as a Totem Pole..."

The point is they CAN'T. But it's not stopping some people arguing they could. When they're very, very wrong.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Overheal wrote:
I'm parsing the latest comments a bit

But if you allow this what stops someone from saying
"Okay so 50 conscripts are deploying as a Totem Pole..."

The point is they CAN'T. But it's not stopping some people arguing they could. When they're very, very wrong.

Right. It highlights that (in Matched Play, do what you want narratively) that you can't charge in on the back of a rhino or use the Rhino as a stepping stool.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So I can create a tower of models, stacking one model on top of another, to get a bird's eye view of the whole table?

Sounds stupid.

]

That's why they got rid of templates and blast markers, so you don't affect everyone in the stack by putting the marker over it.

man effing IG mortars firing into multi-storey ruins ruined my local store for me. LOL

good riddance on blast weapons in most cases. though I still enjoyed dropping the Template down to light things up with.

This thread makes me embarrassed to be a patron of Dakkadakka.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread makes me embarrassed to be a patron of Dakkadakka.

bye>?

 Overheal wrote:
I'm parsing the latest comments a bit

But if you allow this what stops someone from saying
"Okay so 50 conscripts are deploying as a Totem Pole..."

Instead of movement trays, I use movement ladders.

 Overheal wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread makes me embarrassed to be a patron of Dakkadakka.

bye>?

Oh come now I can endure a bit of embarrassment without leaving the situation!

I just wonder when Dakkadakka became the place for trolls to go.

HIWPI: You can't stand on your own tanks.

RAW: Still being worked out.

RAI: You can't stand on your own tanks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hades wrote:
Your given permission to move in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to the Move. Diagonally is a direction.

No, you are not. The rule was quoted for you.

This Rule?
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

Bringing up the Rules telling us how to measure distances in three dimensions, and the really pathetic counter of 'they meant time as the third dimension and not the height,' hasn't brought this any closer to parsing what the Written Rules allow for. Don't worry about how you would go about measuring the path this Model took, which is a stupid Rule that I personally despise because I know the history of such a Rule, worry about the fact we have permission to Move Vertically to begin with. The above quoted section grants permission to move in Any Direction, and all common uses of of the word Up and Down clearly fall under what we would determine to be 'directions...' to the point that third parties I asked that question to said I was being silly because they are obviously directions.

So... that is how rules work, right?
A rule grants us Permission to do X,
Another Rule Restrict our permission to do X
Yet even more Rules may provide Exceptions to Restrictions against X

We have provided the Rule granting us permission to move in ANY direction, please quote the Rule which informs us that Up and Down are Restricted directions.

On a less Rule-Lawyer Note:
Game Workshop has always had a problem when it comes to the Permission-Restriction-Exception system that is default for Rule-Based games like this one. There have been other cases in the past where a Game Workshop Author has written a specific Exception for Restrictions that does not exist. In such situations previously, when Rule Lawyers would dissect such a Rule in a 'As Written' environment, we concluded that said Exception doesn't change the fact written permission to carry out X still exists. Some even started flagging such occurrences as 'reminders,' Rules that do nothing themselves but inform us we still have permission to do X. This is just an example of that problem in one self-contained Rule, as providing us a instructions saying we can move Vertically in order to climb over scenery positions heavily suggests that Vertical Movement is meant to be Restricted. Alas, that is not what the word ANY does!

Hovering Models are clearly unintended, and anyone trying to pull that in any game with me will get shut down fast, but till I see a quoted Rule Restricting the 'Any' in 'Any Direction' I have to conclude that Hovering midair is 'as Written.'

I 100% agree with Jinx and Unit it's not how I would play it and I really don't see a good benefit to it. I posted to try and be proven wrong because even though the core rules are 8 pages there's dozens of FAQs all in different places. Somehow this is better?

Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

 Hades wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

I just performed Ctrl+F on that PDF and couldn't find "diag" or any further-embellishments of "diag---" in the document. Can you highlight it?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

JohnnyHell,
Maybe you can help us by Quoting the Restriction in question?
Just copy and paste it, word for word, from the Rulebook for me.

I keep asking for that because, as others have pointed out, the formatting of Game Workshop Rules is of a very poor quality and this Edition is no different. It is not uncommon for us, when researching an answer to such questions, to need to flip between three or four different sections in multiple books just to understand what is going on. This is even before we start hunting the errata down, which in turn is scattered across multiple locations online depending on which pieces of Author Comments you consider to be Errata. This, if it isn't something so damn obvious that we find the answer in a single paragraph, it really does leave me wondering just what the hell we are missing. It is one of the reasons I ask, because maybe you have read something further in the book that contains a Restriction that I have overlooked.

So, please, quote it for me so I can be correctly informed.

"Q: How do vertical distances work for movement
and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if
a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal
distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed
its Movement characteristic. This means that in order
to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the
top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move
down it."

This clearly indicates you move via any combination of up/over but not diagonally. Just saying.

To go 5" diagonally you would need to move 4" over and 3" up, or 3" over and 4" up. ie. you would need to move 7" to move 5" diagonally in this 3D case.

What do you do when the rhino moves away from under the model on top? The model can't move at the same time as the rhino, so do you invoke wobbly model syndrome to keep it 2" in the air on nothing? That's not what it's for, otherwise I'm modelling wings on some tanks and artillery, because the only direction they're going is straight up to get a bird's eye view of the table.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Imma just start piling Pathfinders on top of a Stormsurge then, so they can markerlight over everything...

I feel an Xibit meme coming on.

Of course, none of this really matters because we still have no permission to have models on top of each other.

Jacksmiles wrote:
What do you do when the rhino moves away from under the model on top? The model can't move at the same time as the rhino, so do you invoke wobbly model syndrome to keep it 2" in the air on nothing? That's not what it's for, otherwise I'm modelling wings on some tanks and artillery, because the only direction they're going is straight up to get a bird's eye view of the table.

Just bring Landmasters

Overheal,
How does that prevent a Model from moving Vertically upwards into the air?

Oh, just want to get this off my chest... that Rule you Quoted, we have history... it and I.
I use it as a prime example of how you need to be careful when it comes to writing Rules for a reason:
It is literally shoe-horned into the Measurement Rules in order to answer an extremely minor problem, one that no Player had any issue resolving themselves.

Jacksmiles,
Of course it is going to cause issues, it is an unintended outcome that the Authors did not mean to happen when they gave us permission to move in Any Direction.

It is even more obvious in this edition then any prior one, as every single Rules allowing 'Battlements' have been removed. Those battlements are nothing more then a piece of the Model now, and we are recommend to only place a Unit on-top of the Battlement as a reminder of which one is actually Embarked inside of the building. Hell while we are comparing to previous Editions, those attempted to make a difference between 'Models' and 'Scenery pieces set up as part of the Battlement' even if they did so very poorly. From a Rule as Written stand-point in previous editions, you could stand on that Buildings Battlements because it was nothing more then a piece of Terrain. In some even older editions, they had specific Rules for Embarking 'ONTO' a Model, which where used to handle Battlements and only ever connected to Battlements.

It is very, VERY, obvious that they never wanted us putting Models on-top of Models, so such a dramatic change to the Rules would need to be spelled out within the Rules... not simply implied by reading between the lines.
Alas, if we look at it from nothing more then a Rule as Written stance: I can move it up a few inches and across one inch without breaking any Rules....

JinxDragon wrote:



Oh, just want to get this off my chest... that Rule you Quoted, we have history... it and I.
I use it as a prime example of how you need to be careful when it comes to writing Rules for a reason:
It is literally shoe-horned into the Measurement Rules in order to answer an extremely minor problem, one that no Player had any issue resolving themselves.

Yes, sort of like the sign we had to put up in the building that says "no alcohol is permitted in this building"

Unfortunately theres always TFG...

How does that prevent a Model from moving Vertically upwards into the air?

is air an obstacle or scenery?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That would also seem to indicate that FLY units could just spend some movement to stay +12" off the ground and never ever worry about either CC or short range weaponry

Is Up a Direction?

This is what I keep pointing out:
Permission - Restriction - Exception

Permission exists to move in Any Direction, I have quoted and underlined the relevant Permission for your review in previous posts.
Can you Quote and Underline the relevant Restriction which prevents me from selecting Up as that direction?

 Hades wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

Of course I added the word only because it was my sentence. The rules sentence has been quoted to you yet you seem to refuse to accept it.

Do please post me that paragraph you're referring to. The word diagonally doesn't even appear in the Stepping Into A New Edition document so this should be good... I mean, there is a section saying that you have to move along then up scenery, so the opposite of diagonal, but nothing about magical hover movements. I'm always open to being wrong and learning something but I don't think this is one of those occasions. ;-)

JinxDragon wrote:
Is Up a Direction?

This is what I keep pointing out:
Permission - Restriction - Exception

Permission exists to move in Any Direction, I have quoted and underlined the relevant Permission
Can you Quote and Underline the relevant Restriction which prevents me from selecting Up as that direction?

Up is a direction

I could totally move up

I just need a ladder

You're suggesting FLY models (sans Airborne) can just stay completely off the ground and avoid CC or close range fire.

Hell I'll just deploy my Crisis Suit army 18" above the ground and win the game with missile pods. Checkmate, liberals.

Why do you think this broken outcome nullifies what the Rule has granted Permission do?

One of the reasons I love watching Game Workshop is because of the mistakes they make when it comes to Rule writing. You Make Da Call wouldn't even have a tenth of the posts in it if it wasn't for the fact that Game Workshop fail completely when it comes to writing Rules that function fluently. Hell I just had to come back to 8th because it was a "re-write," not because I expected everything to be fixed but as an opportunity to watch Game Workshop break it in entirely new ways. Over the next few months we are going to see them tweaking the Rules, making even more interactions break while they go about doing so... because that is how they have always done things.

So it doesn't surprise me we have Permission - NOTHING - Exception errors in the Rulebook still.

Instead of trying to find ways to exploit the Rules, all just to make your opponents look like 'That fething Guy' so your side of the debate can take a moral high ground, simply accept that the Authors clearly made a mistake within this section of the Rulebook, It is very obvious that they had no intention of allowing Models to hover midair, even those with the FLY keyword, and simply stating that fact should be enough to move on. The only reason I haven't is a personal curiosity and mental defects. I really an curious why you picked an argument with the side that sates 'obvious mistake' as if what occurs on this Forum ever changes how the game has to be played.

As if accepting a mistake has occurred has ever meant that we have to play by the strict Written.

There is so much nonsense in this thread I'm done. I just like people being able to come in and get succinct answers or have a nice discussion. But there's no longer any rational argument going on here, and the rules simply don't support (pun not intended) models being balanced on top of other models. If you want to actually play this game and have opponents who want to play you, it's kinda important to not indulge in a three-page internet argument claiming you can. Each to their own though. Enjoy whatever happens here next...

I agree this is nonsense.

I concur, it is nonsense.
I am more curious as to why people can't see this as a clear and obvious mistake, to the point they argue that the Rules function as Intended even when it is very obviously not the case....

 Hades wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

I just looked through it and, like Overheal, did not find anything about moving diagonally in the stepping into a new edition FAQ. Perhaps you could quote it and let us know what page of the FAQ it's on?

If I was to describe a direction that is not forward, but sort of going off at an angle from the path I am looking....
What word would I use to describe that direction?

I mean, really, take a step back and consider exactly what you are arguing. You are requiring a specific use of a specific word within a Rule, while willfully ignoring the all-inclusive term used within that Rule. If you really want to continue the argument that 'Diagonal' movement is forbidden, because the Rule never specifically uses the word Diaginal then I will take it to the logical conclusion. You are forbidden from moving your Models forward or backwards, because there is also a complete lack of those words within the Rule as well. Alternatively, we can accept that the word ANY within 'Any Direction' includes those that go off on an angle because... well it does say any direction, and that is still a direction.

Then just laugh if your opponent tries the nonsense in this thread and say 'cute, but no... you don't get to use obvious mistakes like that.'

What about bunker can you still go over it or not now it's like a vehicule?

 JinxDragon wrote:

This Rule?
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

You already proved yourself wrong. You can't go up at all unless you're climbing scenery. An active model is not scenery and when it dies it vanishes.

"RUINS: Infantry...These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment."

RAW, you can move your infantry DOWN through the game board and walk them upside-down on the bottom surface to pop back up in another ruin. Since there's no line of sight, they won't be able to shoot or be shot at while on the underside of the game board. I imagine CC is still possible.

Containment_Failure wrote:
"RUINS: Infantry...These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment."

RAW, you can move your infantry DOWN through the game board and walk them upside-down on the bottom surface to pop back up in another ruin. Since there's no line of sight, they won't be able to shoot or be shot at while on the underside of the game board. I imagine CC is still possible.

Only if the gameboard is <1" thick.

 Hades wrote:
Go reread the "stepping into the new edition" faq. It's full of things to shake the 7th edition dust off you. "All distances a measured in three dimensions."

And that is true, you do measure in 3 dimensions.
However, you are only given permission to move in the 3rd dimension (height) under specific circumstances - ie when scaling terrain and scenery.
In the cases where you don't fulfil that permission, your measurement in the 3rd dimension will always be 0 relative to the model when moving.


It should also be pointed out you measure for a lot more than moving... weapon range for example. There you aren't given an exception to measuring vertically, and can do so as normal.

So, the problem here lies in the "any direction" wording within the movement rules as people pointed out already.

If TFG insists to be a rules-lawyer like this, i could argue aswell that vertical is not a direction (except for "scenery") because AIR is not part of the Battlefield.

p.186 rulebook describes, that the battlefield can consist of any SURFACE (a surface is flat) on which models can stand. It further defines an example surface of 72"x48" a vertical range is not defined, so it does not exist. Warhammer40k plays on a flat surface, with the exception rule for moving vertically over scenery.

I cant give the english wording, loosly translated form german.

mmzero252,
The section I underlined was permission to move in ANY direction, and upwards is clearly a direction by any definition.
The section you underlined was permission to move upwards when it comes to moving over scenery pieces.
Where in those two statements is a conflict?

This is the point I keep making, both of these sentences are permission to do something, there the section you underlined lack the type of words needed to Restrict vertical movement. Had it included the word ONLY then we would have grounds to call it a Restriction. As nothing inherent about granting additional permissions revokes previously granted permissions, I can not conclude the section you underlined prevents both from being true statements. One has permission to move upwards by default, but one also has additional permission to move upwards over a piece of scenery.

I know I am not going to convince you, we both are repeating our points, so this will be the last post on the topic.
Anyone reading this thread will be able to clearly understand what I am stating, and why I believe it is nothing more then an error on the Authors behalf we can safely ignore.

Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

@Jinx
Because you underlined the permission to move in any direction. I underlined the RESTRICTION allowing you to only move vertically for scenery. I'm really not sure how you don't understand this. This whole thing is such a non-issue it's kinda stupid.

 JinxDragon wrote:
mmzero252,
The section I underlined was permission to move in ANY direction, and upwards is clearly a direction by any definition.
The section you underlined was permission to move upwards when it comes to moving over scenery pieces.
Where in those two statements is a conflict?

This is the point I keep making, both of these sentences are permission to do something, there the section you underlined lack the type of words needed to Restrict vertical movement. Had it included the word ONLY then we would have grounds to call it a Restriction. As nothing inherent about granting additional permissions revokes previously granted permissions, I can not conclude the section you underlined prevents both from being true statements. One has permission to move upwards by default, but one also has additional permission to move upwards over a piece of scenery.

I know I am not going to convince you, we both are repeating our points, so this will be the last post on the topic.
Anyone reading this thread will be able to clearly understand what I am stating, and why I believe it is nothing more then an error on the Authors behalf we can safely ignore.

The same spot that says you can move in any direction also, after saying that, says you may move vertically to scale terrain and scenery. It doesn't say that you get to scale other models. That means the vertical movement has the limitation of only being used for scaling terrain and scenery, it doesn't mean you get to air walk, or move down into the table to go subterranean.

As you are a different poster directly addressing me, I will try this one last time, but I honestly think people are willfully choosing to ignore the problem due to the fact the obvious intention is so damn obvious.

Thus, consider the following situation so we can remove ourselves from the instinctive knee jerk to Vertical Movement:
Models have permission to throw a grenade
Certain Models have permission to throw a grenade when they are slain

Does that mean that all Models can only throw grenades after they are killed?
Does that mean that Models with this Special Rule may only throw a Grenade when they are killed?
Or
Does it mean that Models have permission to throw grenades by default, but these Models can also throw a Grenade when they meet the conditions within the special Rule (aka, are also killed)?

That is what I am harping on, that permission to do X may come from multiple sources and simply having multiple Permissions does not, in any way, restrict the previous granted permission. When that logic is applied to Vertical Movement, due to the way that paragraph was written, we enter a situation where Permission to move in any Direction is granted, and Permission to move Vertically in order to cross a piece of Terrain is also granted. It isn't my fault that the Authors wrote that sentence to grant Permission, instead of taking care to ensure that they where making a Restriction as they clearly intended to do. This error occurred due to a single missing word within the sentence you keep highlighting, that is the word ONLY.

Actually - it is something that amazes me when it comes to the Player base for Warhammer 40k:
They are so used to correcting Game Workshop errors, that they long ago reached the point of doing so without even realizing they are correcting an error....

I don't see the point where any-direction movement is granted. I see where measurement in any direction is done, and I see where it explicitly states:

"Q: How do vertical distances work for movement
and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if
a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal
distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed
its Movement characteristic. This means that in order
to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the
top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move
down it."

Which is pretty friggin explicit. That means

(Movement in X/Y + Movemement in Z) <= Move Characteristic

Not

sqrt((Movement in X/Y)^2 + (Movement in Z)^2) <= Move Characteristic

They are "combined" not "the square root of the sum of the squares of your horizontal and vertical movement"

It's because they aren't paying attention to FAQs or anything else besides exact wording. On top of that they are also all ignoring that saying "You can move" which is then ended by "You can move vertically to go up scenery" doesn't mean you can fly around the field. Honestly at this point I fully believe they are either trolls or TFG.

 mmzero252 wrote:
It's because they aren't paying attention to FAQs or anything else besides exact wording. On top of that they are also all ignoring that saying "You can move" which is then ended by "You can move vertically to go up scenery" doesn't mean you can fly around the field. Honestly at this point I fully believe they are either trolls or TFG.

Not even complete exact wording, given that the talk about vertical movement for climbing terrain and scenery is in the same paragraph not long after the part they quote about moving in any direction. Overheal's quote of the FAQ should make it clear how the distances are measured, and the quote about vertical movement to climb terrain and scenery should make it clear they are not referring to climbing friendly or enemy models, and that the Emperor has not suddenly granted the unit with the power of self-telekinesis to propel themselves willy-nilly though the air.

 Overheal wrote:
Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

I'd say UP is not a direction in 40k. Directions are nowhere defined by the game. But the game works on the chosen battlefield, the battlefield is defined by your chosen tabletop, which is a flat surface. All rules apply only to this surface you are playing on.

That means
you can move your models in any direction on the tabletop.
you can not move your models off the board.
you can not place your units off the board.
you can not move your models into the ground.
you can not move your models into the air.

Someone who thinks he can move his models up into the air, is simply trying extending the battlefield, which is not possible, it is flat, 2D, AIR and "below the table" are not part of the game. Terrain is just an exception which is ruled by the vertical movement, and Line of sight blocking rule to somehow make it work.



If someone would argue to me he can move his models to some place which is not part of the game, i would hang up a blanket from the ceiling in front of my deployment zone in his shooting phase and tell him his LOS is blocked. In my next movement phase i would then let my Hormagaunts start climbing the blanket according the vertical movement rule.
Also, this thread is stupid.

Ok so this isn't to troll, it's not a top level tactic or anything like that. This isn't to attack anyone, and I know where the rule was in the 7th book to disallow this. Its merely a discussion on GWs ability to write rules. Let's agree to disagree on vertical movement. New scenario, a rhino is parked flushed with a wall. It's touching with no gap between it and a friendly space marine uses the terrain for all it's needed vertical movement and then moves horizontally on to the rhino. Is there anything anyone can find in the book or any faq to disallow this?

You're still technically going through a unit. the only way to go over another unit/model is to cross some piece of terrain going over it. Even a flyer can't stop it's move on top of other models. So in every context that doesn't involve scenery being above a model. Just no. The answer is no to moving onto a model/base of a model.

But there is a point at which the models base is high enough that it doesn't clip through the model and just moves into the tank. An even better hypothetical than the one I pointed out would be a piece of terrain that is exactly as tall as the tank with the infantryman already up on it. He could just walk from surface to surface with it parked flush to it.

Actually if a flying unit can't even land on/slide it's base under a tank, it would point towards the base extending forever into the sky unless a conflicting terrain piece was over it. For example, a bridge going over a tank would allow you to walk over it, but if you cross on to the model itself you're still going "through" the unit.

Edit: I should also probably point out that it's fun to theorize this stuff, but a real tournament would never allow a lot of the weird rules-lawyerish things people ask in this forum.

Kremling wrote:

 Overheal wrote:
Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

I'd say UP is not a direction in 40k. Directions are nowhere defined by the game. But the game works on the chosen battlefield, the battlefield is defined by your chosen tabletop, which is a flat surface. All rules apply only to this surface you are playing on.

That means
you can move your models in any direction on the tabletop.
you can not move your models off the board.
you can not place your units off the board.
you can not move your models into the ground.
you can not move your models into the air.

Someone who thinks he can move his models up into the air, is simply trying extending the battlefield, which is not possible, it is flat, 2D, AIR and "below the table" are not part of the game. Terrain is just an exception which is ruled by the vertical movement, and Line of sight blocking rule to somehow make it work.



If someone would argue to me he can move his models to some place which is not part of the game, i would hang up a blanket from the ceiling in front of my deployment zone in his shooting phase and tell him his LOS is blocked. In my next movement phase i would then let my Hormagaunts start climbing the blanket according the vertical movement rule.
Also, this thread is stupid.

Oh im fully on board with that.

The only model I could even dream of suspending over the table is a T'au Manta. Only justifiable situation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hades wrote:
But there is a point at which the models base is high enough that it doesn't clip through the model and just moves into the tank. An even better hypothetical than the one I pointed out would be a piece of terrain that is exactly as tall as the tank with the infantryman already up on it. He could just walk from surface to surface with it parked flush to it.

But if you stop lifting your model (I suggest that WMS should only be used to keep your model from 'wobbling' ie. no lifting force just preventing a model from falling over) then the marine is not going to rest on the table, he is going to rest on another model.

So in your example I could have a really tall cliff/desert rock piece and start my pathfinders on it, and park a stormsurge right next to it. It would be ridiculous to begin with, but this interpretation wouldn't stop them from walking on board the storumsurge shoulders for vantage point and to be little rocket-racoons on a big groot with cluster missiles.

 Overheal wrote:

Kremling wrote:

 Overheal wrote:
Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

I'd say UP is not a direction in 40k. Directions are nowhere defined by the game. But the game works on the chosen battlefield, the battlefield is defined by your chosen tabletop, which is a flat surface. All rules apply only to this surface you are playing on.

That means
you can move your models in any direction on the tabletop.
you can not move your models off the board.
you can not place your units off the board.
you can not move your models into the ground.
you can not move your models into the air.

Someone who thinks he can move his models up into the air, is simply trying extending the battlefield, which is not possible, it is flat, 2D, AIR and "below the table" are not part of the game. Terrain is just an exception which is ruled by the vertical movement, and Line of sight blocking rule to somehow make it work.



If someone would argue to me he can move his models to some place which is not part of the game, i would hang up a blanket from the ceiling in front of my deployment zone in his shooting phase and tell him his LOS is blocked. In my next movement phase i would then let my Hormagaunts start climbing the blanket according the vertical movement rule.
Also, this thread is stupid.

Oh im fully on board with that.

The only model I could even dream of suspending over the table is a T'au Manta. Only justifiable situation

I knew someone would mention deep strike rules, mantas in orbit, stupid slaughterhouse dimensions, lictors in their invisible bushes etc.

You still agree with your opponent before the game on a chosen battlefield, declaring terrain. As long as you dont declare air as part of the battlefield it is not there. We are still playing tabletop games, not 3D holographic gak miniature games(would be awesome though..)


/edit: the language filter is really funny

Kremling,
You are entering the territory of 'Fundamentals,' things we must accept are true of ALL games in order to understand how ANY game system functions. Things like 'You need permission to carry out an action' are Fundamentals, we simply assume this is true of Warhammer as it is true of all other gaming systems. Even if we disagree what those Fundamentals might be, it is a debate site and we disagree on the meaning of the word A if allowed, all of us have to accept that Fundamentals exist or we end up in situations where I can slaughter puppies for re-rolls simply because the Rules haven't forbidden me from doing so. As someone who adores the concept of Fundamentals, any argument which throws out the entire system and begins to focus on the building blocks of Games themselves will catch my attention!

Consider me convinced:
Fundamentally, table-top games require an 'area of play' in order to function... the Table-Top.
We literally use that very fact in order to lump these games together when we categorize them.

Without the Authors informing us that the area of play has been expanded past the fundamental limit of "Table-top," we can safely assume the table top is the limits of play. While "Any Direction" does still include the direction Up, because the Author did not define Direction to state otherwise, it does not actually matter. We are fundamentally required to keep our playing pieces within the playing area, so we are unable to end a Move which would leave the Model outside of play. One can not move the Model upwards for the same reason one can not move a model backwards off your own edge of the table... it is out-of-play with such a Movement.

There are still a few odds and ends, but they would be so very specific I doubt we would ever encounter a situation where it mattered:
Example, I have a flyer with permission to leave play, in theory I could take it straight upwards in order to do so... but such a Model is likely going to be able to find a table edge with the Foot and a half movement rate it has without needing to exploit up.