Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a quick comment about the "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" rule.

Take a land raider, for instance. The land raider's front end slopes up, leaving an overhang in the front. Say the 'rader is moving. It drives up to a friendly base (lets assume there is no actual model on the base, since only the base matters), so that the front upward slope is clearly overhanging the base of the friendly model... infact, the slope is great enough to cover over a majority of the base.

Now, the land raider's hull is not touching the base, yet when viewed top down, the land raider's hull is clearly on top of the base. Is this a legal move? If the space that a model (without a hull) occupies is limited to the base that is 2mm tall and 25 mm wide, then yes you can put a land raider over the base. But by the same token, wouldnt you be able to put bases underneath a fire prism, thanks to the 15mm clearance from the flight stand and the bottom of the hull? The actual model on top of the base wouldnt matter from a strictly RAW point of view in this incidence, correct?

That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

Maybe we should look at the table profile and ignore the Y dimension?

Does that help more than ignoring the Z?

kirsanth wrote:Maybe we should look at the table profile and ignore the Y dimension?

Does that help more than ignoring the Z?

No, I want to ignore the X!

I am X-ist!

Night Lords wrote:I dont think thats what hes saying. I think hes just saying that people are giving the valkyrie special rules, but arnt giving the same special rules to other vehicles. A rhino ontop of another rhino is indeed, not occupying the same space.

Page 13, IMpassable terrain:

Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain

So "on top of" and "above" are indeed two different things: if one rhino tries to sit ON TOP of another model, it is trying to sit ON TOP of impoosible terrain. Which you cannot do.

You can however be ABOVE impassable terrain.

Seriously, how difficult is it to understand: the entire game is 3D. EVERYTHING, by default. Saying "above" and "on top of" doesnt even make sense in 2D, you simply have "in" - you cannot be above a model in 2D, you can only overlap it, which must mean you are inside it. Nothing has thickness remember?

So, I place my model so it is 1" away from an enemy model, in an otherwise legal position: this is a legal position. You now need to find a rule that explicitly denies this, and explicitly does so due to measurement being ain a single 2D plane.

Ify ou cannot do so I suggest you concede with some semblance of grace.

Well, actually, GW still hasn't admitted that 3D even exists. They sort of treat things like the bible. There are a lot of conflicting facts, passages, and broken logic if you try to analyze it. But once you can admit that its purpose is not to make a finite set of rules, it suddenly becomes a lot more clear. If you believe in that sort of thing that is.

The quote about friendly units being impassable terrain is real good, I think, and proves that Valkyries can partially hang above other units.

And I will now make a little picture to explain about a point that was talked about very much in this thread...how a Valkyrie can be ABOVE a model, but not ON TOP OF.


[img=http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6029/valk2.th.jpg]
Do you agree? Disagree? Is this picture comprehensible?

I agree.
In fact, I will go further and say this is without a doubt the correct way to play.

I agree as well.
"on top" and "above" are nonsensical in 2D, you simply have inside and outside.

The game is 3D: look at how the determine TLOS: it can ONLY work in 3D

This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

Axyl wrote:This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

This case gets tricky. I suppose you could claim it hits both, but as has been pointed out, the Valk has So many issues not covered by the current rules, it's best to make something up on the fly.

DevianID wrote:That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

What do you do when a plane flies over your house?

n0t_u wrote:

DevianID wrote:That is basicly why I interpret that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)" actually refers to the 2d, or top down, view--or if it makes more sense, the base/hull extends infinitely upwards to create a cyclinder 'volume' that has 3 dimensions. Either way, my result is that you cant put bases underneath a vehicle, be it a land raider or skimmer.

What do you do when a plane flies over your house?

Obviously he stops reality and asks the plane to move a bit to the left.

Witzkatz wrote:The quote about friendly units being impassable terrain is real good, I think, and proves that Valkyries can partially hang above other units.

And I will now make a little picture to explain about a point that was talked about very much in this thread...how a Valkyrie can be ABOVE a model, but not ON TOP OF.


[img=http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6029/valk2.th.jpg]
Do you agree? Disagree? Is this picture comprehensible?

I agree, nice pic, that's it.

3D game.

Axyl wrote:This may have already been covered somewhere earlier in the thread so forgive me...but what happens if the center of a blast marker is both over the wing and the rhino if the valk's wing is above the rhino like in the above picture.

This may then fall into the "is the wing part of the hull" debate as well.

hole is over both hulls both take a full strength hit .... since nether is in a ruin ... if they were then they would both be hit if they were on the same level ... (note i would work out level from the level the flight stand is on)

in fluff

Both Destroyed (/explode) = the shot was perfect an took off the Valkyrie wing ... which smashed through the rhino beneath.
Rhino Destroyed and Valkyrie stunned damaged = parts of the Destroyed rhino fly up clipping the wing (stun) stunning the crew, (weapon destroyed) removing a weapon from its mounting (Immobilised), ripping apart the engine
Valkyrie Destroyed and Rhino damaged = The Destroyed Valkyrie crash down bouncing of of the rhino (stun) stunning the crew, (weapon destroyed) crushing a weapon (Immobilised), tearing off a tank tread.

only one is Penetrated and/or glanced ... shot was perfect hitting X full on causing Y

So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

Skinnattittar wrote:So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

You have always been able to model for advantage. It might make for some interesting situations with trying to draw LoS from the wing that is closer to the table though.

Skinnattittar wrote:So if I were to position my Valkyrie on its stand so that it is making and extreme bank turn, to the vertical position (wings pointing up and down), then I will no longer take up as much space playing from the overhead, which is how the game is played as far as measuring distances and placing templates (templates are cylinders that only affect the level they are encountering, essentially).

Yes that's perfectly legal modelling for an advantage. But it would only be an advantage against blasts and possibly some of the weapons. It would be a massive disadvantage against LOS

I can't see how it would be a disadvantage for LOS, but it would prevent my Leman Russ chilling under a wing from people placing 155mm over both. RAW they would both be affected, including any foot sloggers pulling security fodder around the tank.

Two ways it would be a disadvantage for LOS

1) you become an even taller silhouette and from the sides you'll be massive.

2) LOS from the guns will be hinder ... from the top wing gun you might not be able to hit any thing in close say within 10" (don't have the model I can't measure this accurately)

Taller silhouette = so what in a game where terrain is rarely taller than four inches.

That does bring up a good question about how skimmers with hull mounted weapons may fire. Can they point their hulls downward? Not sure if the book has anything in there about that... If not, then I would have to say you may have a point about up close firing for the top most mount, but nothing says you can't mount all your weapons on the main hull.

Weapons have 45 degrees of elevation unless otherwise stated, even if they don't appear to be able to move like that.

However, nothing is mentioned about depressing weapons which is extremely important for lots of models.

Scott-S6 wrote:Weapons have 45 degrees of elevation unless otherwise stated, even if they don't appear to be able to move like that.

SSHH, or GW will make a set of "Official" protractors that will become a required part of game play.

The blast template is a good example of my point... The blast is simultaneously on top of the valkyrie AND the rhino. Also, vehicles use hull as well, not just the base, so the picture is flawed in that respect. If the rhino was instead a whirlwind, and the top turret grazed the bottom of the wing, would it still be legal to put the whirlly under the valkyrie?

Plus, what about my post about a base, no taller than 2 mm, being able to fit under the tread of a land raider or a land speeder or anything, really. Exact same rules involved, where the hull 'hangs over' the base of another model, only the 'overhang' gap is different.

Its a bunch of double standards. The statement that you can put things under the hull of a valkyrie would also let you put guardians, for example, under a wave serpent. Since only the base is important according to one line in the rule book, and the base can easily slide under the wave serpent, then this would be an acceptable tactic--just as acceptable as something under the valkyrie. And how often do you see bases under a wave serpent?

A quick note about the "hull" not being defined:

I play Necrons. Necrons are aliens, and thus, refer to parts of their monoliths and pylons as "0100101s." This, of course, means that the entire vehicle is made up of 0100101s, and cannot be targeted, because they are not only non-hulls, they also don't even know what "hull" means.

If a Valkyrie has "wings" and these are construed to be a part of the tank by the IG player, I see no reason not to conclude that my monoliths cannot be targeted, using the same logic. I believe this argument can work for all other alien races as well. The same train of thought works with sponsons as well, so please feel free to not bring those up.

devianId - it's only a "double standard" if people were saying it couldn't be done: it can be, and does happen. I;ve seen models under WS quite a few times now, it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

You can't argue rules so now you're making appeals to absurdity, and you aren't even being absurd: if you can physically place the model then you can do so. Nothing in the rulebook denies this, and the main rules for placing and moving models implicitly allows it (by not imposing restrictions) - so what''s your problem?

The game is 3D: accept it, understand it, and play with it. It's waaaay more fun than a 2D game of chess, which is what you seem to want the game to devolve to.

From my point of view, I am arguing rules--not baseless apeals. My stance is that the rule that model's cant occupy the same space is a 2d rule. We only care about the 2d dimensions of the base/hull. The 3d representation of the model, aka the body/weapons/fiddly bits, does not matter.

Nosferatu, even in your post above you mention physically placing the model. However, the rules only care about the base--the model has no bearing what-so-ever. Which is the double standard.

On pg7 Shep quotes the rules:
Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)

So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

That is what I have been pointing out. Also, when looking from a top down view, something above another thing is described as 'on top' of it. Blast weapons, when viewed from above, can be 'on top' of a unit's base as well, correct? So its not like the use of 'on top' I have been advocating is not already being used in the rule book.

And as a PS, for yet another example of why the rule is a 2d rule. I dare you to physically move, using 3d movement, a base/hull INTO another base/hull. It physically cant be done unless you are shadowcat from the X-Men and can phase into solid objects. Why would GW need to write a rule saying you cant move 2 objects into each other if, using 3d logic as advocated, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

DevianID wrote:So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

Not without your opponent's consent - remember your models must be mounted on their supplied base (BGB p.3 IIRC - don't have my book with me ATM)

DevianID wrote:From my point of view, I am arguing rules--not baseless apeals. My stance is that the rule that model's cant occupy the same space is a 2d rule. We only care about the 2d dimensions of the base/hull. The 3d representation of the model, aka the body/weapons/fiddly bits, does not matter.

Except throughout the game the rules show 3D models interacting in 3D terrain and make NO mention of anything being limited to 2D - that is the bit you are making up. Please, find somewhere where it states that the game is 2D. Please. In addition you see those models with doors and gaps in the hul? I definitely can put a model inside there - for example a Valks doors could let me put a model inside excpet I cannot due to that rule. Ditto Landraiders, devilfish with the doors off, etc.

DevianID wrote:
Nosferatu, even in your post above you mention physically placing the model. However, the rules only care about the base--the model has no bearing what-so-ever. Which is the double standard.

Actually the rules say the model has to fit, the rules only CARE about the base for measurements to / from.

Still no double standard. Still waiting for anything stating the game is 2D - TLOS disagrees with you as well, but I'll wait with baited breath.

DevianID wrote:
On pg7 Shep quotes the rules:
Pg. 11 MODELS IN THE WAY
"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by its hull)

So, if this rule was to be played RAW, then you can actually BREAK the model off its base, slide the base under a wave serpent, and put the model back with the 'wobbly model' rule for shooting purposes. The rule would be satisified as the base did not move into or through another base or hull. The model itself, who couldnt have ever fit under the vehicle, doesnt matter--as only bases and hulls matter.

You can't break another rule to do so -you have removed the model from the base which is what, page 3?

Anymore rediculous arguments?

DevianID wrote:
That is what I have been pointing out. Also, when looking from a top down view, something above another thing is described as 'on top' of it. Blast weapons, when viewed from above, can be 'on top' of a unit's base as well, correct? So its not like the use of 'on top' I have been advocating is not already being used in the rule book.

No, looking "top down" then "on top of" is nonsensical - if you consider the game to truly be 2D then you have no concept of "on top", you only have "inside" and "outside". "on top of" cannot exist in a 2D space. By definition.

DevianID wrote:
And as a PS, for yet another example of why the rule is a 2d rule. I dare you to physically move, using 3d movement, a base/hull INTO another base/hull. It physically cant be done unless you are shadowcat from the X-Men and can phase into solid objects. Why would GW need to write a rule saying you cant move 2 objects into each other if, using 3d logic as advocated, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Already done so. any hull with breaks in it you are moving inside by definition. Any more silly examples or will you finally concede that the entire game, AND THE DESIGNERS NOTES, call it a 3D game using actual models and actual terrain?

Augustus wrote:
3D game.

I think I can settle this:



Meltagun is clearly out of range.

3D game.

Augustus wrote:

Augustus wrote:
3D game.

I think I can settle this:



Meltagun is clearly out of range.

3D game.

What DevianID is claiming is that the meltagun would actually be in range, as the game is meant to be played. This is something that I do not agree with, as you are told with all measurements to measure from a base to a base. Not from the invisible column perpendicular to the game table to the invisible column perpendicular to the game table.

The melta gun is in fact out of range and the game is in fact played in three dimensions.