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.

It's quite possible I'm inferring too much, I won't rule that out. I'm trying to reconcile, for myself and how I've played the game up til now, with something I'm seeing that may contradict how I've played. You may need to reference this thread for the specific quotes: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/225158.page I'm starting a new thread cause I didn't want to continue hijaking the other one.

As I've noted in the previous thread, I'm perfectly fine with allowing a model or models to move through another group of models as long as the gap between the models bases being moved through is the same size or larger than the model or models moving through them. I believe the rules allow for this movement in the movement phase given the quote on page 11. Now however, I do not believe it to be possible for a model or models to assault through a group of either friendly or enemy models since it specifically says 'no' on page 34. This may be the way everyone else is playing and if so great. I'm asking if this is the correct way of playing it?

The contentious part for me is the wording on page 34 which I've mentioned before, "...following the same rules as..." and "...may still not...". Because it seems to me to contradict some of the rules on pg 11. So let me say what would be contradicting: Just reading page 11 you can move a model or models through another group of models. When reading page 34, since it's citing the movement phase by saying that assaulting models follow the same rules except for the 1" restriction, it goes on to say that a model or models may still not move through friendly or enemy models despite having just said that the same model or models follow the same rules as in the movement phase.

Maybe an example would be better:

This example takes place in the Movement Phase.

|......O...O...O...O...O...O...... an enemy unit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|......X...X...X...X...X...X......Unit A, a friendly unit (maybe they are not moving to fire heavy weapons or have moved to this position)
|.........x...x...x...x...x...x.....Unit B, another friendly unit that has not moved.


Can Unit B, move through Unit A in the movement phase to get close to the enemy unit? Maybe they're going to assault the enemy unit since Unit A cannot due to firing heavy weapons.

|......O...O...O...O...O...O......
|
|.........x...x...x...x...x...x......
|
|
|
|
|......X...X...X...X...X...X......

I'd like some opinions on the example specifically and any other points that can be made on what I'm seeing as a contradiction would be welcome.

Just to reiterate my views in this thread for newcomers to the discussion, I believe taking the term "models" in the phrase "may still not move through friendly or enemy models" to mean units is incorrect, I believe it means only the thing it directly reference, meaning one or more models, and is only there to prevent measuring over / through other models and force you to make your full move around them instead of cut through them.

You would still be well in your right to move through the gaps between models in a unit, because you are not passing through the models and there is no rule which specifically states that you cannot move through other "units".

Drunkspleen wrote:Just to reiterate my views in this thread for newcomers to the discussion, I believe taking the term "models" in the phrase "may still not move through friendly or enemy models" to mean units is incorrect, I believe it means only the thing it directly reference, meaning one or more models, and is only there to prevent measuring over / through other models and force you to make your full move around them instead of cut through them.

As I understand what you are saying here, I agree completely. Though it only addresses a portion of the concern. I see no problem not moving into or through the space occupied by a model. But the rule on page 11 specifies 'model' while page 34 specifies 'models'. So if 'models' being referenced as strictly a group of models that are not together in a unit then there is no contradiction and there was no reason for GW to use the plural for model. However, if models as quoted on page 34 can also mean a unit, as it does when it says, "...models in an assaulting unit...", then there is an obvious contradiction.

Drunkspleen wrote:You would still be well in your right to move through the gaps between models in a unit, because you are not passing through the models and there is no rule which specifically states that you cannot move through other "units".

This is a portion of the concern and is how I've played the game.

The reason they use "model" on p11 and "models" on p34 is not because the rules contradict one another, but because they are simply stated slightly differently.

On p11 they refer to "space occupied by another model". Because no distinction is drawn between friendly or enemy, they use the singular for "model" meaning 'any model'.

On p34 they refer to "friendly or enemy models". Because in this case they have drawn a distinction between friendly and enemy models, they have to use the plural for "model" meaning 'any enemy model or any friendly model'.

In neither case do they mean you may not move through the gaps between friendly or enemy models, regardless of whether those models form a unit or not.

In this way we resolve p11 and p34 without contradiction. "May still not..." does not contradict p11 - it simply reminds us to follow those restrictions that are not specifically overridden by the assault move rules. If they intended to mean something different from p11, they would not have used the word "still".

If it is possible to read the rules in two ways, one of which leads to a contradiction and one of which does not, we should always take the reading which does not lead to the contradiction.

Bravo, that satisfies my concern. Gladly, I've been playing it correctly as well