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.

kirsanth wrote:Models cannot move or be placed within 1" unless assaulting.

Only applies to enemy models.

Page 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.

No you cannot get on top of a vehicle.

While that's probably the intent of that rule, it's not what it actually says.

As Democratus pointed out already, standing on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as it. That would require actually occupying the same space... which is physically impossible (hence my comment on probable intent... they don't generally deliberately write in useless rules, so we can only assume that this one just didn't turn out as they meant it to.)

While I personally wouldn't go putting models on top of a vehicle as I don't believe it's what was intended, I can't see anything in the current rules that would stop it from being a legal move.

insaniak wrote:While that's probably the intent of that rule, it's not what it actually says.

As Democratus pointed out already, standing on top of a vehicle is not occupying the same space as it. That would require actually occupying the same space... which is physically impossible (hence my comment on probable intent... they don't generally deliberately write in useless rules, so we can only assume that this one just didn't turn out as they meant it to.)

While I personally wouldn't go putting models on top of a vehicle as I don't believe it's what was intended, I can't see anything in the current rules that would stop it from being a legal move.

Valid point, I will admit. On the other hand though, what in the rules state that you can?

If i can move on top of vehicles..can I move on top of units as well? Can I stack 5 marines on top of each other as long as they are able to actually balance like that? While I fully understand the argument, I hardly believe that its allowed.

Sweet so I can stick my assault terminators on top of a Landspeeder and boost them across the field now?

Axyl wrote: On the other hand though, what in the rules state that you can?

The standard rules for movement.

If the model can legally move there, then it's a legal move.

The only thing that would potentially stop models from moving onto the top of a vehicle would be if you ruled that it was too far vertically for them to move... but as the rules don't actually cover how far up a model can move, and at which point a vertical surface becomes impassable, that's something you would have to sort out with your opponent. And, of course, some vehicles have ladders on the sides...

If i can move on top of vehicles..can I move on top of units as well?

If you can make the models stay there, it would seem that the rules would allow it. Again, if you assume that the models can move vertically far enough to get up there. In previous editions there were rules governing the height of obstacles that models could move over. These days, they leave it up to the players.


Again, not suggesting that you actually do it... (I certainly wouldn't) ... just that the rules allow it.

Timmah wrote:Sweet so I can stick my assault terminators on top of a Landspeeder and boost them across the field now?

How about a squad of termies, on top of a vindicator, on top of a land raider, on top of a speeder?

Good luck with that...

Of course, you won't be able to move any of them without moving any of the others, and since the movement rules restrict you to one unit at a time, the whole tower is therefore going to remain stationary.


And I would strongly suspect that most opponents would take a dim view of anyone actually trying to drive a vehicle up on top of another, regardless of whether or not the rules seem to allow it.

I'm screwing around obviously, but assuming that it's legal to have a tower like that I could deploy them as such without actually having to move one on top of the other and so on.

Anyway I consider this a moot point anyway. We are arguing a rule that obviously no one will use..including yourself as you had pointed out. I guess the point is that the rules seem to indicate that you can do that...which yes...they do not say anything specifically about moving units on top of each other. Just rules about moving units into (which is physically impossible, except maybe a few transports) and through (also physically impossible) other units. So I guess that rule is just there to prevent us from breaking the laws of physics.

Not really trying to discredit your argument or anything, its just obviously not meant that way.

page 11:
"a model may never move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or hull), or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hul) size."

this rule implies that base = hull, so saying you can disembark ontop of the vehicle is the same as putting one model ontop of another model's base.

A better way to look at it would just be to say that the vehicle's hull roughs out the shape of the "base" it is on looking down at it. You are allowed to disembark within 2" of that 'base,' not within 2' of the model. 2" from the base doesn't let you deploy ontop of it. It doesn't say anywhere that bases are diferent than hulls

The diagram also shows 2" from the model as being everywhere within 2" of the outside, and does not mention the top.

That's the best I can do though. I didn't find anywhere explicitly stating that you can't, the diagram on page 67 is the best indication that its not allowed

Axyl wrote:Not really trying to discredit your argument or anything, its just obviously not meant that way.

Which is exactly what I said

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:this rule implies that base = hull, so saying you can disembark ontop of the vehicle is the same as putting one model ontop of another model's base.

And again, putting one model on top of another is not the same as the two models occupying the same space. To be occupying the same space, they would have to be occupying the same space. Not stacked on top of one another.

The diagram also shows 2" from the model as being everywhere within 2" of the outside, and does not mention the top.

Actually, the diagram shows 2" from the access points... It has nothing to do with Emergency Disembarking...

BRB pg 11 " a model may not move into or though the space occupied by another model...."
Kirsanth : the 1" is only for your enemies models.

...sigh...

Insaniak wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:this rule implies that base = hull, so saying you can disembark ontop of the vehicle is the same as putting one model ontop of another model's base.

And again, putting one model on top of another is not the same as the two models occupying the same space. To be occupying the same space, they would have to be occupying the same space. Not stacked on top of one another.

The diagram also shows 2" from the model as being everywhere within 2" of the outside, and does not mention the top.

Actually, the diagram shows 2" from the access points... It has nothing to do with Emergency Disembarking...

I think the idea here is that unless otherwise explicitly mentioned, 40k is played on a two dimensional plane. Levels of buildings are the only explicitly mentioned instance where you can travel upwards.

The diagram also shows everywhere within 2" of the access points that you can disembark to. Note that it says "deploy anywhere within 2" of an access point," meaning that the grey space shows what they mean by "anywhere." If "anywhere within 2"" meant that you could deploy ontop of the tank, then the diagram would have shown that, as it would be within 2" of the access point. However the model only shows space that would be considered "not occupied by the vehicle."

I'm simply drawing a parallel between the two, one says anywhere within 2" of the hull, the other 2" of the access points. Since there's no explicit statement in either rule that says you either can or can't deploy on top of the tank, if you can or cannot in one instance you can or cannot in the other respectively.

Sine the diagram shows that you cannot for regular deployment, there is no reason to think that you all of a sudden can for emergency deployment.

edit: wierd it didn't add the first quote brackets...

Democratus wrote:It's in no place, unfortunately. One model on top of another does not "occupy the same space". That would be one model inside another. Moving onto a model is also not moving "through" a friendly model. However this is irrelevant as disembarking is not movement.

There is similarly no rule preventing you from forming pyramids using your friendly troop models, using the same reasoning. It's just stacking a base on top of another model's head (or body parts), right?

OOPs sorry my last post was for page 1 , I'm still getting used to this site. Skimmers are not allowed to end their movement over other units. I would assume the same would hold for earth bound units.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:I think the idea here is that unless otherwise explicitly mentioned, 40k is played on a two dimensional plane.

A persistent myth that's not actually backed up by any rules. But that's whole other discussion that's been done to death on numerous occasions.

If "anywhere within 2"" meant that you could deploy ontop of the tank, then the diagram would have shown that,

Well, no... if that were the case, the diagram should have shown that. GW have a bit of a history of incorrect example diagrams. In fact, the access point diagram in the 4th edition rulebook is a perfect example of that, as it incorrectly showed the 2" as being from the centre of each access point.

I'm simply drawing a parallel between the two, one says anywhere within 2" of the hull, the other 2" of the access points. Since there's no explicit statement in either rule that says you either can or can't deploy on top of the tank, if you can or cannot in one instance you can or cannot in the other respectively.

Deploying on top of the tank is a whole different kettle of fish. There's absolutely nothing that prevents that.

Disembarking onto the top of the tank is what is covered (ish) by the disembarking rules. The example picture doesn't show it as an option, but the actual rules don't rule it out. Without a specific exception, or a general rule prohibiting models from standing on top of one another, it's allowed by the rules as written.

Granted, the example diagram is a better indication of what is intended than the actual rules in this case, but you will find that some people disregard example diagrams where they contradict the rules (for the reason I mentioned to start with...)


But again, I wouldn't do it, agree it's at best a grey area and don't believe it's intended by the rules. (I find that you have to keep pointing that out, as otherwise people think you're actually trying to 'exploit' something...)

insaniak wrote:But again, I wouldn't do it, agree it's at best a grey area and don't believe it's intended by the rules. (I find that you have to keep pointing that out, as otherwise people think you're actually trying to 'exploit' something...)

Alright, let's try this.

From measuring distances on page 3 "A model is considered to occupy the area of it's base"
note area, meaning that the space considered occupied is the two-dimensional area taken up by the base.

Then from the "movement phase" section on page 11, "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model..."

That's the closest I can get so far, you may not move somewhere occupied by another model. However, the former rule I think effectively states that the area on-top of the tank counts as space "occupied" by the tank, as area implies two-dimensional. There isn't a rule saying that you can't simply EXIST in the same space as another model, so long as you don't move, or get there in some way that doesn't count as movement (ie deploying, disembarking).

However, if you go by the area definition of "occupies," then you couldn't move to a level above another model in a ruin, as it doesn't differentiate that occupation is anything more than a two dimensional concept, and being above another model in a ruin would be occupying the same two-dimensional space.

I definitely agree though, total grey area, and another instance of gakky rule writing on GW's part.

Brother Condon wrote:magical memories, your last point is exactly right. But the coherancy rule is a movment phase rule. Where does it say they must be placed within coherancy when emergency disembarking.

1) BGB Page 67, under Destroyed-wreched, it says that the passengers must immediately disembark.

2) BGB Page 67, under disembarking it says that "each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicles access points , and within unit coherency."

3) Under disembarking, it goes on to describe how, during an emergency disembarkation, they can be placed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle (thus, breaking the "access point" prohibition above), but does not specify that they can break the coherency rule. Therefore, you must still retain coherency.

Eric

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: However, the former rule I think effectively states that the area on-top of the tank counts as space "occupied" by the tank,

The area of the base is the area of the base. That doesn't include the volume of air above the base. Area is, as you said yourself, two-dimensional.

The model occupying the area of its base is simply a convention that grants us a consistent point to measure from, regardless of how models are posed.

However, if you go by the area definition of "occupies,"

Pardon?

then you couldn't move to a level above another model in a ruin, as it doesn't differentiate that occupation is anything more than a two dimensional concept, and being above another model in a ruin would be occupying the same two-dimensional space.

You're trying to make a two-dimensional area include the 3 dimensional volume above it. Area doesn't work that way.

Your interpretation would only be true if the game was actually entirely two-dimensional, and everything simply worked from the top down view, disregarding the vertical plane entirely.

Well what abvout the skimmers rule? these are units that are allowed to move over terrain and units, but are still disallowed to end their turn over other units? I would think this gives us a clear view on the RAI of this question.

SeattleDV8 wrote:I would think this gives us a clear view on the RAI of this question.

I didn't think the RAI was in any doubt ...

Insaniak: they actually give us a pretty clear picture that you can't have a model on top of another model's base - "through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hul) size."

If you can't move through a gap smaller then the base, why would you be able to put a model ontop of another base (or hull as the rules specifies)? That seems pretty RAW to me. The example of being able to stack SM on top of each other is false - you're moving them through a gap that is too small for the base to fit through. It doesn't matter that you're above the base, you're still occupying the same space. Can you put a model's base halfway ontop of another models' base? No, you cannot. It would be occupying the same space.

Otherwise you could have an enemy model surrounded by your tanks with one inch between them, and then have your troops climb on top of the tanks, crawl over and assault the enemy. Doesn't work - you're occupying the same space when you move over, deploy onto, or disembark onto another model.

There's no RAI discussion. There's no RAW discussion. A vehicle's hull represents it's base. You can't be ontop of another model's base.

The one exception is if there are multiple levels (ie a ruin/building/sewers/caves) because as you pointed out, 40K is a 3d game. Models are not valid levels to stand on.

insaniak wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: However, the former rule I think effectively states that the area on-top of the tank counts as space "occupied" by the tank,

The area of the base is the area of the base. That doesn't include the volume of air above the base. Area is, as you said yourself, two-dimensional.

The model occupying the area of its base is simply a convention that grants us a consistent point to measure from, regardless of how models are posed.

However, if you go by the area definition of "occupies,"

Pardon?

then you couldn't move to a level above another model in a ruin, as it doesn't differentiate that occupation is anything more than a two dimensional concept, and being above another model in a ruin would be occupying the same two-dimensional space.

You're trying to make a two-dimensional area include the 3 dimensional volume above it. Area doesn't work that way.

Your interpretation would only be true if the game was actually entirely two-dimensional, and everything simply worked from the top down view, disregarding the vertical plane entirely.

I would argue that it is actually you trying to make a two-dimensional restriction into a three dimensional one. Saying that "this area is occupied, and may not be moved into" gives a clear x-y movement restriction, without giving any indication as to how far in the y direction that rule applies. Without the rule specifying, then you cannot simply assume it ends somewhere.

By saying that it DOESN'T include the area above it, you are arbitrarily deciding that the "area occupied by the base" ends at some point above it. I'm saying there's nothing in the rules that lets you conclude that, as far as RAW is concerned.

For instance, if I drew a line in the sand and said you are not allowed to cross this line, what you are saying is that if you JUMP over the line you aren't considered crossing the line, as it's only a two-dimensional barrier. What I'm saying is that that line in the sand is a barrier that prevents all two-dimensional movement across it. Even if you are not at the same vertical level as the line, you are still trying to make a horizontal movement across it.

budro wrote:Insaniak: they actually give us a pretty clear picture that you can't have a model on top of another model's base - "through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hul) size."

If you can't move through a gap smaller then the base, why would you be able to put a model ontop of another base (or hull as the rules specifies)? That seems pretty RAW to me. The example of being able to stack SM on top of each other is false - you're moving them through a gap that is too small for the base to fit through. It doesn't matter that you're above the base, you're still occupying the same space. Can you put a model's base halfway ontop of another models' base? No, you cannot. It would be occupying the same space.

Otherwise you could have an enemy model surrounded by your tanks with one inch between them, and then have your troops climb on top of the tanks, crawl over and assault the enemy. Doesn't work - you're occupying the same space when you move over, deploy onto, or disembark onto another model.

There's no RAI discussion. There's no RAW discussion. A vehicle's hull represents it's base. You can't be ontop of another model's base.

The one exception is if there are multiple levels (ie a ruin/building/sewers/caves) because as you pointed out, 40K is a 3d game. Models are not valid levels to stand on.

The problem with this analysis is that it discusses restrictions on movement. What we are talking about is disembarkation - which is not movement. Models disembarking from a transport have no rules prohibiting them from being placed on top of the vehicle so long as they obey all disembarkation rules.

This allows emergency disembarkation on top of a vehicle, followed by the destruction of the vehicle and the surviving models standing on the wreck.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, the only thing that matters is that this is a disembarktion (emergency or not doesn't matter - afterall, if you're on top of a vehicle you within 2" of an access point most likely)? As a result of disembarktion which doesn't have the caveat of not occupiying the same space, I could have a rhino with SM inside, disembark the SM on top of the rhino, use the added height to shoot over intervening terrain, and as long as I didn't try to move them I'd be ok? Afterall, no movement has taken place and I have followed all the rules.

Of course the rhino with SM on top couldn't move the rest of the game and neither could the SM as that would constitute movement over an intervening model.

Little bit silly isn't it?

That's exactly it. Yes.

Silly has never stopped something from being a rule in 40K.

Though I see nothing in the rules that would prevent the marines from later walking off of the Rhino.

Democratus wrote:Though I see nothing in the rules that would prevent the marines from later walking off of the Rhino.

The part in the movement rules about not through intervening models. If you're on top of it, you'd be moving through an intervening model.

On the plus side, they should have pretty good LOS. At least until the rhino gets blown up - at which point they are free to move about the cabin...

Except disembarking counts as movement
BRB pg. 67 "...may disembark , but not move any further...." and in the next bullet "....disembarked models may shoot (counting as moving)."

Actually I could disembark on top of the rhino, then move the rhino out from underneath them and have floating marines.

Sweet.