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 play daemons and played a few games yesterday vs a guard player.
He made a few claims that he couldn't back up with rules (tbh, I don't think he even had a rulebook with him now that I think about it).
Anyway, I gave him a couple since I was destroying him (even after Fateweaver died turn 1 to a quad gun!).

First was that you don't get a consolidation move after killing a vehicle.
Rules for consolidation don't make any mention of this, so if hes right it must be (in GW fashion) elsewhere in the book not referenced in any way.

Second was that models, whose base was fully on the table, couldn't have tails/arms/etc over the edge of the table. This was in relation to my screamers trying to plie up at the board edge.

Third, models arms'tails etc could not overlap, even if their bases did not. Again screamers bunching up. If this is true, I'd be happy to DS my screamers and have them go tail tip to tail tip to get the closer to where I want them.
I really think this one is more that he's always played guard. Sticks of models who enjoy the roomy 1" base. That and a TO once told him that the tails of his valkyries overlapping was not allowed, but that may have to do more with vehicles without bases (which, for the most part, fliers are treated as).

And finally (screamers again) jetbikes can't turn when turboboosting. The only limitation I can find is that they can't do anything after boosting, and must forego shooting to boost. Thats it.
I typically use this to boost over vehicles with side armor 10, or units, and then turn or even double back to get to a better landing pos (or even back into Fateweavers bubble).

I think he is mistaken in all cases, but admit there could be other rules surrounding the first point.

1. No consolidation after killing a vehicle. pg 76

2. The base must be on the table. Nothing disallows wings etc.. to hang over.

3. No rule against parts overlapping. In fact DS rules require BTB, which with the GW miniature, often requires overlapping wings/arms etc.

4. While I am personally against this RAI, there is nothing in the rules that state you cannot turn during a turbo boost. Turbo boosting is moving. The movement rules state that a vehicle can turn during movement.

I see no reason you couldn't consolidate after killing a vehicle, it's not given any special coverage in the vehicle rules so you would just default to the standard assault rules.

He is probably getting confused because vehicles on bases (such as his Valkyries/Vendettas) are not allowed to overhang the board and have part of their hull beyond the board limits, but for non-vehicles, all measurements are done to and from the base, so as long as the base is wholly on the table it's fine.

Once again, there's no issue here, the base is the only relevant part until you are measuring line of sight.

You can turbo-boost in whatever shape you want.

He is right regarding vehicles (except Walkers). That can be found in the rules on vehicles and assaults.
Models must be fully on the table. Some people are considerate regarding large groups/models, as long as no in game advantage is claimed.
There are no rules for non-vehicle models having body parts overlapping.
There are no rules saying that turbo-boosting has to be a straight line.

1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

2.Screamers modeled properly hang off their base, conveniently so does any Jetbike IIRC. As do several other models in GW's range.

3.DS only cares about the bases, not the arms, tails, tongues, etc.

4. There is nothing disallowing what you're doing there. I find it beardy as all hell though. IMO movement should be measured in a line, where you began, where you end.

Fragile wrote:1. No consolidation after killing a vehicle. pg 76

Happyjew wrote:He is right regarding vehicles (except Walkers). That can be found in the rules on vehicles and assaults.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

The rules on page 76 simply state that if the vehicle loses combat nothing of note happens, it mentions that the winning unit will not consolidate among a non-exhaustive list of events that aren't happening, this isn't to say they can't happen though, it's merely indicating that they aren't triggered by the event of a vehicle losing a combat.

That has no bearing on the normal assault rules wherein Consolidation happens should all enemy units fall back or be destroyed.

Vehicles overlapping is different than models decoration overlapping. Models are defined by their base/body not by their decoration/wing/tails. Vehicles are not defined by a base but by the hull. Decoration on vehicles are also ignored, but Pg 73 defines the the wings of a vehicle as part of the hull, it would be like parking a rhino on top of another rhino you cant do it. Thats the difference between overlapping models and vehicles.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

Fragile wrote:1. No consolidation after killing a vehicle. pg 76

Happyjew wrote:He is right regarding vehicles (except Walkers). That can be found in the rules on vehicles and assaults.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

The rules on page 76 simply state that if the vehicle loses combat nothing of note happens, it mentions that the winning unit will not consolidate among a non-exhaustive list of events that aren't happening, this isn't to say they can't happen though, it's merely indicating that they aren't triggered by the event of a vehicle losing a combat.

That has no bearing on the normal assault rules wherein Consolidation happens should all enemy units fall back or be destroyed.

If the vehicle loses the combat, nothing happens. There are no Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins and no Consolidation moves. Pg 76.

Being destroyed would be losing combat.

Have you seen a screamer? They are all body, and most of it overhangs the base.
As jamesdean said, as do most jetbikes in fact.

Thanks for pointing out the page about no consolidation after beating a vehicle.
EDIT: I recant this posts earlier comments about this. Consolidation is only triggered by someone else losing, not for you winning.

As for tubro boosting, I am moving in a line. As demonstrated by my bent tape measure.
Joking aside, it seems like the only reason people don't like it is that they don't get to do it. They also don't like losing a squad of guys or tanks from 3 feet away from something without any guns.

 psyklone wrote:


As for tubro boosting, I am moving in a line. As demonstrated by my bent tape measure.
Joking aside, it seems like the only reason people don't like it is that they don't get to do it. They also don't like losing a squad of guys or tanks from 3 feet away from something without any guns.

Well the most similar thing is the DE Bladevanes IIRC which require the "straight" line to be used.

Fragile wrote:
If the vehicle loses the combat, nothing happens. There are no Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins and no Consolidation moves. Pg 76.

Being destroyed would be losing combat.

No, losing combat is losing combat, being destroyed also happens to cause a unit to automatically lose the combat, even if they inflicted more wounds, being destroyed also separately allows the remaining unit to consolidate.

Just because you don't get to consolidate for winning the combat against a vehicle, doesn't mean you don't get to consolidate for destroying all opposition as normal.

edit: Also lets extend your quote to take it in full while we are at it "There are no Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins and no Consolidation moves. The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns."

So does that also apply when you destroy a vehicle?

The first line is all that is needed.

When are you allowed to do a consolidation? Pg. 27.. At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat with each other, they may Consolidate.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in that post sorry.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

2.Screamers modeled properly hang off their base, conveniently so does any Jetbike IIRC. As do several other models in GW's range.

3.DS only cares about the bases, not the arms, tails, tongues, etc.

4. There is nothing disallowing what you're doing there. I find it beardy as all hell though. IMO movement should be measured in a line, where you began, where you end.

Why is it beardy? it is part of the game just like shooting or assaulting.

For the record it is measured in a line, just not a straight one.

40k-noob wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

2.Screamers modeled properly hang off their base, conveniently so does any Jetbike IIRC. As do several other models in GW's range.

3.DS only cares about the bases, not the arms, tails, tongues, etc.

4. There is nothing disallowing what you're doing there. I find it beardy as all hell though. IMO movement should be measured in a line, where you began, where you end.

Why is it beardy? it is part of the game just like shooting or assaulting.

For the record it is measured in a line, just not a straight one.

It's strikingly similar to DE Bladevanes.
They have to draw a straight line, Beginning point to End point.

Could someone please provide a page ref, where it says wings in flyers or other large parts on non vehicle units can not over hang the board edge if their base is completely on the board

Turboboosting never required a straight line AFAIK.

That said if you ask at a game store or GW they're 75% likely to tell you turboboost must be in a straight line. Never ask them, come to DakkaDakka instead. Here people will answer you with page numbers and everything.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
1. Fragile has given out the pg # can't be much clearer.

2.Screamers modeled properly hang off their base, conveniently so does any Jetbike IIRC. As do several other models in GW's range.

3.DS only cares about the bases, not the arms, tails, tongues, etc.

4. There is nothing disallowing what you're doing there. I find it beardy as all hell though. IMO movement should be measured in a line, where you began, where you end.

Why is it beardy? it is part of the game just like shooting or assaulting.

For the record it is measured in a line, just not a straight one.

It's strikingly similar to DE Bladevanes.
They have to draw a straight line, Beginning point to End point.

Your point being?

Bladevanes says to mark two points and trace an imaginary line between the two. It doesn't say it has to be a straight line, just that the line be traced and imaginary. (keep a 24" piece of string with you and trace you line anyway you want.)

Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Eldercaveman wrote:
Could someone please provide a page ref, where it says wings in flyers or other large parts on non vehicle units can not over hang the board edge if their base is completely on the board

For non vehicle models you use the base only.

Models are only allowed to move through terrain P.90.

Off the board is not terrain.

Remember vehicles measure to their hull not their base, so if you have part of the Hull off of the table you have made an illegal move. Wings for MC's are different as you use the base instead of the Hull.

40k-noob wrote:


Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Other than a guideline for things that aren't clear, yes.

Here's point A. Here's point B.

Draw a line, nothing about a squiggle.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

40k-noob wrote:


Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Other than a guideline for things that aren't clear, yes.

Here's point A. Here's point B.

Draw a line, nothing about a squiggle.

nothing about a straight either.
the line is imaginary and traced, thats it. But it doesn't matter because Screamers aren't governed by DE codex rules.

Turbo boost move is up to 24" (jetbikes) according to BRB but cannot assault or shoot. There are no other limits on turbo boosting except those.

40k-noob wrote:
Your point being?

Bladevanes says to mark two points and trace an imaginary line between the two. It doesn't say it has to be a straight line, just that the line be traced and imaginary. (keep a 24" piece of string with you and trace you line anyway you want.)

Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Except you can't do that, for one, Geometrically speaking a line is straight by it's very definition of being a line, if it were not straight it would be a curve, rather than a line, or some other such complex structure.

But beyond that, the rules only give you permission to draw the line between the two points, anywhere which is not along the direct line between the two simply fails to meet these requirements as it is not between the two points, it is off somewhere else on the 2d plane, and further, if you allow the Reavers to draw curves instead of lines, then they are under no obligation to follow the movement of the unit with the curve they choose to draw, allowing them to turbo boost back and forth in the corner of the board drawing ridiculous curves that can hit any unit regardless of where they are relative to the Reavers.

The fact is, the rules of geometry don't support your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object, and the rules of Warhammer 40k fall apart under your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object.

 Drunkspleen wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Your point being?

Bladevanes says to mark two points and trace an imaginary line between the two. It doesn't say it has to be a straight line, just that the line be traced and imaginary. (keep a 24" piece of string with you and trace you line anyway you want.)

Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Except you can't do that, for one, Geometrically speaking a line is straight by it's very definition of being a line, if it were not straight it would be a curve, rather than a line, or some other such complex structure.

But beyond that, the rules only give you permission to draw the line between the two points, anywhere which is not along the direct line between the two simply fails to meet these requirements as it is not between the two points, it is off somewhere else on the 2d plane, and further, if you allow the Reavers to draw curves instead of lines, then they are under no obligation to follow the movement of the unit with the curve they choose to draw, allowing them to turbo boost back and forth in the corner of the board drawing ridiculous curves that can hit any unit regardless of where they are relative to the Reavers.

The fact is, the rules of geometry don't support your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object, and the rules of Warhammer 40k fall apart under your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object.

Never the less, as i stated to JD. Screamers aren't governed by DE codex rules, just the BRB and their own codex.

40k-noob wrote:

 Drunkspleen wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Your point being?

Bladevanes says to mark two points and trace an imaginary line between the two. It doesn't say it has to be a straight line, just that the line be traced and imaginary. (keep a 24" piece of string with you and trace you line anyway you want.)

Aside from that Codex rules have no bearing on other armies.

Except you can't do that, for one, Geometrically speaking a line is straight by it's very definition of being a line, if it were not straight it would be a curve, rather than a line, or some other such complex structure.

But beyond that, the rules only give you permission to draw the line between the two points, anywhere which is not along the direct line between the two simply fails to meet these requirements as it is not between the two points, it is off somewhere else on the 2d plane, and further, if you allow the Reavers to draw curves instead of lines, then they are under no obligation to follow the movement of the unit with the curve they choose to draw, allowing them to turbo boost back and forth in the corner of the board drawing ridiculous curves that can hit any unit regardless of where they are relative to the Reavers.

The fact is, the rules of geometry don't support your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object, and the rules of Warhammer 40k fall apart under your interpretation that a "line" can constitute a non-straight object.

Never the less, as i stated to JD. Screamers aren't governed by DE codex rules, just the BRB and their own codex.

I only ever said it was Beardy, I never said you couldn't do it.
I even explained why I found it beardy, again though never stating it could not be done.
If it were ever FAQ'd by GW though it would possibly end up going the route of the "line" method.

 Drunkspleen wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in that post sorry.

Hmmm, perhaps it would help then if you were to explain your side that you get a consolidation after destroying a vehicle.

Fragile wrote:
Hmmm, perhaps it would help then if you were to explain your side that you get a consolidation after destroying a vehicle.

My belief is, that when the vehicle rules say "no consolidation moves" they aren't explicitly forbidding you from ever consolidating when a vehicle loses a battle, given their context I believe they are simply informing you that the loss of the battle (that is, loss in the sense of wounds inflicted tally) by a vehicle does not in itself trigger such an event to occur.

This means that, should another event occur (in this instance, the complete destruction of all opposing forces) that allows a unit to consolidate, that unit may still consolidate as a result of the other source.

Q: If the vehicle or vehicles being assaulted have all suffered either
Wrecked or Explodes results, does the assaulting enemy get to make
Sweeping Advances, Pile Ins or Consolidate moves? (p76)
A: No.

BRB FAQ

Well that's an easier solution I suppose