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'm looking for either
-the page number for the rule that, in general, models may not move onto friendly models
-or the line of reasoning that leads to this

the first would be much better than the second. I have found specific instances of the first in Jetbikes (p45), Jump Units (p47), Flying MCs (p49), Skimmers (p83), and Zooming Flyers (p80). What I am looking for is a general rule.

If all we have is the second, is it just a matter extending 'moving through' equals or includes 'moving over'?

For clarity, when I say models moving onto other models, I mean something like this...

Before, 2 SM infantry

.....SM...............................SM
.....SMGUN......................SMGUN
.....SM...............................SM
.....SM...............................SM
BBBBBBB.................BBBBBBB

After, one SM infantry with it's base slightly on the other's base, thus leaning at an angle

.....SM....................SM
.....SMGUN........SMGUN
.....SM..............SM
.....SM....BBBSM
BBBBBBB...BBBB

Wow, it would have been easier to snap and upload a picture

Check the FAQs mortal, the BRB one has this answer.

so through = airspace above base?

I read the 1st faq entry on p4 of the latest GW Official Update. I assume that's what you mean. That doesn't apply unless through = over.

I personally think it does, but some have disagreed and I was hoping for a general rule.

Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to thisrule, such as
Jump Infantry orJetbikes, will state this clearly in theirrules.

If you cannot move through another model, why do you think you can move onto another model?.

The model is defined as occupying the base, so that isnt "empty air" as far as movement is concerned - moving across the base is moving through th e model.

MarkyMark wrote:
Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to thisrule, such as
Jump Infantry orJetbikes, will state this clearly in theirrules.

If you cannot move through another model, why do you think you can move onto another model?.

Because through may or may not equal onto/over.

You're not getting it. I'm not arguing that they can. I believe that they cannot, but I am looking for a solid rules basis for this belief. I am willing to be wrong. If the evidence goes that way, I will adjust my belief accordingly, but currently, I believe you cannot move onto another model, including that model's base.

If that faq enrty is all we have, then we also need to know whether...

through = over
or through =/= over

Currently, I think 'through' = 'over' . I base this on two main points

- the physical movement of the models
- the faq entry above. It states that "Models that are an exception to this rule, such as Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules." If you look at the rules for Jump units and Jetbikes they say 'over' not 'through.'

These are enough to convince me, but I was very much hoping for someone to share a stronger line of reasoning, or even better, a clearly stated general rule from the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model is defined as occupying the base

Where is the model defined as occupying the base? Including the base, I would believe, but I'm not sure what you mean by occupying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
that isnt "empty air" as far as movement is concerned - moving across the base is moving through th e model.

Moving over the model, yes. Did you have a better or alternate argument for why 'over = through,' or is mine sufficient for you?

Models are only allowed to move through terrain and bases are not terrain.

P. 90 lists the terrain types and gives the rules for moving through terrain types.

It does not say you can move through the space occupied by another model, therefore you can not do it.

Bases of models are always considered to be part of the model itself. This is true even for models that do not technically touch the table, such as those that use transparent stands to show this fact. This is the most apparent when you look at the vehicle rules concerning flying units, as they are one model that has a lot of details when it comes to handling 'space above a model.' I do not personally agree with the base being part of the model, given that the flying unit in question would be hundreds of feet above the battlefield, but the rules on this matter are quite clear. You always consider the base to be part of the model when determining rules concerning distance, movement, size of the model and other such things.

Now I have not seen anything that specifically states a unit can not move 'through the airspace' of another unit, which I really would like to see as it would stop this argument from even starting. Yet the answer can still be derived by looking at the rules related to movement, in particular the exception to the normal rules. The very fact all these exceptions talk about how to move over top of other units highlights that basic units lack this ability. If this wasn't the case, then the exception rules would simply not exist because they would be redundant. Every unit would be able to declare they are 'moving over top of' another unit and have the move be considered legal. The fact the exception exists means your unit needs to have said exception to be able to make the declaration they are moving through another models airspace.

Now I get you are talking about 'what if they slightly overlapping the base' but this is also covered in the exceptions. Every type of unit with an exception, bar flyers, has it clearly stated that they can not end their move if any part of the model is over top any part of another model. If units with specialized movement allowing them to move through another models airspace can not stop over top of another unit, including their base which is part of that model, then why would a unit with basic movement be allowed to do the same?

Taking those points into account we come to the answer: No, overlapping the base of the model is an invalid placement.

JinxDragon wrote:
Now I get you are talking about 'what if they slightly overlapping the base' but this is also covered in the exceptions. Every type of unit with an exception, bar flyers, has it clearly stated that they can not end their move if any part of the model is over top any part of another model. If units with specialized movement allowing them to move through another models airspace can not stop over top of another unit, including their base which is part of that model, then why would a unit with basic movement be allowed to do the same?

Taking those points into account we come to the answer: No, overlapping the base of the model is an invalid placement.

I agree, and appreciate the effort you took in making an argument based on logical conclusions from the Jump/Skimmer/Flyer rules. It's another strong argument.

I still hold out hope for something clearer though. Didn't 5th ed have a rule about placing models on models?

So all you're going on is it doesn't say I cannot?
You need permission to do anything, do you have permission to move onto another model's base? No, in fact the rules state that certain models only can move through other models and this is clear.

Unit's don't move over one another when using jump packs because this is an abstraction not a reality based game. Movement is from point to point on/along terrain because that is how we measure the movement and the faqs talk about moving through not over. That is the only way it is described, not as anything else. Units that move like jump infantry such as warp spiders etc all move the same way in rules, how they move in the fluff isn't important, they all get to ignore the intervening stuff between their start and end positions.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So all you're going on is it doesn't say I cannot?

Um... no.

1) I have permission to move my model. (BRB p10 and others)
2) I am restricted from moving my model through other friendly models (BRB FAQ p4)
3) I am willing to consider that 'through' =/= 'over' in 40k rules discussions. (I think they are interchangeable, but some disagree)
4) I would like to address those who disagree with something more eloquent than "Nuh-uh"

Again, the pro-position in this disagreement does not think they can because "the rules don't say I can't". It's more subtle than that. They think they can because the rule you point to as a restriction for moving through and/or over, they see as restriction for moving through and only through.

Think of it this way. Imagine a wall of people, shoulder to shoulder, forming a long line.
There is a rule preventing me from moving through them. I may not jostle them aside, nor shout at them to ask them to open a hole.
I am permitted to walk up to one and bump my shoe into his shoe. (Base to Base contact)
Am I permitted to walk up to them, raise my arm, and extend it over one of the line people's heads? I am over him, am I through him? (One model's arm being above the other's Base)
Am I permitted to walk up to them, raise my arm, and place my hand on a shoulder? I am over him, am I through him? I can touch his shoe with my shoe, how about my hand to his shoulder?
Am I permitted to walk up to one, and stand on his foot? I am over him, am I through him? (Base on Base placement)
In none of the above possible scenarios did the line of shoulder to shoulder people have to move for me to complete my movement.

5th Ed BRB p11 wrote:A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by it's hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than it's own base (or hull) size.

This was great because it nicely implied that even though you pick up a model to move it, you pretended that it's base was flat on the table fore determining where it could move (Jump Infantry, etc having written exception)

6th Ed does not (to my knowledge) have the 2nd part of the above 5th Ed rule. Until the last FAQ, it did not even seem to have the 1st part

My preferred outcome here is for someone to post a rules citation that covers this.
Not quite as good, but still appreciated is a solid argument for treating normal models as though they were always flat on the table, even while you are moving them.
As a last option, if anyone has a better argument for over=through that either I or anyone else has provided above, that would be helpful.

Thank you

You do realise this is an argument over language, not rules, right?

Jump infantry may move "Over" troops and terrain.
Infantry must move "Through" or "on top of" terrain.

Jump infantry may Land. Infantry have no such ability. Unless they dive off a building. god I love that rule.

Meh, yes-ish, but also no-ish.

Again, 5th ed had a Rule that 6th does not seem to have. That is not just an argument over language.

foolishmortal wrote:
Meh, yes-ish, but also no-ish.

Again, 5th ed had a Rule that 6th does not seem to have. That is not just an argument over language.

Yes it is

Your argument is not "The rules say this"

Your argument is about "when does through become over" this is linguistic.

There is no argumentative lexical ambiguity between the word through and the word over.

One means to move above in the charitable sense in something like a parabola curve, the other means to move in a straight or as straight as is possible line.

foolishmortal wrote:

5th Ed BRB p11 wrote:A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or by it's hull) or through a gap between friendly models that is smaller than it's own base (or hull) size.

This was great because it nicely implied that even though you pick up a model to move it, you pretended that it's base was flat on the table fore determining where it could move (Jump Infantry, etc having written exception)

6th Ed does not (to my knowledge) have the 2nd part of the above 5th Ed rule. Until the last FAQ, it did not even seem to have the 1st part

My preferred outcome here is for someone to post a rules citation that covers this.

This is an editing error in 6th. The rules for moving assaulting models (page 21) and falling back (30) are more explicit, and tell you that "as normal", models are not able to move through friendly or enemy models, or between gaps narrower than their base. The FAQ really should have been an errata, restoring the missing text from 5th, but it’s reasonably clear.

 Mannahnin wrote:
This is an editing error in 6th. The rules for moving assaulting models (page 21) and falling back (30) are more explicit, and tell you that "as normal", models are not able to move through friendly or enemy models, or between gaps narrower than their base. The FAQ really should have been an errata, restoring the missing text from 5th, but it’s reasonably clear.

Many thanks, p21 is more like what I was looking for, and it's what I will refer people to if the topic comes up again.