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.

budro wrote:

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.

Not at all. To move through the model I would have to somehow move my model inside of it. I'd be moving over the model, which isn't prohibited by the rules.

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...

True. But they'd also be hanging out in the breeze and an easy target for everything on the table.

budro wrote: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)?

Sorry, I'm not seeing a connection there. Moving over a model is not the same as trying to move between it and whatever is beside it.


It's another good RAI argument, but again, I'm not arguing RAI, because the RAI is clear.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: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.

Er... no, I'm not arbitrarily deciding that. The rules of Geometry are doing that.

Area is a two-dimensional concept. If something occupies a given area, then it occupies that given area. The space above that is volume, not area.

You're taking 'occupies the area of its base' to mean 'occupies the volume of space above its base'... which is a very different thing.


But really, this is a pointless argument that's not going to go anywhere useful. We all know what they meant. How about we just leave it at that?