Is this cheating?

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.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

**roflmajog**

Traditio wrote:
Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.

Look again at the rule, if you are charging you can go within an inch of any enemy unit, not just the one you are charging. I do believe it has worked the way you are saying in previous editions though.

**whirlwindstruggle**

Peregrine wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So?

Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

**Peregrine**

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

There is, and selectively quoting my post to make it look like a one-word response and support your "that's rude" accusation would be testing that boundary, IMO.

**slip**

As long as it's passive aggressive it's okay.

Edit: not a dig at anyone in particular, just having a laugh at the fact on dakkadakka you can imply anything you want about someone but as soon as you explicitly state it you've crossed the line.

**whirlwindstruggle**

I think 'So?' is quite rude. But whatever

**Oberron**

Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

Can you quote a rule that you can? Rules are permissive they tell you what you are allowed to do in a game, if there isn't a rule about it then you can't do it.

**Pouncey**

slip wrote:
As long as it's passive aggressive it's okay.

Edit: not a dig at anyone in particular, just having a laugh at the fact on dakkadakka you can imply anything you want about someone but as soon as you explicitly state it you've crossed the line.

Yeah, it's a pretty weird rule.

If you're skilled enough with the literary definition of irony you can say some pretty offensive things and be untouchable because you didn't technically break any rules.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Traditio wrote:
Ushtarador wrote:
The first pictures looks fine to me, the models could be placed properly, but unless I was playing at the ETC, I wouldn't really bother. The second one does not work that way for sure.

That being said:

"No, you cannot move there or charge that dude. You'd have to move within 1 inch of that rhino, which I specifically put there to block your path. #Tactics "

You are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models when charging. Talking about cheating...

You're allowed to move within 1 " of enemy models if you are charging them/in close combat with that unit. You can't charge "through" units. The only way that you can do that is if you declare a disordered charge, but according to the rules, you basically can only do a disordered charge if you have more than one model charging.

So, no. If I have a rhino in the way, you have two options:

1. Have more than one model charging and declare a disordered charge.
2. Roll a big enough charge distance to go around the rhino.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be cheating, they are obviously placed that way and using wobbly model syndrome. It is clear in the rules they are allowed to have models represent approximate placement and put them in their correct position for determining line of sight etc.

This isn't a discussion. The only way to believe they are cheating is if there is audio where they are screaming about how it's OK for them to stack and how their opponent doesn't know how to play the game.

No rule is being broken, period.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to either case. Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

If the IG player wanted to put in a more precarious position, then yes, he could place a marker and say: "My guy's there."

But bases cannot overlap. The only exception to this is zooming fliers, but even then, you can only move "through" the base. You can't end the turn with two bases in the same place. The only exception to this seems to be when a flier crashes and burns...for reasons I don't entirely understand.

Their bases aren't overlapping for gameplay, it is just how they are sitting on the table until they are targeted in any way. Hence, wobbly model syndrome.

**DeffDred**

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
The building they're on top of is physically unable to accommodate them properly due to a lack of flat surfaces and general space.

So?

Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

Yes, there is also one about staying on topic.

**Fenrir Kitsune**

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Your bases cannot overlap. Period.

Could you quote the rule for this?

I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

Which page is it that states about gentlemanly play, the spirit of the game and not being a howling TFG about utterly minor things?

**General Annoyance**

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

I would have thought that this post would have constituted as violating rule no.1; a bit too far, even if it concerns a poster such as Traditio.

Still, questioning the point of someone's argument is hardly rude.

On topic, I don't think it's explicitly stated anywhere that bases cannot overlap each other, however I think it's just a given that you aren't meant to.

**Pouncey**

General Annoyance wrote:
whirlwindstruggle wrote:
Isn't there a rule on here about not being rude?

I would have thought that this post would have constituted as violating rule no.1; a bit too far, even if it concerns a poster such as Traditio.

Still, questioning the point of someone's argument is hardly rude.

Agreed.

The comment in question in this thread was directed at me, and I didn't really take offense at what was said. Mostly I was baffled at why he said what he did, since I thought I explained my viewpoint clearly in the part of the post he cut out, so my reply to him was to explain in more detail.

**insaniak**

Topic, folks. If you see a post that you feel is not appropriate, report it and let the mods deal with it as they deem appropriate. Don't drag the thread off topic talking about it.

On topic:

roflmajog wrote:
Look again at the rule, if you are charging you can go within an inch of any enemy unit, not just the one you are charging. I do believe it has worked the way you are saying in previous editions though.

Only in 3rd edition, which prompted the 'chequerboard' deployment tactic, whereby you could make two units unassaultable by mixing them together. That loophole was removed in 4th edition, when they simply removed the 1" restriction when charging.

Traditio wrote:
I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

The first one there is a rule. The second isn't.

**Pouncey**

insaniak wrote:
Traditio wrote:
I don't have a rulebook on hand. But I'm sure that somebody else can. It's in the general section on unit movement:

1. You cannot move models "through" each other.
2. You cannot end a movement such that model bases are overlapping.

The first one there is a rule. The second isn't.

The second is a consequence of the first, actually. If you can't move two bases through each other (the base is considered part of the model), you cannot ever end up with two bases overlapping.

**insaniak**

Moving over something is not the same as moving through it.

When you walk across a floor, you're not walking through the floor.

**Pouncey**

insaniak wrote:
Moving over something is not the same as moving through it.

When you walk across a floor, you're not walking through the floor.

So then essentially the first rule is unenforceable, since you could simply say you're moving "over" the other model, yes?

**insaniak**

Pretty much, yes.

Previous editions got around this by declaring other models as impassable terrain, although whether or not that's included friendly models has varied from edition to edition, IIRC.

For the record, I'm not a fan of base stacking in general, although am more than happy to allow it when it makes sense (and either of the examples in the OP look fine to me... The base is, after all, ultimately just there to give the model a defined boundary for when that matters and (more importantly) to make it stand up).

But it's not actually breaking any rules to do it.

**Pouncey**

insaniak wrote:
Pretty much, yes.

Previous editions got around this by declaring other models as impassable terrain, although whether or not that's included friendly models has varied from edition to edition, IIRC.

For the record, I'm not a fan of base stacking in general, although am more than happy to allow it when it makes sense (and either of the examples in the OP look fine to me... The base is, after all, ultimately just there to give the model a defined boundary for when that matters and (more importantly) to make it stand up).

But it's not actually breaking any rules to do it.

Then essentially, when any opponent of yours moves a model through a gap too small for the model to fit, you don't call it out, since you rationalize it as moving over the other models?

I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do, as I can easily imagine models flattening to the sides of a passage or moving out of the way to allow an important squad member passage to a more advantageous position, I'm just curious if you actually practice what you just preached.

**insaniak**

No, I play the way most players assume the rules should work, and move around other models' bases.

Pointing out that the rules don't say what people are claiming they say isn't the same as saying that I play by the rules as written. Over the years there have been any number of rules absurdities in this ruleset that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of just getting on with playing the game.

**Commissar Benny**

Of course the dude accused of cheating just so happens to be a Steel Legion player.

I mean how many of us are left out there in the world? Like 10? Everyone either rolled DKoK or Cadian. Not that I blame them.

That said, his models actually look pretty awesome. I like the capes he added onto the back of them. I do agree that bases overlapping is a big no no. Heavy weapons teams do have exceedingly large bases however. Like unnecessarily so and just so happen to be one of the worst units in the codex. Do I think this is cheating? Well the rules state you can't overlap bases so yeah I guess but its probably one most minor offenses I've come across.

**Pouncey**

insaniak wrote:
No, I play the way most players assume the rules should work, and move around other models' bases.

Pointing out that the rules don't say what people are claiming they say isn't the same as saying that I play by the rules as written. Over the years there have been any number of rules absurdities in this ruleset that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of just getting on with playing the game.

Fair point.

Hugs?

**insaniak**

Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

**Pouncey**

insaniak wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

I don't think they read this far before replying.

Surely as a moderator you've noticed that people often don't read an entire thread before responding.

**Commissar Benny**

insaniak wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
Well the rules state you can't overlap bases ...

We literally just covered the fact that they don't.

So what you are saying is that if a player wanted to, he/she could stack his/her entire army on top of one another and it would be perfectly legal?

**licclerich**

Absolutely not.
Its just how they are modelled on the base. Other peeps put there guns/figs on separate bases so could fir on that model.
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

**Commissar Benny**

licclerich wrote:
Absolutely not.
Its just how they are modelled on the base. Other peeps put there guns/figs on separate bases so could fir on that model.
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

Well I learned something today. Interesting discussion and good thread! Glad I found it!

**Pouncey**

licclerich wrote:
Case in point Russians in WW2 dragged AT guns up stairs, but most gamers put them on bases to protect the models form damage...should they be penalised?

Depends how hardcore a roleplayer you are.

**Huron black heart**

I'd allow both examples if it was me playing against him. It's supposed to be an abstract game and you have to be flexible to a certain degree, in my opinion at least.
I recently saw on another thread a kind of similar discussion regarding a superheavy tank starting the game balanced on top of a water tower (can't remember the exact circumstances) this would be something I wouldn't allow, simply because despite it not breaking any rules, it wouldn't be able to get up/down and would probably crush the tower through it's own weight.
Common sense should prevail.