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.

Let's make this a simple example. Can a Guardian move through a friendly Hemlock (assuming it has enough movement to clear the base)?

Big FAQ wrote:Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that
includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.
Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of
another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.
If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are
Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

Based on the new Aircraft rule, yes.

Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that
includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.
Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of
another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.
If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are
Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

I can't see the permission to do it in there, what am I missing?

 alextroy wrote:
Based on the new Aircraft rule, yes.

No, because this rule is only for enemy AIRCRAFT.
They either forgot to expand that or it simply isn't an issue.

Haha! You're right. Your Aircraft block your models movement, but not enemy models movement.

 alextroy wrote:
Haha! You're right. Your Aircraft block your models movement, but not enemy models movement.

Probably because you can just move the friendly AIRCRAFT then move the unit that it was blocking.

Ours is not to wonder why... well, I'm sure you're half right. The other half being the rule is about keeping you from move blocking your opponent, not giving you more options.

I believe the "moved within 1" of enemy AIRCRAFT" bit is to alter the rule of not being allowed to path within 1" of any enemy units, typically. You are already allowed to move within 1" of friendly units, so the restriction only needed to be lifted on enemy units.

As for being able to move through them, I believe the intent is that yes, your models can move through the base of any AIRCRAFT, not just enemy units. Naturally, GW hasn't used the exact, specific code-style wording that people apparently require to understand the rule, and there's an opening for likely unintentional fething about.

 Larks wrote:

As for being able to move through them, I believe the intent is that yes, your models can move through the base of any AIRCRAFT, not just enemy units. Naturally, GW hasn't used the exact, specific code-style wording that people apparently require to understand the rule, and there's an opening for likely unintentional fething about.

On the contrary, you are forbidden by the rulebook to move through any models!
If you do, you're breaking the rules. Simple as that.

The AIRCRAFT rule explicitly allows models to move through enemy AIRCRAFT. Nothing else. No mystic code words.
GW either didn't bother with it because it's nearly never a problem, or considered it but disregarded it (because it would open stuff like screening your melee units with flyers, with no room for the enemy to charge you, but you're free to charge through)

Only moving through enemy aircraft is going to get the same level of sass from the FAQ writers as "but it doesn't SAY I have to stay in the play area!"

In friendly play the solution is obvious. In tournament play the TO should FAQ it.

The Designer's Commentary talks about enemy flyers, but not your own. The rule for movement states 'enemy Aircraft' and 'such models (and their bases)' in one sentence. If they intended to allows you to move across your own Aircraft, they did a bad job of it.

And the new unique wording they used is unnecessary if the idea was to allow units to move past all Aircraft. They could have easily used a quick change of the Fly rule itself to allow movement across Aircraft.

Fly wrote:If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there...

Clearer Aircraft wrote:If a model is an Aircraft, then other models can move across it as if it were not there when making any move. Note that Enemy models cannot end their move within 1" of the Aircraft unless they charged it.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Only moving through enemy aircraft is going to get the same level of sass from the FAQ writers as "but it doesn't SAY I have to stay in the play area!"

In friendly play the solution is obvious. In tournament play the TO should FAQ it.

You are forbidden to move through models by the core rules under "1. Movement Phase".
The exception of the AIRCRAFT rule is very specific.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Only moving through enemy aircraft is going to get the same level of sass from the FAQ writers as "but it doesn't SAY I have to stay in the play area!"

In friendly play the solution is obvious. In tournament play the TO should FAQ it.

You are forbidden to move through models by the core rules under "1. Movement Phase".
The exception of the AIRCRAFT rule is very specific.

He was obviously in acknowledgement of the RAW and stated his HIWPI. Don't be obtuse.

I think GW was probably thinking that since your own models and AIRCRAFT can be moved in a particular order and aren't required to be 1" away from each other, that a specific exception is not needed.

As stated above, you can simply move your non-AIRCRAFT models first and then move you AIRCRAFT since they can move over models. Just plan your Move Phase accordingly and you'll be fine.

Although, I'll still waiting on that FAQ allowing YOUR OWN models to be placed on YOUR OWN Landing Pad to benefit from it's abilities the YOU paid for. But instead, we had a fun situation in which you pay for a model and its abilities only benefit YOUR OPPONENT. WTF

-

Given that the rule was changed due to perceived abuses (walls of fliers blocking the other player’s models), they probably figured people could manage moving their own models such that they weren’t in their own way. Since that’s how it’s worked before.

It would have been more consistent, and feel less reactionary, if you could move through friendly fliers, but it is what it is.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 Larks wrote:

As for being able to move through them, I believe the intent is that yes, your models can move through the base of any AIRCRAFT, not just enemy units. Naturally, GW hasn't used the exact, specific code-style wording that people apparently require to understand the rule, and there's an opening for likely unintentional fething about.

On the contrary, you are forbidden by the rulebook to move through any models!
If you do, you're breaking the rules. Simple as that.

The AIRCRAFT rule explicitly allows models to move through enemy AIRCRAFT. Nothing else. No mystic code words.
GW either didn't bother with it because it's nearly never a problem, or considered it but disregarded it (because it would open stuff like screening your melee units with flyers, with no room for the enemy to charge you, but you're free to charge through)

Helpful tip: the words "I believe the intent is..." is a signal that I'm discussing RAI. I know what the RAW is, but unless I missed something, RAW isn't the only way to discuss a rule on this sub-forum.

 Larks wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 Larks wrote:

As for being able to move through them, I believe the intent is that yes, your models can move through the base of any AIRCRAFT, not just enemy units. Naturally, GW hasn't used the exact, specific code-style wording that people apparently require to understand the rule, and there's an opening for likely unintentional fething about.

On the contrary, you are forbidden by the rulebook to move through any models!
If you do, you're breaking the rules. Simple as that.

The AIRCRAFT rule explicitly allows models to move through enemy AIRCRAFT. Nothing else. No mystic code words.
GW either didn't bother with it because it's nearly never a problem, or considered it but disregarded it (because it would open stuff like screening your melee units with flyers, with no room for the enemy to charge you, but you're free to charge through)

Helpful tip: the words "I believe the intent is..." is a signal that I'm discussing RAI. I know what the RAW is, but unless I missed something, RAW isn't the only way to discuss a rule on this sub-forum.

Also helpful tip: if you're discussing your RAI point of view, don't disregard the RAW as "hasn't used the exact, specific code-style wording that people apparently require to understand the rule, and there's an opening for likely unintentional fething about."
Because that's clearly not the case here. It's not a ambiguously written rule like other times, but very precise if their intention is to forbid to block enemy units with flyers, without allowing your own units to charge or move through your own flyers.

As stated, you only have permission to move across the bases of enemy AIRCRAFT, not friendly ones. GW logic at its finest!

It seems no matter how much gw explain the intent of their rules and their thinking behind them people insist on arguing raw as if game wasn’t meant to be fun. The first half dozen pages of the faq was gw face palming at this kind of thing and here we are again.

Are there any AIRCRAFT that are not on a full flight stand and have a rule that uses the physical model instead of the base?

I ask because you can always move "under" the wings and Fuselage and even (for friendly models) into base-to-base contact with the Aircraft.

Andykp wrote:
It seems no matter how much gw explain the intent of their rules and their thinking behind them people insist on arguing raw as if game wasn’t meant to be fun. The first half dozen pages of the faq was gw face palming at this kind of thing and here we are again.

No one, except GW themselves, know the intent of their rules. Thats why its important to write them as precise as possible. GW is very sloppy at rule writing. Its badly worded, and ambiguous. Then we see FAQs directly contradicting RAW, and FAQ answers contradicting other FAQ answers. How are we supposed to know the intent of their rules ?

“But we can never knoowwwww intent” is a nonsense argument, and it’s boring that it comes up in so many threads. Applying some critical judgement means you often *can* figure out the intent unless you ignore the obvious, or it may be spelt out in an FAQ down the line. I do wish people would quit with polarised hot takes that are nothing but a cute soundbite. Sometimes it absolutely is impossible to know, but it’s often very easy to figure out. That some people treat intent as a huge no-no and claim that playing by non-functioning rules is the pinnacle of fun is on them. Again, it’s just internet posturing.

I’d wager this is an omission but as others have said, you can move your own models in whatever order you choose, so shouldn’t be an issue with a modicum of planning. Chalk it up as another “internet only problem” 9 times out of 10, or if you think it’s barmy just discuss with your opponent pre-game. All rules can be modified to make the game more fun if you both agree to. Note I didn’t say “ignore”, and changing one rule doesn’t mean you have to start with T60 Space Marines false equivalences. You know who you are.

Drager wrote:
Let's make this a simple example. Can a Guardian move through a friendly Hemlock (assuming it has enough movement to clear the base)?

Big FAQ wrote:Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that
includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.
Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of
another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.
If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are
Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

The use of English in the FAQ is ambiguous. Like much of the English language, correct grammar, and syntax can still result in ambiguous statements eg: "I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas". Grammatically this statement can mean two different things. Without appropriate context it is impossible to know which, but it definitely does not mean both possible interpretations simultaneously. One interpretation is that I was wearing my own pyjamas at the time I saw a tiger, the other interpretation is that a tiger was wearing my pyjamas at the time that I saw the tiger. Neither is wrong, although one interpretation is absurd. The absurdity may be deliberate, there is no way to know which interpretation is correct without context and clarification.

The above FAQ answer similarly has two equally valid interpretations. To suggest one is more right that the other is to misunderstand the grammar.

"If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that
includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.
Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of
another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units."

Interpretation 1:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to "enemy aircraft" in the the previous clause in the same sentence.

Interpretation 1 means that no you cannot move through friendly aircraft.

Interpretation 2:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to the previous sentence, not the previous clause in the same sentence. In this case, it refers to "the Aircraft keyword"

Interpretation 2 means that yes you can move through friendly aircraft.

Without clarification and/or more context it is impossible to know which interpretation is correct. Some people will say its obviously one or the other, but thats not actually what is said. It is either, but does not specify which of the two.

At this point there is a very clear rule to determine which interpretaion to follow in a game - a roll off.

Everyone seems to insist on their interpretation of badly worded rules, but the rules themeselves have a provision for this. If someone is insiting on RAW then as per RAW you must roll-off to determine the correct meaning of the rule and abide by the roll-off.

Both your interpretations are very well presented and clear, thank you for that. Your interpretation 2 does seem to have some merit.
I think that your interpretation 1 is clear, given the normal use of grammar it is the more likely correct of the two in my estimation. Much like the use of it in my prior sentence is not ambiguous, even if it is a little tortured, to make the point.

 p5freak wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It seems no matter how much gw explain the intent of their rules and their thinking behind them people insist on arguing raw as if game wasn’t meant to be fun. The first half dozen pages of the faq was gw face palming at this kind of thing and here we are again.

No one, except GW themselves, know the intent of their rules. Thats why its important to write them as precise as possible. GW is very sloppy at rule writing. Its badly worded, and ambiguous. Then we see FAQs directly contradicting RAW, and FAQ answers contradicting other FAQ answers. How are we supposed to know the intent of their rules ?

As Johnny said. U can known the intent. Why on earth would they intend for flyers to block movement? Then they explain that they didn’t. But it’s still not enough. For raw to work the rules would have to be written like a legal document, because they are written so people can’t unoick them but then they still do. And I for one do not want to have to take a law degree to play a game. The rules are sloppy and ambiguous, but maybe because we are supposed to be grown ups playing a game for fun not arrange a merger between two corporations. Look what happened to wobbly model syndrome, it went from common sense advice to a rule loop hole manipulated by dodgy gamers.

There is no need to have a law degree to play the game. And its really not a problem to write clearer, less ambiguous rules. Players are creative, they will use the rules to their advantage, some as hard a possible.

Aash wrote:

Big FAQ wrote:Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword. Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units. If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

Interpretation 2:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to the previous sentence, not the previous clause in the same sentence. In this case, it refers to "the Aircraft keyword"

Interpretation 2 means that yes you can move through friendly aircraft.

Interpretation 2 is not correct.

"Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." they can only be talking about the "enemy Aircraft" within the same sentence. If "...enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." was referring to the first sentence, there would be a period and not a comma after enemy Aircraft.

just saying,
Most of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is. I find that there is usually an issue with peoples grasp of grammar and syntax recognition more then anything else when discussing RAW in this game.
For example

"I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas". Grammatically this statement can mean two different things.

It actually can't mean two different things... this ONLY means a tiger is wearing your pajamas.

It can not mean

"I saw a tiger whilst wearing my pajamas"

or

"while wearing my pajamas I saw a tiger"

Just because you see the words tiger, saw, wearing and pajamas in the same sentence doesn't mean you can interpret it as though those words were presented in any order.

saying that,

I agree with DeathReaper,
I think the wording is clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:

Big FAQ wrote:Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword. Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units. If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

Interpretation 2:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to the previous sentence, not the previous clause in the same sentence. In this case, it refers to "the Aircraft keyword"

Interpretation 2 means that yes you can move through friendly aircraft.

Interpretation 2 is not correct.

"Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." they can only be talking about the "enemy Aircraft" within the same sentence. If "...enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." was referring to the first sentence, there would be a period and not a comma after enemy Aircraft.

The grammatical phenomenon here is known as anaphoric ambiguity. There is no hard and fast rule on how to deal with this in English, otherwise the ambiguity would not arise. The fact that there is a possible referent in the previous clause in the same sentence does not preclude the possibility of a referent in a previous sentence. Nor would it preclude a referent in a following clause or sentence (antecedent versus postcedant).
The common practice for interpreting/resolving this sort of ambiguity is to accept the nearest referent as the "best" interpretation. In this case, Interpretation 1, where the nearest referent is "enemy Aircraft".

To say that Interpretaion 2 in incorrect is not quite right though, but it is certainly the less common interpretation. It is not possible to rule out interpretation 2 based on the way the rule is written, otherwise there would be no ambiguity in the first place. By definintion ambiguity means that there are multiple valid and correct interpretations of a given group of words. It could be said that one interpretation is more likely, or "more correct" if you will. Again, in this case, Interpretation 1. To select Interpretation 1 as correct and interpretation 2 as incorrect its to make an assumption - that the "correct" antecedent follows the nearest referent convention, but it is only a convention, not a hard rule and relies on a level of inference on the part of the reader. The act of inference itself is assuming intent on the part of the writer. My understanding is that for the advocates of strict RAW, the assumption of intent is the number one cardinal sin.

I'm merely carrying out a grammatical analysis of the rule, not advocating one interpretation over the other. I'm not a big fan on playing strict RAW myself (largely because the rules are full of ambiguity of various sorts), but if one were to do so, then RAW says that both interpretations must be considered, and as no single interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation, the rule must be resolved by a roll-off.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
just saying,
Most of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is. I find that there is usually an issue with peoples grasp of grammar and syntax recognition more then anything else when discussing RAW in this game.
For example

"I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas". Grammatically this statement can mean two different things.

It actually can't mean two different things... this ONLY means a tiger is wearing your pajamas.

It can not mean

"I saw a tiger whilst wearing my pajamas"

or

"while wearing my pajamas I saw a tiger"

Just because you see the words tiger, saw, wearing and pajamas in the same sentence doesn't mean you can interpret it as though those words were presented in any order.

saying that,

I agree with DeathReaper,
I think the wording is clear.

Regarding the ambiguity of the above, I was paraphrasing the famous Groucho Marx quote: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas I'll never know."

Without the second sentence to clarify, there are indeed two interpretations of the initial sentence, either the pyjamas were worn by the elephant (as is the case because the second sentence clarifies), or that the pyjamas are worn by the subject of the sentence, "I". There is nothing in English which specifies whether the subject or the object of the sentence is the referent. The concept of puns, wordplay and many jokes in English rely on the inherent ambiguity in English. Much of this is due to the lack of gendered nouns and that English is a mongrel language - Germanic with heavy Romance influences (among others - notably Brittonic and Goidelic), and like all living languages, grammar, vocabulary and meaning are constantly evolving. My tiger example above follows the same rules, and as it doesn't have a second clause or sentence to provide clarity, remains ambiguous.

Aash wrote:
"If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that
includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.
Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of
another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units."

Interpretation 1:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to "enemy aircraft" in the the previous clause in the same sentence.

Interpretation 1 means that no you cannot move through friendly aircraft.

Interpretation 2:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to the previous sentence, not the previous clause in the same sentence. In this case, it refers to "the Aircraft keyword"

Interpretation 2 means that yes you can move through friendly aircraft.

Without clarification and/or more context it is impossible to know which interpretation is correct. Some people will say its obviously one or the other, but thats not actually what is said. It is either, but does not specify which of the two.

At this point there is a very clear rule to determine which interpretaion to follow in a game - a roll off.

Everyone seems to insist on their interpretation of badly worded rules, but the rules themeselves have a provision for this. If someone is insiting on RAW then as per RAW you must roll-off to determine the correct meaning of the rule and abide by the roll-off.

Note that the first "Sentence" that defines Aircraft is actually a different paragraph. This makes Interpretation 2 a very long stretch since you are referring back to a prior paragraph, not just a prior sentence.

As for GW's intent, here's what they said (emphasis added) in the Big FAQ:

We have started to notice that aircraft (typically units with the Flyer Battlefield Role and/or a minimum Move characteristic) are being used to block enemy units from moving, and we’ve received lots of feedback along the lines of ‘whilst the rules are very clear on the matter, it does feel contrary to, and disconnected from the narrative’. We agree; after all, the aircraft employing this tactic, whilst right in front of the enemy units are in fact imagined to be soaring high above the battlefield, not skimming over the surface. To that end we are introducing an addition to the core Movement phase rules.