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.

Hi all,

We had a bit of an issue come up during a game session the other day and 2 of us are firmly on one side of the argument with 2 on the other side. After numerous back and forth we continued by rolling a dice for the decision (standard).

Since the issue we have all furiously been searching for something in a book or FAQ which clarifies this.

The specific scenario in question was that a model with a large oval base could not fit through a gap between two buildings but had enough movement to reach a move open space where the base would fit beyond the gap. So the question was whether or not the model could make this move? Worth noting that the model did not have the fly keyword and actually had the vehicle keyword.

The stance on one side was simply if the base couldn't fit through the gap then the model could not make the move. The other side believed that because vehicles can in theory, using rules as written, drive up a vertical wall provided it has the movement to do so and does not end its move on an upper level of a ruin. That in itself led to the ridiculous suggestion that a landraider could essentially drive up a building wall and finish with its back end on the ground and the bottom of its tracks vertical up the wall. One other point used for the "it can move" side was that the model would simply lean and turn to get through a gap. This again in turn led onto further discussions whether a model with a base could finish a move without it's base being flat and stable on the table or a level of a building. The only reference to anything like that which we could find was the rules about a flyer's base not being able to be placed properly.

Unfortunately neither side has been able up to now find anything which answers this and it looks like a lack of clarification then rules as written leans towards the side of yes it can move and yes landraisers can spiderman up a wall.

It's very much one of those rules as written vs common sense arguments I think and I wondered firstly what everyone's view would be on similar situations and better yet whether anyone could point us in the direction of a paragraph in a rulebook ot FAQ that would put this to bed.

Any input is much appreciated.

There is no rules guidance regarding models needing to keep there base "flat" on the ground. The rules are simply silent on that subject.

Regarding models scaling terrain, the rules are very clear on that. It is totally legal for a model to climb up one side of terrain, traverse it, and climb down the other side. It just can end it's move in a legal position. Sometimes this is perfectly logical, such as a Land Raider rolling over a 1-inch tall wall. Other times it is rather silly, like a Rhino Advancing sideways up a 6" wall, then moving over the wall and moving back down.

If this bothers you, it is best to define the terrain before game to conform with thematic expectations.

Agree before the game as the rules don’t cover a lot of stuff relating to vehicle orientation.

However, VEHICLES (keyword) cannot end a move above the ground floor of a Ruin unless they have FLY, so if you define the offending scenery as Ruins pre-game then there’s no way a Land Raider can drive up the wall. Tends to be easiest to class all scenery buildings (as opposed to fortifications) as Ruins, then a lot of issues are rectified up front.

FWIW, the rules also assume a lot of common sense and war gaming conventions. If your opponent is intent on playing in the “it doesn’t say I can’t!” vein of behaviour then it won’t be a lot of fun.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


FWIW, the rules also assume a lot of common sense and war gaming conventions. If your opponent is intent on playing in the “it doesn’t say I can’t!” vein of behaviour then it won’t be a lot of fun.

This - I think in their bid to cut down the number of rule pages the Terrain rules (in AoS and 40K) got stripped down to a bare minimum, then further confused by GW wanting to warscroll all the terrain (to help drive sales of their own) rather than having lots of generic terrain types. In the vast majority of wargames if the base doesn't fit the gap the model can't move through the gap. This is something to consider in the game setup as it lets you establish tight passages as well as open access points. Even if you can't find a specific rule that says you can't, basic representation suggests that you cannot do a wheelie in a landraider to squeeze through.You could argue it smashes through, but hten you'd need destructable terrain for at least one half (or both if its tight enough) of the terrain features either side.