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.

Just curious if anyone has ever found any actual guidance for this. In other words, if a model has bits that poke out beyond its base, how do you deal with these overhanging bits when it comes to movement? This particularly comes up when you want base something in combat so it can't pile in or consolidate. If the model has overhanging bits that make it impossible for you to actually place your base in contact with theirs, does that mean you just cannot base it? Or can you "counts as" to base them, on the theory that overhang should be ignored for purposes of movement since it isn't part of the base, and you measure from the base when moving?

The people I've played with have always favored pretending the overhanging bits aren't there, but I'm curious what other people think.

If your model cannot physically fit in a particular spot then you cannot place it there. This is pretty much the only guidance that is given by the official rules.

If your play group wants to make house rules that say otherwise then fine, although if you have something like two units of genestealers attacking each other then keeping track of where each model 'really' is will be just about impossible. I think that it would usually be easier to just rely on the models' actual dimensions, with perhaps a bit of wiggle room in fringe cases.

In theory you can use a proxy model or alter it slightly in order to change how much it overhangs its base. Many tournaments do not allow 'modelling for advantage', but it is hard to say exactly where the line is and you will probably get away with some amount of customisation.

My group just plays by intention.

So when you charge your Genestealers into the enemy Genestealers you say "these are all in base contact", and you both just accept that the higildy-pigildy mesh of claws is in base contact.

It may not stand up to someone breaking out a theodolite at a tournament, but it works well enough for us.

If you want/need to you can also rotate your model around until it fits in place. Facing means nothing at the moment so there's no harm in it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you want/need to you can also rotate your model around until it fits in place. Facing means nothing at the moment so there's no harm in it.

RAW you have to use movement to rotate your models.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you want/need to you can also rotate your model around until it fits in place. Facing means nothing at the moment so there's no harm in it.

RAW you have to use movement to rotate your models.

That only really applies to vehicles or oblong bases where their hull profile can actually change depending on orientation.
Or to prevent you from turning your model to change its LoS mid turn or something.
But if neither of those are an issue, it's not an issue.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If you want/need to you can also rotate your model around until it fits in place. Facing means nothing at the moment so there's no harm in it.

RAW you have to use movement to rotate your models.

That only really applies to vehicles or oblong bases where their hull profile can actually change depending on orientation.
Or to prevent you from turning your model to change its LoS mid turn or something.
But if neither of those are an issue, it's not an issue.

If your model has a one inch base and a big tail that overhangs the base by 0.5 inch then if the model rotates 180º on the spot it has moved an inch, because the tip of the tail is now 1" away from where it started. If the model has a move of 6" and you want it to go in tail-first then you would only get 5" of board movement after incorporating the spin.

I wouldn't ever force an opponent to play it like that, but I think that is technically how it is supposed to work.

I agree that's what RAW says. However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, that rule is designed to prevent abuse in one of two ways.
- rotating oblong models to get extra distance.
- rotating models to change LoS, particularly mid-turn (eg stick a hand out to shoot, rotate the hand back into cover).

But charging does neither of those things, so there's no problem what-so-ever doing so.

It might not work at a Grand Tournament or something, but it's an effective solution to use with any reasonable opponent.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
If your model cannot physically fit in a particular spot then you cannot place it there. This is pretty much the only guidance that is given by the official rules.

But do the rules actually say that? As far as I can tell, all they say is that you can't move over another model's *base* and there has to be a place to put your model's *base*. I can't find anything in the rules that talks about what to do if a different part of the model is causing the problem. For models without bases you measure from anywhere on the model, which fixes the issue. But for based models with overhang, I can't find anything in the rules one way or the other. The 9th edition wobbly model rule only talks about terrain, not other models.

I was just curious if I am missing anything, or if this is just one of those areas the rules doesn't actually cover.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

If your model has a one inch base and a big tail that overhangs the base by 0.5 inch then if the model rotates 180º on the spot it has moved an inch, because the tip of the tail is now 1" away from where it started.

If the model has a move of 6" and you want it to go in tail-first then you would only get 5" of board movement after incorporating the spin.

I wouldn't ever force an opponent to play it like that, but I think that is technically how it is supposed to work.

That is not correct at all.

You do not measure to the tail.

From the "Measuring Distances" section of the core rules:

"Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from."

It is physically impossible for models to phase through each other, so your only options are to either put them wherever they fit and accept that as their actual position, or to fudge things a bit when extraneous appendages get in the way. The offical rules do not explicitly give you permission to do the latter, so you would have to house rule it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:

If your model has a one inch base and a big tail that overhangs the base by 0.5 inch then if the model rotates 180º on the spot it has moved an inch, because the tip of the tail is now 1" away from where it started.

If the model has a move of 6" and you want it to go in tail-first then you would only get 5" of board movement after incorporating the spin.

I wouldn't ever force an opponent to play it like that, but I think that is technically how it is supposed to work.

That is not correct at all.

You do not measure to the tail.

From the "Measuring Distances" section of the core rules:

"Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from."

I'm not sure that part is relevant, but I checked under the movement phase and I was indeed wrong. "The distance a model moves is measured using the part of the model's base (or hull) that moves furthest along its path". So overhanging parts for models with bases don't count for movement after all. My mistake

EDIT: Reworded for politeness