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.

This is cheating.

On page 366 of the core rules it defines unit coherency as follows:

"Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model."

Thus the squads pictured above are not in coherency. Therefore this is against the rules. Insisting you can do it may not be cheating, it could be ignorance, but common sense should dictate that this is absurd.

Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

 Marmatag wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

Common sense should dictate that in the first photo, the bases aren't seriously overlapping, and may in fact not be overlapping at all but instead merely tilted one way or another due to the shape of the roof of the bunker.

Also, if you wanna tell me how those Centurions climbed their tree without their three tons of armor, gun, and ammo snapping the limbs, I'm all ears for your Centurions opting to hide in wait for an enemy to lumber past only to be blasted from existence.

Seems like something the Reasonable Marines might do with some anti-grav devices, actually...

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Yeesh, so if you tried that on me then I'd get out a tape measure, some dice, and simply use the wobbly model rule to fit them on the building.

None of those models are stacking to fit more then could fit, they are doing it because they want to save you time by not using the wobbly model rules...

There's a difference between "wobbly" and "completely unable to fit." Technically I cannot get a model to rest on the tippy-top of a tree on the field. Should we get out some dice, a tape measure, and declare that according to the wobbly rule, and the fact that we can now have bases in contact, I have a squad of 3 centurions resting comfortably on top of the tip top pinpoint of a tree?

Common sense should dictate this isn't how the game is meant to be played.

Common sense should dictate that in the first photo, the bases aren't seriously overlapping, and may in fact not be overlapping at all but instead merely tilted one way or another due to the shape of the roof of the bunker.

Also, if you wanna tell me how those Centurions climbed their tree without their three tons of armor, gun, and ammo snapping the limbs, I'm all ears for your Centurions opting to hide in wait for an enemy to lumber past only to be blasted from existence.

Seems like something the Reasonable Marines might do with some anti-grav devices, actually...

It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Sounds more like you are trying to illustrate how right you are.

I play by the rule of "whatever makes for a gentlemanly and sporting game"

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Fair enough. It's a good point, actually. We do actually rely on the RAW to play a common game and house ruling everything for the sake of common sense would lead to simply abandoning a ruleset and LARPing the battle instead.

I think the first image could've been solved by someone saying, "Uh, hey, your models are overlapping a bit, wanna spread em out?" and the owner of the models saying, "Oh, you're right, sorry," and then just scootching them apart, since there's enough room up there for both squads if you spread the heavy weapons out a bit and scootch the regular infantry together a bit. Maybe they're simply that way because they wouldn't rest easily in the proper position, and kept sliding out of position and they actually did make use of the proper "Wobbly Model Syndrome" rule as it was intended. Poorly designed bunker, for sure.

The second one is obviously the result of an agreement between the two players that those sniper models are 20 years old, the player didn't want to rebase them, and in the modern version of the rules where you don't have sniper teams they would actually fit (which they would, as the squad is only 6 25mm base models strong), so whatever.

I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

Jacksmiles wrote:
Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

I know it's an older version of the rules, but one of the old IG Doctrines required all models in the squad to be in base-to-base contact. Close Order Drills, I think it was called.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

It wouldn't be a discussion if no one took a photo of the models, that's for sure.

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

And this hits the nail on the head. Just reach and agreement and have fun!

If this happened in a tournament and a judge ruled in favor of the guy stacking his models i'd be shocked.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


I don't think either's an egregious violation of the rules, as the second would be so egregious there's obviously a gentlemen's agreement going on with it.

And this hits the nail on the head. Just reach and agreement and have fun!

If this happened in a tournament and a judge ruled in favor of the guy stacking his models i'd be shocked.

It loops so far around to the egregious side it's impossible to conclude any rules are actually being broken, since the opponent obviously consented to that.

 Marmatag wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

So your models are straight up not allowed to be in base contact. How does deep strike work then?

Rules come into play when you're playing a game with rules.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It doesn't matter if it's supported by the fluff. We're talking rules. And if we're disregarding the rules of unit coherency and extending the "wobbly" rules to the point of absurdity, my scenario is allowed, regardless of how silly it might make things.

Another alternative is to simply play by the rules, unless both players agree to ditch them. Of course, in that scenario, I will stack my centurions on the head of a pin, because it is no longer an illegal move. And if you feel that's absurd, the onus is upon you to rewrite the rules in such a way that it allows the scenario in the original post, while also prohibiting what I want to do.

I'll admit I don't have my actual rulebook with me, but I actually think you're correct. It's an absurd situation, but those Centurions should actually be allowed to perch individually on treetops via the "wobbly model syndrome" rule. And, well, if we're gonna abandon common sense and go with the actual rules as written, the idea that Centurions climbing trees is absurd doesn't matter since it'd be allowed by the rules, yes?

Personally I think it's ridiculous, too.

I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to craft a balanced rule set once we start changing fundamental rules, based on common sense.

Unit coherency dictates bases must not touch. Why not just play by that rule? It seems so harmless. If there was a rule that said, "All imperial guardsman must explode when your opponent sneezes" i would have no problems abandoning that rule, as it would be easy and would make for a more fun game.

Wait wait wait. So when you quoted earlier the "Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model," you weren't being satirical? You actually believe bases are not allowed to touch? That you can't have your own models in base contact?

Plus, that doesn't say "bases must not touch," it simply tells you gaps exist.

"Units fight in loose groups wherein gaps may but do not have to exist"?

No, i don't think it says that. "With gaps between each model" is actually quite clear.

Again, look at what the guy did in the pictures. Rules come into play when someone tries to exploit them. This wouldn't even be a discussion if someone wasn't piling their models on top of each other...

So your models are straight up not allowed to be in base contact. How does deep strike work then?

Rules come into play when you're playing a game with rules.

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

 Marmatag wrote:

so much snip

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

"Fairly clear" leaves some wiggle room, such as how people have been expressing that wobbly model syndrome could be applied to the first picture, and how apparently typically the models in the second picture would be on their own separate 25mm base. For me, I'm fine with the first picture. However, the rules all go by bases, and don't enforce any base sizes for any models, so the second picture is something I'd have trouble with.

I was just arguing the unit coherency wording you would try to enforce in a vacuum of one sentence takes it a different direction entirely, making it so models in a unit can't touch each other at all and we all know that's actually allowed. Hence my surprise at your initial comment not being satirical.

 Marmatag wrote:
And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone.

It's fairly clear that those pictures violate unit coherency based on the wording in the rulebook.

Yup.

And this is a tabletop game, so the rules exist in the minds of players. Should all players involved in a match choose to alter the rules in any way, one of the strengths of games like WH40k is that they can do that.

If you want a game where the rules are controlled by an impartial host who will not allow any violations at all, might I suggest computer or video games instead of a tabletop game?

 Marmatag wrote:

And rules get thrown out the window when it benefits someone. .

They also often get thrown out because they don't make any sense in the given situation.

A human-sized model being unable to stand on a human-sized balcony because GW's model designers chose to give it a ridiculously large base so it would look cool fits into that scenario, for me.

YMMV, obviously.

Look I get it, if people agree to allow something that isn't in the rules that is totally fine. I view this game as playing with someone, not against someone.

Throughout this thread the statement has been made that no rules are broken by that setup - this is where I disagreed. (Not that it matters if both players agree, or it's a house rule).

If there is a disagreement in a competitive format, or in a scenario where a gentleman's agreement can't be reached, I would say that insisting upon this placement would be wrong.

 Orock wrote:
If the models dont fit in a space, you cant just stack them on top of each other. Clearly doing it to take advantage of cover in areas they would not fit, with the best line of sight available to them. Its against the rules, I dont care how good the army looks or how much care someone takes in making them. This is rules abuse.

If you think otherwise I would like to hear why.

1st picture: No, it looks ugly and unrealistic

2nd picture: Yes, one could technically put their heavy weapons on the top of a building if they were suffering from a chronic condition of the crazies.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is cheating.

On page 366 of the core rules it defines unit coherency as follows:

"Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model."

Thus the squads pictured above are not in coherency. Therefore this is against the rules. Insisting you can do it may not be cheating, it could be ignorance, but common sense should dictate that this is absurd.

Are those words in italics? If so, you know that the words in italics aren't actual rules?

It's not against the rules to have friendly models in base to base contact with each other.

 Marmatag wrote:
Look I get it, if people agree to allow something that isn't in the rules that is totally fine. I view this game as playing with someone, not against someone.

Throughout this thread the statement has been made that no rules are broken by that setup - this is where I disagreed. (Not that it matters if both players agree, or it's a house rule).

If there is a disagreement in a competitive format, or in a scenario where a gentleman's agreement can't be reached, I would say that insisting upon this placement would be wrong.

In the second picture, the violation of RAW is so egregious and blatant that there is no conclusion other than that a gentleman's agreement was reached in the game from which that photo was taken.

I don't think anyone really thinks that everyone would have to make the same agreement, only that obviously in that game, it was, otherwise it never would have been allowed and the models would've been arranged differently as it would've been disallowed.

The general agreement with both photos people have been expressing is more that they personally would not consider it a violation, for a variety of personal reasons.

And as the wise Mod said, YMMV.

 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.

To quote the FAQs, "You have to use a little common sense here."

The only models that can "move over" another model are:

1. Jump/Jet units

2. Fliers

Unless those heavy weapons teams have the jump special rule or are able to fly, they can't move "over" anything. And even then, they still can't end the turn occupying the same space.

The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Didn't know! Thanks for pointing it out. I'll look into this later on to verify.

But those weren't the only factors, IIRC. It was more: "In order to charge this unit, you have to go through my rhino. You'd have to move within an inch of the rhino, and I don't think that there's enough space between the rhino and that thick, solid piece of terrain, for you to actually squeeze through anyway."

One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Yes, the intention was clearly for models top not move post one another. The rules fall short of actually saying that, however.

 insaniak wrote:
One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Is there any place in the rules where you are given permission to move a model vertically except with respect to terrain pieces?

Posts like the above annoy me. People complain about how bad GW is at writing rules. To an extent, that might be true. But I imagine that a big part of it is people trying to twist the words to say something contrary to what they were obviously intended to say.

Yes. GW doesn't write their rules like business attorneys writing up a contract.

No, that doesn't make the rule about movement unclear, so long as you are willing "to use a little common sense here."

There is no explicit permission in the rules that says that an infantry model can "jump" or move vertically onto a friendly model's base.

This doesn't even happen in cqc. Nor can it happen when models are forced to disembark. If I have a rhino, it's wrecked, and it's surrounded by a circle of models, no, I can't put my unit on top of the rhino to avoid the unit being destroyed.

 insaniak wrote:
One model on another model's base is not occupying the same space, any more than my fridge is occupying the same space as my floor.

Yes, the intention was clearly for models top not move post one another. The rules fall short of actually saying that, however.

It's starting to remind me of World of Warcraft lore, actually.

The lore says one thing about what the player does. The actual gameplay says another about what the player's doing.

The lore says the player is vanquishing demons to save her planet. The gameplay says the player is slaughtering innocent people in their homes for phat lootz.

You try to tell people what the player ACTUALLY does, they come back at you with the lore description that is not factually represented by gameplay.

(Seriously, I think my main character in WoW is the most evil character in the game. There's an 'achievement' which gives me the title, "Pouncey the Insane" which is totally optional and there are zero other tangible benefits for doing it. So I went and did it when I was bored and had nothing to do for a few weeks. Basically I killed like 50,000 innocent guards defending their own territory to call myself Insane. Then the NPCs think I'm a hero. It's absurd, yes.)

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

 Traditio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
The clear intention of the rules is that two models cannot occupy the same space at any point in time unless those models occupy different "levels" of space.

A model with its base on top of another model is on a different "level" of space. Remember, the old concept of "levels" as 6-inch tiers in ruins no longer exists in 7th edition.

Again: where is the explicit permission to move vertically? As far as I know, there's no explicit permission in the rules that says that Lt. Dan can move vertically onto Pvt. Gump.

So when you have a hill...?