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.

No, because it says the fall back move is an exception to the [general rule] about moving through models.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because it says the fall back move is an exception to the [general rule] about moving through models.

Ah, ok now I finally see what you're talking about. Not only does it reference the rule, it states the rule.

Where is the rule that allows models to end their turn on another model? The comment may have been snide, but it was a good question.
I feel this sums up the situation accurately.

 insaniak wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Normally I stay out of YMDC but I'm posting in here now.

Er... ok.

My statement said that I don't come into YMDC but I am now, just like the statement on pg. 30 tells us both the rule and the exception.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
My statement said that I don't come into YMDC but I am now, just like the statement on pg. 30 tells us both the rule and the exception.

I'm not seeing any relationship between the two statements, to be honest.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because it says the fall back move is an exception to the [general rule] about moving through models.

Not only does it reference the rule, it states the rule.

This is the best explanation I've seen here. I've been lurking.

Just adding to this, pg. 85 under tank shocking has another reference "remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through".

I'm thinking it's not specifically stated because it sounds like it's mentioned in every other freaking rule. Like it says the "Normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model". It doesn't need a seperate rule to state that it's like two rules for the price of one if you will.

Under charge move on page 21 it says
"charging models still cannot move through friendly or enemy models, cannot pass through gaps narrower than their base..."

The use of "still" implies that it was mentioned before, but I can not see any mention of it under movement.

Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I'm thinking it's not specifically stated because it sounds like it's mentioned in every other freaking rule. Like it says the "Normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model". It doesn't need a seperate rule to state that it's like two rules for the price of one if you will.

It's not specifically mentioned because it used to be covered in the terrain section, when that was at the front of the book. When they shifted terrain to the back and took out the reference to models being impassable, they overlooked that this left no actual rule stating that this was still the case... just the references to that rule.

 insaniak wrote:

Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I'm thinking it's not specifically stated because it sounds like it's mentioned in every other freaking rule. Like it says the "Normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model". It doesn't need a seperate rule to state that it's like two rules for the price of one if you will.

It's not specifically mentioned because it used to be covered in the terrain section, when that was at the front of the book. When they shifted terrain to the back and took out the reference to models being impassable, they overlooked that this left no actual rule stating that this was still the case... just the references to that rule.

Just more common sense and great thinking from GW, right?

While i normally abide by RAW, i can not help but feel this is SO RAI that it is almost RAW. When a rule that doesn't exist is mentioned and in some cases outlined in almost every section of the book other than the one it should be in, the intent is obvious. But so is the gakky-proof reading.

But as poor old Deathreaper has beeing trying to point out, the rule does exist, its just not written in the "movement" section where you might be expecting to find it. Given the complexity of the rule set there are quite a lot of rules that are placed arbitrarily thourgh the rulebook.

 Flinty wrote:
But as poor old Deathreaper has beeing trying to point out, the rule does exist, its just not written in the "movement" section where you might be expecting to find it. Given the complexity of the rule set there are quite a lot of rules that are placed arbitrarily thourgh the rulebook.

Restating a rule as a reference to a previous entry is not the same as having an original entry for those said references to point back to.

While we all do agree that the intent is clear as are all the further mentions of it, there is no actual first mention of said referenced rule.

It would be like looking at traffic light laws and saying "Green is go, Yellow is slow down. But remember, while you are allowed to go through a yellow, you're not allowed to go through a red light."

Sure, the rule is mentioned and it's obvious that you're not supposed to go through a red light, but it was still never originally mentioned as a baseline rule.

I believe theres somewhere in the BRB where it says no two models may enter inside an inch of another models unless it is moving into B2B (IE CQC). I dont have my BRB with me to cite a reference or even relook up, but it might give someone else on here something to look up.

I know it sounds petty, but I really do enjoy reading yal's arguements. Its like nerd politics.

Blacksheep8Delta wrote:
I believe theres somewhere in the BRB where it says no two models may enter inside an inch of another models unless it is moving into B2B (IE CQC). I dont have my BRB with me to cite a reference or even relook up, but it might give someone else on here something to look up.

I know it sounds petty, but I really do enjoy reading yal's arguements. Its like nerd politics.

This is not a rule in 40k. It's a rule in Fantasy, however.

Blacksheep8Delta wrote:
I believe theres somewhere in the BRB where it says no two models may enter inside an inch of another models unless it is moving into B2B (IE CQC). I dont have my BRB with me to cite a reference or even relook up, but it might give someone else on here something to look up.

I know it sounds petty, but I really do enjoy reading yal's arguements. Its like nerd politics.

That is for enemy models.

The no moving through another model rule is on P.30:

"This is an exception to the normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model"

What do the normal rules for moving state?

"that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model"

It literally lists the rule as a baseline rule on P.30 as well as an exception to this rule.