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.

What do you do when the rhino moves away from under the model on top? The model can't move at the same time as the rhino, so do you invoke wobbly model syndrome to keep it 2" in the air on nothing? That's not what it's for, otherwise I'm modelling wings on some tanks and artillery, because the only direction they're going is straight up to get a bird's eye view of the table.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Imma just start piling Pathfinders on top of a Stormsurge then, so they can markerlight over everything...

I feel an Xibit meme coming on.

Of course, none of this really matters because we still have no permission to have models on top of each other.

Jacksmiles wrote:
What do you do when the rhino moves away from under the model on top? The model can't move at the same time as the rhino, so do you invoke wobbly model syndrome to keep it 2" in the air on nothing? That's not what it's for, otherwise I'm modelling wings on some tanks and artillery, because the only direction they're going is straight up to get a bird's eye view of the table.

Just bring Landmasters

Overheal,
How does that prevent a Model from moving Vertically upwards into the air?

Oh, just want to get this off my chest... that Rule you Quoted, we have history... it and I.
I use it as a prime example of how you need to be careful when it comes to writing Rules for a reason:
It is literally shoe-horned into the Measurement Rules in order to answer an extremely minor problem, one that no Player had any issue resolving themselves.

Jacksmiles,
Of course it is going to cause issues, it is an unintended outcome that the Authors did not mean to happen when they gave us permission to move in Any Direction.

It is even more obvious in this edition then any prior one, as every single Rules allowing 'Battlements' have been removed. Those battlements are nothing more then a piece of the Model now, and we are recommend to only place a Unit on-top of the Battlement as a reminder of which one is actually Embarked inside of the building. Hell while we are comparing to previous Editions, those attempted to make a difference between 'Models' and 'Scenery pieces set up as part of the Battlement' even if they did so very poorly. From a Rule as Written stand-point in previous editions, you could stand on that Buildings Battlements because it was nothing more then a piece of Terrain. In some even older editions, they had specific Rules for Embarking 'ONTO' a Model, which where used to handle Battlements and only ever connected to Battlements.

It is very, VERY, obvious that they never wanted us putting Models on-top of Models, so such a dramatic change to the Rules would need to be spelled out within the Rules... not simply implied by reading between the lines.
Alas, if we look at it from nothing more then a Rule as Written stance: I can move it up a few inches and across one inch without breaking any Rules....

JinxDragon wrote:



Oh, just want to get this off my chest... that Rule you Quoted, we have history... it and I.
I use it as a prime example of how you need to be careful when it comes to writing Rules for a reason:
It is literally shoe-horned into the Measurement Rules in order to answer an extremely minor problem, one that no Player had any issue resolving themselves.

Yes, sort of like the sign we had to put up in the building that says "no alcohol is permitted in this building"

Unfortunately theres always TFG...

How does that prevent a Model from moving Vertically upwards into the air?

is air an obstacle or scenery?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That would also seem to indicate that FLY units could just spend some movement to stay +12" off the ground and never ever worry about either CC or short range weaponry

Is Up a Direction?

This is what I keep pointing out:
Permission - Restriction - Exception

Permission exists to move in Any Direction, I have quoted and underlined the relevant Permission for your review in previous posts.
Can you Quote and Underline the relevant Restriction which prevents me from selecting Up as that direction?

 Hades wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

Of course I added the word only because it was my sentence. The rules sentence has been quoted to you yet you seem to refuse to accept it.

Do please post me that paragraph you're referring to. The word diagonally doesn't even appear in the Stepping Into A New Edition document so this should be good... I mean, there is a section saying that you have to move along then up scenery, so the opposite of diagonal, but nothing about magical hover movements. I'm always open to being wrong and learning something but I don't think this is one of those occasions. ;-)

JinxDragon wrote:
Is Up a Direction?

This is what I keep pointing out:
Permission - Restriction - Exception

Permission exists to move in Any Direction, I have quoted and underlined the relevant Permission
Can you Quote and Underline the relevant Restriction which prevents me from selecting Up as that direction?

Up is a direction

I could totally move up

I just need a ladder

You're suggesting FLY models (sans Airborne) can just stay completely off the ground and avoid CC or close range fire.

Hell I'll just deploy my Crisis Suit army 18" above the ground and win the game with missile pods. Checkmate, liberals.

Why do you think this broken outcome nullifies what the Rule has granted Permission do?

One of the reasons I love watching Game Workshop is because of the mistakes they make when it comes to Rule writing. You Make Da Call wouldn't even have a tenth of the posts in it if it wasn't for the fact that Game Workshop fail completely when it comes to writing Rules that function fluently. Hell I just had to come back to 8th because it was a "re-write," not because I expected everything to be fixed but as an opportunity to watch Game Workshop break it in entirely new ways. Over the next few months we are going to see them tweaking the Rules, making even more interactions break while they go about doing so... because that is how they have always done things.

So it doesn't surprise me we have Permission - NOTHING - Exception errors in the Rulebook still.

Instead of trying to find ways to exploit the Rules, all just to make your opponents look like 'That fething Guy' so your side of the debate can take a moral high ground, simply accept that the Authors clearly made a mistake within this section of the Rulebook, It is very obvious that they had no intention of allowing Models to hover midair, even those with the FLY keyword, and simply stating that fact should be enough to move on. The only reason I haven't is a personal curiosity and mental defects. I really an curious why you picked an argument with the side that sates 'obvious mistake' as if what occurs on this Forum ever changes how the game has to be played.

As if accepting a mistake has occurred has ever meant that we have to play by the strict Written.

There is so much nonsense in this thread I'm done. I just like people being able to come in and get succinct answers or have a nice discussion. But there's no longer any rational argument going on here, and the rules simply don't support (pun not intended) models being balanced on top of other models. If you want to actually play this game and have opponents who want to play you, it's kinda important to not indulge in a three-page internet argument claiming you can. Each to their own though. Enjoy whatever happens here next...

I agree this is nonsense.

I concur, it is nonsense.
I am more curious as to why people can't see this as a clear and obvious mistake, to the point they argue that the Rules function as Intended even when it is very obviously not the case....

 Hades wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Hades, I proved you wrong. You can move vertically up scenery only. To move diagonally it includes a vertical component. You are not permitted by the core rules to move up onto your own models. Stop ignoring my posts proving you wrong to try and claim this is a grey area, please.

You put the word only in your sentence but it isn't in the rulebook. I told you to reread the stepping into a new edition faq where it tells you can move diagonally all you want but it seems you've ignored that. :/

I just looked through it and, like Overheal, did not find anything about moving diagonally in the stepping into a new edition FAQ. Perhaps you could quote it and let us know what page of the FAQ it's on?

If I was to describe a direction that is not forward, but sort of going off at an angle from the path I am looking....
What word would I use to describe that direction?

I mean, really, take a step back and consider exactly what you are arguing. You are requiring a specific use of a specific word within a Rule, while willfully ignoring the all-inclusive term used within that Rule. If you really want to continue the argument that 'Diagonal' movement is forbidden, because the Rule never specifically uses the word Diaginal then I will take it to the logical conclusion. You are forbidden from moving your Models forward or backwards, because there is also a complete lack of those words within the Rule as well. Alternatively, we can accept that the word ANY within 'Any Direction' includes those that go off on an angle because... well it does say any direction, and that is still a direction.

Then just laugh if your opponent tries the nonsense in this thread and say 'cute, but no... you don't get to use obvious mistakes like that.'

What about bunker can you still go over it or not now it's like a vehicule?

 JinxDragon wrote:

This Rule?
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

You already proved yourself wrong. You can't go up at all unless you're climbing scenery. An active model is not scenery and when it dies it vanishes.

"RUINS: Infantry...These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment."

RAW, you can move your infantry DOWN through the game board and walk them upside-down on the bottom surface to pop back up in another ruin. Since there's no line of sight, they won't be able to shoot or be shot at while on the underside of the game board. I imagine CC is still possible.

Containment_Failure wrote:
"RUINS: Infantry...These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment."

RAW, you can move your infantry DOWN through the game board and walk them upside-down on the bottom surface to pop back up in another ruin. Since there's no line of sight, they won't be able to shoot or be shot at while on the underside of the game board. I imagine CC is still possible.

Only if the gameboard is <1" thick.

 Hades wrote:
Go reread the "stepping into the new edition" faq. It's full of things to shake the 7th edition dust off you. "All distances a measured in three dimensions."

And that is true, you do measure in 3 dimensions.
However, you are only given permission to move in the 3rd dimension (height) under specific circumstances - ie when scaling terrain and scenery.
In the cases where you don't fulfil that permission, your measurement in the 3rd dimension will always be 0 relative to the model when moving.


It should also be pointed out you measure for a lot more than moving... weapon range for example. There you aren't given an exception to measuring vertically, and can do so as normal.

So, the problem here lies in the "any direction" wording within the movement rules as people pointed out already.

If TFG insists to be a rules-lawyer like this, i could argue aswell that vertical is not a direction (except for "scenery") because AIR is not part of the Battlefield.

p.186 rulebook describes, that the battlefield can consist of any SURFACE (a surface is flat) on which models can stand. It further defines an example surface of 72"x48" a vertical range is not defined, so it does not exist. Warhammer40k plays on a flat surface, with the exception rule for moving vertically over scenery.

I cant give the english wording, loosly translated form german.

mmzero252,
The section I underlined was permission to move in ANY direction, and upwards is clearly a direction by any definition.
The section you underlined was permission to move upwards when it comes to moving over scenery pieces.
Where in those two statements is a conflict?

This is the point I keep making, both of these sentences are permission to do something, there the section you underlined lack the type of words needed to Restrict vertical movement. Had it included the word ONLY then we would have grounds to call it a Restriction. As nothing inherent about granting additional permissions revokes previously granted permissions, I can not conclude the section you underlined prevents both from being true statements. One has permission to move upwards by default, but one also has additional permission to move upwards over a piece of scenery.

I know I am not going to convince you, we both are repeating our points, so this will be the last post on the topic.
Anyone reading this thread will be able to clearly understand what I am stating, and why I believe it is nothing more then an error on the Authors behalf we can safely ignore.

Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

@Jinx
Because you underlined the permission to move in any direction. I underlined the RESTRICTION allowing you to only move vertically for scenery. I'm really not sure how you don't understand this. This whole thing is such a non-issue it's kinda stupid.

 JinxDragon wrote:
mmzero252,
The section I underlined was permission to move in ANY direction, and upwards is clearly a direction by any definition.
The section you underlined was permission to move upwards when it comes to moving over scenery pieces.
Where in those two statements is a conflict?

This is the point I keep making, both of these sentences are permission to do something, there the section you underlined lack the type of words needed to Restrict vertical movement. Had it included the word ONLY then we would have grounds to call it a Restriction. As nothing inherent about granting additional permissions revokes previously granted permissions, I can not conclude the section you underlined prevents both from being true statements. One has permission to move upwards by default, but one also has additional permission to move upwards over a piece of scenery.

I know I am not going to convince you, we both are repeating our points, so this will be the last post on the topic.
Anyone reading this thread will be able to clearly understand what I am stating, and why I believe it is nothing more then an error on the Authors behalf we can safely ignore.

The same spot that says you can move in any direction also, after saying that, says you may move vertically to scale terrain and scenery. It doesn't say that you get to scale other models. That means the vertical movement has the limitation of only being used for scaling terrain and scenery, it doesn't mean you get to air walk, or move down into the table to go subterranean.

As you are a different poster directly addressing me, I will try this one last time, but I honestly think people are willfully choosing to ignore the problem due to the fact the obvious intention is so damn obvious.

Thus, consider the following situation so we can remove ourselves from the instinctive knee jerk to Vertical Movement:
Models have permission to throw a grenade
Certain Models have permission to throw a grenade when they are slain

Does that mean that all Models can only throw grenades after they are killed?
Does that mean that Models with this Special Rule may only throw a Grenade when they are killed?
Or
Does it mean that Models have permission to throw grenades by default, but these Models can also throw a Grenade when they meet the conditions within the special Rule (aka, are also killed)?

That is what I am harping on, that permission to do X may come from multiple sources and simply having multiple Permissions does not, in any way, restrict the previous granted permission. When that logic is applied to Vertical Movement, due to the way that paragraph was written, we enter a situation where Permission to move in any Direction is granted, and Permission to move Vertically in order to cross a piece of Terrain is also granted. It isn't my fault that the Authors wrote that sentence to grant Permission, instead of taking care to ensure that they where making a Restriction as they clearly intended to do. This error occurred due to a single missing word within the sentence you keep highlighting, that is the word ONLY.

Actually - it is something that amazes me when it comes to the Player base for Warhammer 40k:
They are so used to correcting Game Workshop errors, that they long ago reached the point of doing so without even realizing they are correcting an error....

I don't see the point where any-direction movement is granted. I see where measurement in any direction is done, and I see where it explicitly states:

"Q: How do vertical distances work for movement
and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if
a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal
distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed
its Movement characteristic. This means that in order
to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the
top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move
down it."

Which is pretty friggin explicit. That means

(Movement in X/Y + Movemement in Z) <= Move Characteristic

Not

sqrt((Movement in X/Y)^2 + (Movement in Z)^2) <= Move Characteristic

They are "combined" not "the square root of the sum of the squares of your horizontal and vertical movement"

It's because they aren't paying attention to FAQs or anything else besides exact wording. On top of that they are also all ignoring that saying "You can move" which is then ended by "You can move vertically to go up scenery" doesn't mean you can fly around the field. Honestly at this point I fully believe they are either trolls or TFG.

 mmzero252 wrote:
It's because they aren't paying attention to FAQs or anything else besides exact wording. On top of that they are also all ignoring that saying "You can move" which is then ended by "You can move vertically to go up scenery" doesn't mean you can fly around the field. Honestly at this point I fully believe they are either trolls or TFG.

Not even complete exact wording, given that the talk about vertical movement for climbing terrain and scenery is in the same paragraph not long after the part they quote about moving in any direction. Overheal's quote of the FAQ should make it clear how the distances are measured, and the quote about vertical movement to climb terrain and scenery should make it clear they are not referring to climbing friendly or enemy models, and that the Emperor has not suddenly granted the unit with the power of self-telekinesis to propel themselves willy-nilly though the air.

 Overheal wrote:
Up IS a direction but how can you end your movement phase in thin air?

You'd have to use WMS which requires agreement between you and your opponent.

I'd say UP is not a direction in 40k. Directions are nowhere defined by the game. But the game works on the chosen battlefield, the battlefield is defined by your chosen tabletop, which is a flat surface. All rules apply only to this surface you are playing on.

That means
you can move your models in any direction on the tabletop.
you can not move your models off the board.
you can not place your units off the board.
you can not move your models into the ground.
you can not move your models into the air.

Someone who thinks he can move his models up into the air, is simply trying extending the battlefield, which is not possible, it is flat, 2D, AIR and "below the table" are not part of the game. Terrain is just an exception which is ruled by the vertical movement, and Line of sight blocking rule to somehow make it work.



If someone would argue to me he can move his models to some place which is not part of the game, i would hang up a blanket from the ceiling in front of my deployment zone in his shooting phase and tell him his LOS is blocked. In my next movement phase i would then let my Hormagaunts start climbing the blanket according the vertical movement rule.
Also, this thread is stupid.