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.

I’m aware that models can’t move through other models, and that distances are base to base. I understand that moving through another model would mean moving through the space occupied by that model’s base.

My question: is there actually a rule that says you can’t move a model on top of another model?

Some examples:

1) can I put models on the roof of a rhino? The rhino doesn’t have a base, and provided I measure the vertical distance to climb the side of the rhino, can I move up the side of the rhino, across it’s roof, and down the other side? Does it matter if the rhino is in my army or my opponent’s army? Can I end my move on top of the vehicle?

2) what if the model has a base, but the the base is smaller than the model itself, so that I can place models against the hull or on top of a skimmer without coming within 1” of the model’s base. Can I charge a Wavesepent by moving a model up to the hull and measuring the vertical distance so that my infantry model is standing on top of the hull and therefore engage it in close combat?

3) in the above examples, is it is allowed for me to end my move on top of a vehicle, what happens if the vehicle then moves? Can the wave serpent disengage from close combat?

4) how does this impact on destroyed vehicles? Once a vehicle is destroyed but doesn’t explode it becomes impassable terrain, so models can stand on top of it, so it stands to reason that the same should be true before it is destroyed.

5) if the above is not allowed, do fortifications have special rules that allow models to stand on top of them?

Sorry if this is a bit silly or obvious to everyone. I’m asking more from a theoretical standpoint to satisfy my own curiosity rather than due to some issues I’ve experienced in game, and haven’t been able to come across a clear rule on this, maybe I’ve missed something?

1) no. You need permission, and you don't have it.

2) contact with model is fine here I think. You don't move up the hull, just measure to it.

3) can't be on models

4) is that still a rule?

5) some fortifications have rules to treat them like terrain so yes.
Some have rules that allow you to embark units and pretend they are on top, but they aren't on top for rules purposes.
One might have rules that don't work at all...

Aash wrote:
2) what if the model has a base, but the the base is smaller than the model itself, so that I can place models against the hull or on top of a skimmer without coming within 1” of the model’s base. Can I charge a Wavesepent by moving a model up to the hull and measuring the vertical distance so that my infantry model is standing on top of the hull and therefore engage it in close combat?

Most models like this (including the Wave Serpent) have a rule telling you to measure from the hull, not the base.

2) There are some RAW arguments that most models can't successfully charge some skimmers due to height differences - let's not rehash them here, but the TLDR is "be reasonable".

4) It's not a rule, but can be cool. I've lost a game over it, but it can be really fun. However, it's more fun to consider them *passable* terrain - having a squad of Warp Spiders shooting down on a Tac squad hiding behind a destroyed Rhino from atop said Rhino is too awesome to pass up.

Aash wrote:
4) how does this impact on destroyed vehicles? Once a vehicle is destroyed but doesn’t explode it becomes impassable terrain, so models can stand on top of it, so it stands to reason that the same should be true before it is destroyed.

This was true in prior editions but you must remove the model when it is 'destroyed'. All models that reach W=0 must be 'removed from battlefield' as a result of being 'slain' or any other equivalent words/phrase.

One of the exceptions to this is the skyshield landing pad where you are explicitly told not to remove the model when it is destroyed but count as a ruin (it counts as a 'terrain feature' for all rules purpose during when it is 'alive'). Which, at this point, certain unit types (non-infantry) can no longer be placed on top of the landing pad.

Side note, the Skyshield Landing Pad is unusable because of this very issue.
It does have a special rule to allow ENEMY models to be on top of it, but nothing for YOUR OWN models.

So you spend the points on it, and only your opponent can use it. WTF!?!?!?

-

You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

It also makes no sense that flamers can automatically hit a Thunderhawk flying at Mach 25 sixteen miles up. The rules are what the rules are.

To answer the OPs question, no you may not (normally) move on top of other models as you do not have permission to do so.

#4 isn't a rule anymore. There's no difference in an infantry model or a vehicle in death. You yank them from the table and slam them onto the floor the exact same.

 deviantduck wrote:
#4 isn't a rule anymore. There's no difference in an infantry model or a vehicle in death. You yank them from the table and slam them onto the floor the exact same.

It be a neat house rule, but don’t expect any tournaments or anything.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means.

The rules are what the rules are.

Yes and it's an obvious mistake by GW that nobody who actually plays the game IRL gets hung up over (or even notices).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

It also makes no sense that flamers can automatically hit a Thunderhawk flying at Mach 25 sixteen miles up. The rules are what the rules are.

To answer the OPs question, no you may not (normally) move on top of other models as you do not have permission to do so.

The difference is that anti-air flamers make sense rules-wise, since that's simply a consequence of flamers automatically hitting.
Assault weapons not working while advancing doesn't make sense rules-wise since there'd be no point to the Assault weapons rule even existing.

One doesn't make sense in the real world, which is fine since it's a game and not the real world. The other doesn't make sense within the rules of the game, and that shouldn't ever happen. And since there's an obvious answer on how to fix that, everyone allows Assault weapons to be used while Advancing.

nekooni wrote:

The difference is that anti-air flamers make sense rules-wise, since that's simply a consequence of flamers automatically hitting.
Assault weapons not working while advancing doesn't make sense rules-wise since there'd be no point to the Assault weapons rule even existing.

One doesn't make sense in the real world, which is fine since it's a game and not the real world. The other doesn't make sense within the rules of the game, and that shouldn't ever happen. And since there's an obvious answer on how to fix that, everyone allows Assault weapons to be used while Advancing.

Exactly what I was going to (but then couldn't be bothered) to say

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

It also makes no sense that flamers can automatically hit a Thunderhawk flying at Mach 25 sixteen miles up. The rules are what the rules are.

To answer the OPs question, no you may not (normally) move on top of other models as you do not have permission to do so.

The difference is that anti-air flamers make sense rules-wise, since that's simply a consequence of flamers automatically hitting.
Assault weapons not working while advancing doesn't make sense rules-wise since there'd be no point to the Assault weapons rule even existing.

One doesn't make sense in the real world, which is fine since it's a game and not the real world. The other doesn't make sense within the rules of the game, and that shouldn't ever happen. And since there's an obvious answer on how to fix that, everyone allows Assault weapons to be used while Advancing.

It does make sense in the rules of the game, because by definition the rules of the game decide what does and doesn't make sense.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

It also makes no sense that flamers can automatically hit a Thunderhawk flying at Mach 25 sixteen miles up. The rules are what the rules are.

To answer the OPs question, no you may not (normally) move on top of other models as you do not have permission to do so.

The difference is that anti-air flamers make sense rules-wise, since that's simply a consequence of flamers automatically hitting.
Assault weapons not working while advancing doesn't make sense rules-wise since there'd be no point to the Assault weapons rule even existing.

One doesn't make sense in the real world, which is fine since it's a game and not the real world. The other doesn't make sense within the rules of the game, and that shouldn't ever happen. And since there's an obvious answer on how to fix that, everyone allows Assault weapons to be used while Advancing.

It does make sense in the rules of the game, because by definition the rules of the game decide what does and doesn't make sense.

No, people interpreting the rules decide what makes sense. Rules, by definition, are not capable of cognition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You also cannot shoot assault weapons after advancing and you cant shoot pistols in CC. But everyone, except one guy, ignores these rules, because thats not what GW means. Same with the skyshield landing pad, your models can move on top of it, otherwise it makes no sense that they get a 5+ inv.

It also makes no sense that flamers can automatically hit a Thunderhawk flying at Mach 25 sixteen miles up. The rules are what the rules are.

To answer the OPs question, no you may not (normally) move on top of other models as you do not have permission to do so.

The difference is that anti-air flamers make sense rules-wise, since that's simply a consequence of flamers automatically hitting.
Assault weapons not working while advancing doesn't make sense rules-wise since there'd be no point to the Assault weapons rule even existing.

One doesn't make sense in the real world, which is fine since it's a game and not the real world. The other doesn't make sense within the rules of the game, and that shouldn't ever happen. And since there's an obvious answer on how to fix that, everyone allows Assault weapons to be used while Advancing.

It does make sense in the rules of the game, because by definition the rules of the game decide what does and doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't. To include a rule that does not do anything doesn't make any sense - If the intent was for it to do nothing, the rule wouldn't have been included in the first place.

Calculating the bracketed part of "(2^1234)*0 = 1" might be the correct way to do it, but clearly not necessary when you can tell that the equation cannot be correct, and that whoever wrote that equation made an obvious mistake. You can't just claim that "0=1 makes sense in this equation", which is what you're doing here basically.

nekooni wrote:
No, it doesn't. To include a rule that does not do anything doesn't make any sense - If the intent was for it to do nothing, the rule wouldn't have been included in the first place.

Calculating the bracketed part of "(2^1234)*0 = 1" might be the correct way to do it, but clearly not necessary when you can tell that the equation cannot be correct, and that whoever wrote that equation made an obvious mistake. You can't just claim that "0=1 makes sense in this equation", which is what you're doing here basically.

That analogy is incorrect because you are claiming an equation is the same as the rules of mathematics.

What you're doing is claiming "I can shoot after advancing" which is false according to the rules of the game, the same way as x*0=1 is false according to the rules of Mathematics.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
No, it doesn't. To include a rule that does not do anything doesn't make any sense - If the intent was for it to do nothing, the rule wouldn't have been included in the first place.

Calculating the bracketed part of "(2^1234)*0 = 1" might be the correct way to do it, but clearly not necessary when you can tell that the equation cannot be correct, and that whoever wrote that equation made an obvious mistake. You can't just claim that "0=1 makes sense in this equation", which is what you're doing here basically.

That analogy is incorrect because you are claiming an equation is the same as the rules of mathematics.

Exactly that's why the analogy is correct. You're claiming that the rules of the game define what makes sense and what doesn't, when they're simply the equation.

*edit*
Note that I'm not about something making sense within the rules, such as "flamers autohit, therefore they're good anti-air" - that statement does make sense within the rules. I'm saying that the rule itself doesn't make sense in the context of the other rules, as in "why would you allow Assault weapons to fire while advancing when you can't choose a unit that Advanced in the Shooting phase to fire any weapons".

The topic was ‘can models move onto other models’. It has been answered. Stop giving that guy with the ludicrous ‘interpretations’ air... nothing you post will convince him.

The question has been answered, we are done here.