Jump to content
Lyraeus

New/Returning players: Important Video on Close Combat

Recommended Posts

Well, I will counter with a question. Given the above scenario, but assume that there are other models surrounding the landraider in such a fashion that the only clear movement path for a fall back is to move through the dreadnought's fist, and specifically a portion of the dreadnought's fist that is over it's own base, not the bit that isn't. Would that be considered a legal fall back movement? In other words, it must continue moving over the base but not touching it and in the process move/twist the dreadnought by moving the power fist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, the question you have to ask yourself this: "If it were another model for this same unit, but it didn't have that pose / that gun / that banner / etc., would the same action be possible?" In this case, if that Dreadnought's fist were angled even slightly differently or if it had the missile launcher weapon on that hardpoint, then there would be no impediment to the Land Raiders movement. Ergo, I would call it unsportsmanlike to deny the Land Raider its movement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pretre said:

Yes, because the hull is not moving through the base.

If a non based model wants to move past a based model, the hull of the nonbased model cannot move through the base of the based model.

Through, yes. But what about over? Bear in mind that the fall back movement doesn't have any other restrictions other than must end movement more than 1" away. 

The BRB says, however, "It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls..."

How, exactly, in the brb, is the term "other models" applied?

If a landraider cannot move through two terrain model walls because of it's sponson's, which are about 1" above the table space, wouldn't it also apply that it can't push those sponson's through an "other model" that is assembled according to the instructions without tipping, twisting, knocking it over? Is there a convention that agrees that only that portion of an "other model" that is over it's own base? Or is an "other model" only applied to it's base and not to the model itself.

Because, RAW, it says "other models" it doesn't say "other model's bases"

My contention is, exampled in the picture above, obviously the landraider can move away from the dreadnought, even though the landraider hull is over the base of the dreadnought, BECAUSE the landraider is not moving through any portion of the dreadnought model. The sticky part is whether or not, with the hull over the base of the model, can the landraider move through the power fist, most particularly a portion of the power fist that is inside the base diameter. 

My contention is that it cannot, because it would have to move through "other models"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Through, yes. But what about over? Bear in mind that the fall back movement doesn't have any other restrictions other than must end movement more than 1" away. 

The BRB says, however, "It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls..."

How, exactly, in the brb, is the term "other models" applied?

If a landraider cannot move through two terrain model walls because of it's sponson's, which are about 1" above the table space, wouldn't it also apply that it can't push those sponson's through an "other model" that is assembled according to the instructions without tipping, twisting, knocking it over? Is there a convention that agrees that only that portion of an "other model" that is over it's own base? Or is an "other model" only applied to it's base and not to the model itself.

Because, RAW, it says "other models" it doesn't say "other model's bases"

My contention is, exampled in the picture above, obviously the landraider can move away from the dreadnought, even though the landraider hull is over the base of the dreadnought, BECAUSE the landraider is not moving through any portion of the dreadnought model. The sticky part is whether or not, with the hull over the base of the model, can the landraider move through the power fist, most particularly a portion of the power fist that is inside the base diameter. 

My contention is that it cannot, because it would have to move through "other models"

7407065738dd97457467805800f01123.jpg

Distances in Warhammer
40,000 are measured in
inches (") between the
closest points of the bases
of the models you’re
measuring to and from.
If
a model does not have a
base, such is the case with
many vehicles, measure to
and from the closest point
of that model’s hull instead.
You can measure distances
whenever you wish.

Right there. That's where other models is defined. All movement is covered by base to base unless it's got a hull then it is base to hull.

Moving
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.

Right there. Base to base. or Base to hull. Everything else is irrelevant. You're creating this definition of 'other models' that is not supported by the rules. The rules say you use bases to determine movement. So again, show me where in the rules anything but the base (or hull for non based models) is used for measuring or considering movement.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying we should treat the Dreadnought model as being "cylindrical," like in the crude drawing below, so that anything hanging out over it's base does not count.

Likewise, we should treat the Land Raider as being "rectangular," like in the other crude drawing below, so that anything "under the eaves" should be treated as being part of the model as well.

image.png.74300224d8bc6e06c19ee20a2fb21ce9.png

image.png.592c6612d64a4438739faa2b7795fc83.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ish said:

I'm saying we should treat the Dreadnought model as being "cylindrical," like in the crude drawing below, so that anything hanging out over it's base does not count.

Likewise, we should treat the Land Raider as being "rectangular," like in the other crude drawing below, so that anything "under the eaves" should be treated as being part of the model as well.
 

This is also not supported by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pretre said:

This is also not supported by the rules.

It's also not not supported by the rules. I'm arguing in terms of sportsmanship, which sometimes means you grant your opponent a little bit more leeway here and there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pretre said:


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.

Right there. Base to base. or Base to hull. Everything else is irrelevant. You're creating this definition of 'other models' that is not supported by the rules. The rules say you use bases to determine movement. So again, show me where in the rules anything but the base (or hull for non based models) is used for measuring or considering movement.

There's a period there, not a comma.

"No part of the models base can be moved further than this. It"

Is IT referring to A Model, as in the first sentence, or is IT referring to the model's base.

Bear in mind the same paragraph says "It's datasheet"

English comprehension would appear "It" is referring to "A model", which includes it's base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, pretre said:

The only way to lock in a baseless model with a based model is to make it so that the hull must move through the base. So surround it with your base. The rest of your model is irrelevant.

False. The way to do it is to make the hull be forced to be closer than an inch from either a hull or base at the end of that models movement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

There's a period there, not a comma.

"No part of the models base can be moved further than this. It"

Is IT referring to A Model, as in the first sentence, or is IT referring to the model's base.

Bear in mind the same paragraph says "It's datasheet"

English comprehension would appear "It" is referring to "A model", which includes it's base.

  •  

You quoted half my post and  missed my point, so here it is again:

Distances in Warhammer
40,000 are measured in
inches (") between the
closest points of the bases
of the models you’re
measuring to and from.
If
a model does not have a
base, such is the case with
many vehicles, measure to
and from the closest point
of that model’s hull instead.
You can measure distances
whenever you wish.

Right there. That's where other models is defined. All movement is covered by base to base unless it's got a hull then it is base to hull.

Moving
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. 

Right there. Base to base. or Base to hull. Everything else is irrelevant. You're creating this definition of 'other models' that is not supported by the rules. The rules say you use bases to determine movement. So again, show me where in the rules anything but the base (or hull for non based models) is used for measuring or considering movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

False. The way to do it is to make the hull be forced to be closer than an inch from either a hull or base at the end of that models movement 

 

The only way to lock in a baseless model with a based model is to make it so that the hull must move through the base. So surround it with your base. The rest of your model is irrelevant.

 

We're talking fallback, so if it is completely surrounded by based models, then it can't move. Normally, you can't flat out move within an inch of a model (except charging and fallback), so you would be correct, but we're talking fallback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, in this instance it would refer to the last referenced subject of the paragraph (usually a proper noun). In this case, the "it" is referencing "the model’s base
(or hull)." A trick we were taught in paralegal school for resolving vagaries caused by unclear pronouns is to replace the pronoun with the full name of the subject. It's more awkward to read, but it works:
 

Quote

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. The 
model’s base (or hull) cannot be moved through
other models or through terrain features such
as walls, but the model's base or hull can be moved
vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ish said:

Actually, in this instance it would refer to the last referenced subject of the paragraph (usually a proper noun). In this case, the "it" is referencing "the model’s base
(or hull)." A trick we were taught in paralegal school for resolving vagaries caused by unclear pronouns is to replace the pronoun with the full name of the subject. It's more awkward to read, but it works:
 

 

That would certainly help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ish said:

Actually, in this instance it would refer to the last referenced subject of the paragraph (usually a proper noun). In this case, the "it" is referencing "the model’s base
(or hull)." A trick we were taught in paralegal school for resolving vagaries caused by unclear pronouns is to replace the pronoun with the full name of the subject. It's more awkward to read, but it works:
 

 

Which also matches the measuring of movement quote:

Distances in Warhammer
40,000 are measured in
inches (") between the
closest points of the bases
of the models you’re
measuring to and from.
If
a model does not have a
base, such is the case with
many vehicles, measure to
and from the closest point
of that model’s hull instead.
You can measure distances
whenever you wish.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games Workshop has an annoying (to me) habit of writing all of their rule books with a "conversational" tone, instead of a more "technical" or "legalistic" one. This does make their rule books a lot more pleasant to read, but it does seem to be the origin of most of the arguments over the rules that I've seen over the years. I'm not saying they need to go full-blown Starfleet Battles* or Advanced Squad Leader with the game, but I'd like to see them adopt the more precise language seen in CCGs like Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition.

* The game's own sales page notes that their game "is often maligned for its vast rulebook (400 pages of rules, plus hundreds of pages of charts, tables, ship descriptions,and scenarios)." Yikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pretre said:

The only way to lock in a baseless model with a based model is to make it so that the hull must move through the base. So surround it with your base. The rest of your model is irrelevant.

 

We're talking fallback, so if it is completely surrounded by based models, then it can't move. Normally, you can't flat out move within an inch of a model (except charging and fallback), so you would be correct, but we're talking fallback.

I am talking fall back. Fall back only matters for final movement but you still can't move through enemy models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyraeus said:

I am talking fall back. Fall back only matters for final movement but you still can't move through enemy models

Okay so we’re both right. You can’t mofe through enemy models and cant end within 1”. We were talking about the move through bases thing though and that’s what I’ve been referring to for pages now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pretre said:

Okay so we’re both right. You can’t mofe through enemy models and cant end within 1”. We were talking about the move through bases thing though and that’s what I’ve been referring to for pages now.

yes, that is true. Hold on, working on something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pretre said:

Okay so we’re both right. You can’t mofe through enemy models and cant end within 1”. We were talking about the move through bases thing though and that’s what I’ve been referring to for pages now.

Yup. You can't move through your own models not in the same squad either. If you don't have space to get that base or hull through, you don't have space. Exactly why things like heroic intervention needs open lanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, in the picture below, specifically with both the Death Company bolter guy's jump pack and the Dreadnaught power fist "locking" in the land raider inside their own base diameter, can it still fall back in the direction indicated.

If so, why? If not, why not?

And honestly Pretre, you have been contending that it can, in fact, fall back from this specific scenario, because even though the landraider is starting movement over two bases, it can roll through those bases, through the power fist and jump pack,  and the sponson's can roll through both models and their bases.

 

OverallFallback.jpg.f6143560d11b220d4c28c246b8bd2b1a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Ok, in the picture below, specifically with both the Death Company bolter guy's jump pack and the Dreadnaught power fist "locking" in the land raider, can it still fall back in the direction indicated.

If so, why?

And honestly Pretre, you have been contending that it can, in fact, fall back from this specific scenario, because even though the landraider is starting movement over two bases, it can roll through those bases, through the power fist and jump pack,  and the sponson's can roll through both models and their bases.

 

OverallFallback.jpg.f6143560d11b220d4c28c246b8bd2b1a.jpg

Can it end its fall back movement more than an inch from an enemy model from its hull? 

If not, then it can't fall back. If yes then it can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the hull not have to move through a base? Does it end more than 1” away?

then yes it can fallback. Everything other than that is irrelevant according to the rules I have repeatedly quoted for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, movement and fallback all happen at the level of the base. The hull only interacts at the level of the base because measuring is done between the base and hull. Everything above the level of the base is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×