Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 84
  1. #1
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default Flight "through"

    This came up in another thread:

    http://privateerpressforums.com/show...feat-questions

    but as kind of a side issue about Kaya3's feat, and obstructed by a lot of other stuff. The simpler issue is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Primal p.17
    Flight – ... It can advance
    through obstructions and other models if it has enough
    movement to move completely past them.
    Does the word "through" there mean that you must pass out the other side? Or do you merely have to have enough movement? If I have enough movement to move completely past them, can I pass partway through, choose to stop, and invoke Least Disturbance?

    I have always assumed I had to move all the way through and out the other side, but the literal wording of the rule doesn't really seem to support that, and in fact seems to go to some effort to avoid saying that. Otherwise you could just say "It can advance through and completely past obstructions and other models."

  2. #2
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    umm, no. It means exactly what it says it means.

    It can advance through obstructions and other models if it has enough movement to move completely past them.
    You are only allowed to advance through models and obstructions if your movement is sufficient to end not on top of them.

    That is what the literal wording of the rule means. You must move all the way past the model to move across it at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  3. #3
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default

    That's exactly what it doesn't say, unless they have a very specifically defined meaning for the word "through"... which is what I'm asking. In English, the word through can mean "moving in one side and out of the other side of" - like the bullet passed through my arm - and also can mean "continuing to progress amidst" - like I swam through the ocean, or passed my hand through the air. Either applies here perfectly sensibly, but it means something different depending on which definition you use. The rule says I must have movement sufficient to end not on top of them - that's clear - but that then allows me to move "through" them, without clarifying in any way that I can see which definition they meant. In the absence of clarification, either is allowed by the phrase "can advance through".

    I'm not advocating for either interpretation - I honestly couldn't care less - I'm just reading the actual words on the page, noticing that the English is ambiguous, and asking for clarification.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think the bigger part is your not allowed to invoke least disterbance. You cannot end movement in an illegal location.

    Edit. The rulebook however does not appear to specify this. Interesting....

    Edit 2. If its as grey templar says and you must advance through what happens if you are forced to stop whilst advancing through. Such as a warjack charge taking a free strike that breaks movement. Would you rewind to the last legal spot you could end movement or invoke least disterbance.
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 02-16-2017 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Destroyer of Worlds juckto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lower Hutt, NZ
    Posts
    3,560

    Default

    "continuing to progress amidst" - like I swam through the ocean, or passed my hand through the air.
    "Continue to progress" implies present tense, but both your examples still use past tense so implicitly have the "pass out the other side" meaning. A reworded example would be "I am swimming through the ocean" and "I am passing my hand through the air".

    If Flight meant "continue to progress" it would be written as "It can be advancing through obstructions and other models ..." which just sounds silly.

    You should go read Battle College.org
    Better yet, it's a wiki - you should go & improve it.

  6. #6
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juckto View Post
    "Continue to progress" implies present tense, but both your examples still use past tense so implicitly have the "pass out the other side" meaning.
    Sorry; I used bad examples then. Let me pick some from the game rules, specifically also about movement through things:

    A pushed model moves at half rate through rough terrain. Does that mean it is only slowed if it moves out the other side of the rough terrain? It moves at full speed the entire time if it ends it's move in the rough terrain?
    A slammed or thrown model can move through models with smaller bases. Can it only do so if it makes it out the other side? It can not stop overlapping and force Least Disturbance?

    To me, both of those things seem obviously incorrect, because it seems like they are obviously using through in the sense of "continuing to progress amongst". I'm not saying that proves they meant through in the same sense in the Flight rule; just that it's clear that the word can definitely have that meaning sometimes in the rules. On the other hand - to me, at least - either interpretation makes equal sense in the case of Flight. The one I'm _used_ to playing by is the "passing out the other side of" one. Which is why I was seeking clarification; if they're going to use the same word to mean two completely different things that have significantly different game effects, in very similar situations and all within the same set of rules, I think asking for clarification makes some amount of sense.

  7. #7
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dev Null View Post
    Sorry; I used bad examples then. Let me pick some from the game rules, specifically also about movement through things:

    A pushed model moves at half rate through rough terrain. Does that mean it is only slowed if it moves out the other side of the rough terrain? It moves at full speed the entire time if it ends it's move in the rough terrain?
    A slammed or thrown model can move through models with smaller bases. Can it only do so if it makes it out the other side? It can not stop overlapping and force Least Disturbance?

    To me, both of those things seem obviously incorrect, because it seems like they are obviously using through in the sense of "continuing to progress amongst". I'm not saying that proves they meant through in the same sense in the Flight rule; just that it's clear that the word can definitely have that meaning sometimes in the rules. On the other hand - to me, at least - either interpretation makes equal sense in the case of Flight. The one I'm _used_ to playing by is the "passing out the other side of" one. Which is why I was seeking clarification; if they're going to use the same word to mean two completely different things that have significantly different game effects, in very similar situations and all within the same set of rules, I think asking for clarification makes some amount of sense.
    You're focusing on the wrong words. The requirement to move completely through the other model is from the part where the rules say "move completely past" them.

    Keep in mind that the rule which is being overridden is the one which forbids one model to overlap another model's base.

    So you have two rules:
    One rule which forbids overlapping bases.
    Rule two which allows moving through the other model if you move completely past it.

    Edit: And, for wording and meaning references, here's one of the MkII threads where the meaning and intent of that phrasing was double checked:
    http://privateerpressforums.com/show...=1#post1732656
    Last edited by solkan; 02-16-2017 at 07:27 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalSwordsmen View Post

    Edit 2. If its as grey templar says and you must advance through what happens if you are forced to stop whilst advancing through. Such as a warjack charge taking a free strike that breaks movement. Would you rewind to the last legal spot you could end movement or invoke least disterbance.
    Without getting into the semantics argument, this scenario could not happen. A model cannot counter charge until the enemy model finishes movement, and taking a free strike does not stop movement except in rare cases of crit knockdown etc... That said, should something happen that stops your movement prior to you making it all the way past the base you are moving through, yes you reset the moving model to the last legal spot in B2B contact.
    Check out my battle reports Here!

    And my Facebook page (if I can promote that?) Here!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light'emup View Post
    Without getting into the semantics argument, this scenario could not happen. A model cannot counter charge until the enemy model finishes movement, and taking a free strike does not stop movement except in rare cases of crit knockdown etc... That said, should something happen that stops your movement prior to you making it all the way past the base you are moving through, yes you reset the moving model to the last legal spot in B2B contact.
    But why not use least disterbance rules? And i gave an example where this can happen. A warjack. Lets say a shrike charges a model behind another. A free steike occurs while it is passing through said model breaks its movement. When a warjack has its movement broken during a charge it immedeatly stops and its charge movement and activation ends.
    Least disturbance first sentence "some rules cause moving models to overlap the bases of other models temporarily, such as when a model is thrown or slammed. Once the model has stoped moving, models must be repositioned so that there are no overlapping bases. The model that was moving stays in its final position.... "

    Where does it say in the rules that you would move the model that was moving? I maybe just cant find it.

  10. #10
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    So the interpretation here is that:
    1) Do I have enough movement to go past? If yes, then
    2) I can stop wherever I want and force Rule of Least Disturbance.

    I don't think you can draw that conclusion logically. Yes, you must continue through as you cannot stop your movement overlapping a base or an Obstruction.
    In Shanghai? Message me!
    Welcome Skorne #Options

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by regleant View Post
    So the interpretation here is that:
    1) Do I have enough movement to go past? If yes, then
    2) I can stop wherever I want and force Rule of Least Disturbance.

    I don't think you can draw that conclusion logically. Yes, you must continue through as you cannot stop your movement overlapping a base or an Obstruction.
    that is what the OP is asking, however it raises the question im asking of what happens when 2 is 2) i'm forced to stop, do i follow rules of least disturbance

  12. #12
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    huh, that's interesting. "As long as you have enough movement to..." implies that you should then use that movement, but it's not actually explicitly stated.

  13. #13
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    "enough movement to move completely past them."

    What is the problem? Enough movement is enough movement.

    As for being forced to stop, I can't find anything specific, but I would think that it would cause the generic rule of reducing the movement until the model is in a legal posisition. So in the shrike example it would end up in front of the model that delivered the free strike, where it was before it began to pass over the base.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  14. #14
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    "enough movement to move completely past them."

    What is the problem? Enough movement is enough movement.
    The problem is that "have enough X to Y" does not mean "you must Y".

    Say it would take me 6" of movement to move completely past a creature. I have 7" of movement. I have enough movement to move completely past them. No matter how far I decide to move, I "have enough movement to move completely past them". There is nothing stating directly that I must use my movement to do so.

  15. #15
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seebs View Post
    The problem is that "have enough X to Y" does not mean "you must Y".

    Say it would take me 6" of movement to move completely past a creature. I have 7" of movement. I have enough movement to move completely past them. No matter how far I decide to move, I "have enough movement to move completely past them". There is nothing stating directly that I must use my movement to do so.
    Unless you can show an example of where there is a distinction between those two concepts in the rules, yes it does.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  16. #16

    Default

    So alot of arguments prssented here make sense and follow the convention of how ive seen the game played however i believe there is no rules support for this and telling a new player "thats just how it works" is terrible. The only rules in the book that i can find covering what to do if two bases overlap is the rules of least disterbance. There is no rule i can find stating that a model cannot end an advance overlapping another model nor a rule saying that you move back if you end up doing so. So i feel this requires a simple addition to the movement rules. Something along the lines of: A model cannot end an advance overlapping the base of another model. If an effect would cause a model to end an advance overlaping another base instead the model ends its advance in the last place it was not overlapping another base.

    This would clear up the entire situation i feel.
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 02-17-2017 at 07:19 AM.

  17. #17
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Those rules do all exist. By default you can't move over bases at all. Rules like flight make an exception but they don't allow you to end your movement ontop of a model and clearly states that you must be able to move completely past the model. It takes mental gymnastics to assume that "enough to move completely past" refers to potential movement and not actual movement - especially when all other movement rules work with actual movement not potential movement.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  18. #18
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    Unless you can show an example of where there is a distinction between those two concepts in the rules, yes it does.
    If there were a clear distinction between the things, we'd know which was which. Since there isn't, we just don't know. In plain English, all that's actually been said is that you have to have a certain amount of movement, with no requirement on whether or not you use it. I think the intent is clear, because there's several places where this wording is used, and in a couple of them there's an explicit "otherwise it must stop short", which strongly implies that the intent is to state that you have to move all the way through or stop, and one place uses "cross".

    But this isn't just the "what do we think the designers meant" forum; it's also the "what exactly do the rules say, and should that be considered a thing for possible errata" forum. And if we're being pedantic, it does not actually state that you must use the movement, just that you have to have enough movement available that you could do that thing.

  19. #19
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    Those rules do all exist. By default you can't move over bases at all. Rules like flight make an exception but they don't allow you to end your movement ontop of a model and clearly states that you must be able to move completely past the model. It takes mental gymnastics to assume that "enough to move completely past" refers to potential movement and not actual movement - especially when all other movement rules work with actual movement not potential movement.
    It's not an "assumption", it's the exact literal meaning of the words used. Now, it would take mental gymnastics to conclude that the literal meaning is what's intended, because that would make no sense.

    But it absolutely explicitly refers to potential movement. If it instead said "can move through other models or obstructions, but only if it moves entirely through them", it would be talking about actual movement. Now, can you see why they didn't say that? Because movement is not guaranteed. You could try to move through another model, then have something happen that stops your movement and prevents you from doing the thing.

    Thought experiment for you: Imagine that there are several small-based things scattered around an area with some space between them. You have enough movement to go completely past a couple of them, but there is no space between them large enough for you. Can you fly over the first one?

    I think the intent is probably that you can start to fly over it, because you have enough movement to get past it. But if you then encounter the base of another one, and you don't have enough movement to completely pass it, you have to stop. And if you couldn't completely pass the first one before encountering the second, you then stop partially over it, and we apply rule of least disturbance. But you were allowed to begin flying through it because you had enough movement.

  20. #20
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Once again, you're assuming potential movement ans not actual movement. "Not have to use it all" is not stated anywhere. Where rules include such flexibility they have clear wording like "up to" some value to clarify that its anything in a range up to a maximum.

    We do know exactly what the rule means. Once again, unless you can cite some examples of a rule like this using potential movement instead of actual movement, you're reading into a precedent that doesn't exist. Show me a rule ANYWHERE that says you do not have to use all your movement without including wording like "up to" to inform it? Read tramples. Read acrobatics. Read incorporeal. All rules that allow models to pass through other models and all of which work on the same principal.

    As far as I know, the wording for these rules hasn't meaningfully changed since the first flying models existed. If its gone some 10 years wirhout being a problem, clearoy it's fully understood by the vast vast majority of players.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  21. #21
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    And no, least disturbance has never been used in that scenario. Least distrubance is applied only where it specifically says it applies. Thats one of the major conditions of Tramples, otherwise you'd be able to trample wherever you please and just create a valid end point.
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    And no, least disturbance has never been used in that scenario. Least distrubance is applied only where it specifically says it applies. Thats one of the major conditions of Tramples, otherwise you'd be able to trample wherever you please and just create a valid end point.
    Except least disterbance doesnt specifically state it applies anywhere it only gives the general case of "Some rules can cause the bases of moving models to overlap those of other models temporarily, such as when a model is thrown or slammed"

  23. #23
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Now, all this said, maybe pp intends for least disturbance to replace the previous system where if you ended in an illegal spot you rewinded movement until you were clear. Mainly because I can't find that rule anymore.

    If pp intends least disturbance to be used anywhere you can end a movement overlapping a model, voluntary or not, tramples and flyers are about to become OP. Angelii are going to be pushing models 5" off scenarios instewd of 3"
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    Now, all this said, maybe pp intends for least disturbance to replace the previous system where if you ended in an illegal spot you rewinded movement until you were clear. Mainly because I can't find that rule anymore.

    If pp intends least disturbance to be used anywhere you can end a movement overlapping a model, voluntary or not, tramples and flyers are about to become OP. Angelii are going to be pushing models 5" off scenarios instewd of 3"
    Trample does call out that there needs to be room for its base at the end of trampling

    It moves through any small-based model in its path, but there must be room for the trampling model’s base at the end of the movement.
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 02-17-2017 at 07:57 AM.

  25. #25
    Destroyer of Worlds Lanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    27,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalSwordsmen View Post
    Trample does call out that there needs to be room for its base at the end of trampling
    How is that meaningfully different than saying that you must be able to move completely past the model's base?
    "If at first you don't succeed, label it version 1.0."


  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanz View Post
    How is that meaningfully different than saying that you must be able to move completely past the model's base?
    theres the argument of potential that you are so against so im not going to rehash it. But this also takes into account all models involved instead of just 1 at a time. it ensures that you have the ability to end the movement. instead of checking each model individually. so say theres 6 models in a line. By flight you have enough movement to move over the first 5 but not the 6th. so you can move over them or not? trample says is there a spot for your base after the move, no the 6th model blocks it. no trample.

    another problem with the sentence, move completely past the model's base, is does that mean in a straight line? Example i want to move partially over a model with a sereph so i can slipstream a model nearby. i don't have enough movement to move straight over the model, but i have enough movement to go slightly on top, get within 2 of the model i want to slipstream then move off the model via an angle. is that a legal move?
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 02-17-2017 at 08:07 AM.

  27. #27
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    I'm not saying that I think the rule is intended to allow you to do Least Disturbance intentionally by just stopping prematurely.

    But I do suspect that they intend to allow you to try to move and fail and have Least Disturbance happen, and that's why the movement requirement is stated in terms of how much movement you have, not how much you are using. And I think that, as a result, strictly reading the text does not communicate that intent well.

  28. #28
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by regleant View Post
    I don't think you can draw that conclusion logically. Yes, you must continue through as you cannot stop your movement overlapping a base or an Obstruction.
    So that's the rule I'm looking for; can anyone find it? All I can see is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Primal p.30
    A model’s base cannot pass over another model’s base while advancing.
    but that is clearly overwritten by the rules for Flight. If there is a separate rule that says you can't stop overlapping another base, I'd like to see the wording, to see whether it is overwritten by Flight or not.

    As for obstacles (I assume you meant obstacles not obstructions - there are rules specifically allowing you to land on obstructions) you're right that you can't stop overlapping them. But that's because of a very specific rule phrase:

    Quote Originally Posted by Primal p. 84
    A model cannot partially cross, climb on, or stand atop an obstacle.
    ...which they did not repeat in the Flight rules, for when you're flying over other models.

  29. #29
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    No, no, no.


    You're missing that one part of Flight is conditional on the other.

    Flight – ... It can advance through obstructions and other models
    ^this part.


    if it has enough movement to move completely past them.
    ^is conditional upon this part.

    You are only allowed to advance through an obstruction or another model if you are moving all the way past it and ending your movement with your base not on top of their base(or the obstruction).

    Stop trying to make this happen, its not going to happen. Its against the actual wording of the rules and definitely the intent of the rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  30. #30
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    No, no, no.


    You're missing that one part of Flight is conditional on the other.



    ^this part.




    ^is conditional upon this part.

    You are only allowed to advance through an obstruction or another model if you are moving all the way past it and ending your movement with your base not on top of their base(or the obstruction).
    They are not technically missing anything in terms of whether or not it's conditional, they agree that it's conditional.

    They disagree that this "ending your movement with your base not on top of their base(or the obstruction), or another base" is stated anywhere.

    As a very rough example, Say you have two doors one after the other. One door is open, one door is closed. Can you be said to be able to move through door one without being able to move through door two? That's what I believe their arguement is, they would say yes

  31. #31
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    Except the general rules quite explicitly say you cannot end your movement on top of other models. Ever. Flight doesn't need a specific thing prohibiting it because the general rules prohibit it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  32. #32
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Except the general rules quite explicitly say you cannot end your movement on top of other models. Ever. Flight doesn't need a specific thing prohibiting it because the general rules prohibit it.
    No one can seem to find that anywhere I believe

  33. #33
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    No, no, no.


    You're missing that one part of Flight is conditional on the other.
    No, we're not.

    The condition is "has enough movement to".

    How much movement would be required to move completely through (X)? How much movement do you have (Y)? The condition is "Y >= X".

    It makes no mention of whether, or how, you use that movement.

    And again, I don't think this is intended to give you permission to stop early, I just think it's not written to say what it means.

  34. #34
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    Well, I fully disagree. It does indeed mean and actually say you have to keep going and use that movement to leave the model.

    The way you guys are twisting the words, its as if you are completely ignoring the 2nd half of the Flight rule. It might as well not be there the way you guys are reading this.

    This is a permissive ruleset. Without a rule allowing you to stop on another model's base you cannot do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  35. #35
    Annihilator Dev Null's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Except the general rules quite explicitly say you cannot end your movement on top of other models. Ever. Flight doesn't need a specific thing prohibiting it because the general rules prohibit it.
    Where. I'm happy to admit I missed it, but I can't find it.

    I know that's how we play. I get that's how everyone does it, and I get that that was most likely the designer's intent; I just don't care. This is the rules forum, and I tried - in another thread - to answer a question using the actual words of the actual rules, which is how I like to answer rules questions. I now suspect I got that answer wrong, because the actual words don't seem to say what everyone thinks they say. Which means either I missed a rule (entirely likely; please show it to me), or misread a rule (we're having a useful discussion about things like the meaning of the word "through", but so far I am not convinced) or the particular rules in question could maybe use a little polish - which doesn't seem that impossible to believe. So we point it out to PP, and they decide whether I'm a raving madman or maybe have half a point, and maybe they clean up the language a bit in the next errata. But in the meantime I find arguments like "obviously not allowed because we've never allowed it" sort of pointless and circular. Quote the rule please, and this whole argument goes away.

  36. #36
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    The movement rules say that models cannot cross each others bases.

    Flight only gives exception to this rule IF you are able to move completely past the base.

    Neither of these allow you to stop on top of another base.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  37. #37
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    Well, I fully disagree. It does indeed mean and actually say you have to keep going and use that movement to leave the model.

    The way you guys are twisting the words, its as if you are completely ignoring the 2nd half of the Flight rule. It might as well not be there the way you guys are reading this.
    No, we're not. If you would need 6" of movement to completely cross another model, and you have only 5" of movement, you can't go into its space at all, because the rule only permits you to cross another model if the distance you have the ability to move equals or exceeds the distance it would take to cross it.

    Without that requirement, you could start moving in even if you didn't have that much movement.

    I would also be really interested in hearing back from the people who think the rule specifically states this other thing as to how they'd resolve examples where you have enough movement to move entirely through one or more models, but not enough to move through models which are behind them.

  38. #38
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    The movement rules say that models cannot cross each others bases.

    Flight only gives exception to this rule IF you are able to move completely past the base.
    Let me repeat, with emphasis:

    Flight only gives exception to this rule IF you are able to move completely past the base.

    "If you are able to" and "if you do" are not the same thing.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Templar View Post
    The movement rules say that models cannot cross each others bases.

    Flight only gives exception to this rule IF you are able to move completely past the base.

    Neither of these allow you to stop on top of another base.

    So i feel like this argument is going in circles this will likely be my last response.

    The key thing i see in the wording as is. Flight gives you an exception IF you are ABLE to move completely past the base. Not IF you ACTUALLY move completely past the base.

  40. #40
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,379

    Default

    Thats not how I read that. The context of the sentence means you have to actually perform that action.

    All I can say is "stop being a muppet".
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •