Jump to content
  • 0

Fly keyword, V2 and is there a search function ?


azoxystrobin
 Share

Question

Hi everyone, I have a bit of a strange question.

So I was looking at the fly keyword and I'm just wondering something here. I expect everyone knows this already or can point out any extra rules that I have probably missed.
This is the paragraph from the rules about flying.
FLYING If the warscroll for a model says that the model can fly, it can pass across models and terrain features as if they were not there when it makes any type of move. Any vertical distance up and/or down is ignored when measuring a flying model’s move. It cannot finish the move on top of another model.

But the paragraph about

ENEMY UNITS AND RETREATS When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit.

These paragraphs don't contradict each other. So a Flying unit cannot come within 3" of an enemy unit at any point during it's normal movement. This seems to be a change since the v1 rules where it specified something about not being allowed to end a move within 3"

So, am I just a slopoke finding out things that everyone already knew?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 5
22 hours ago, azoxystrobin said:

Hi everyone, I have a bit of a strange question.

So I was looking at the fly keyword and I'm just wondering something here. I expect everyone knows this already or can point out any extra rules that I have probably missed.
This is the paragraph from the rules about flying.
 FLYING If the warscroll for a model says that the model can fly, it can pass across models and terrain features as if they were not there when it makes any type of move. Any vertical distance up and/or down is ignored when measuring a flying model’s move. It cannot finish the move on top of another model.

 But the paragraph about

ENEMY UNITS AND RETREATS When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit.

These paragraphs don't contradict each other. So a Flying unit cannot come within 3" of an enemy unit at any point during it's normal movement. This seems to be a change since the v1 rules where it specified something about not being allowed to end a move within 3"

So, am I just a slopoke finding out things that everyone already knew?

You can definitely make a normal move over an enemy unit if your unit flies. One entire ability on the new hopper and Hexwraiths would be completetly invalid as they are required you to make a normal move over an enemy unit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5

A simple question to everyone who says that a flying unit can't fly over enemy units.

There are rules like "Wake of Fire" of Flamespyre

Phoenix. How should these work if you can't fly over enemy units?

Quote

Wake of Fire: A Flamespyre Phienix can attack enemies with a Wake of Fire as it flies over them. To do so, pick one enemy unit that the Flamespyre Phoenix flew over in the movement phase. Then, consult the damage table opposite to see how many mortal wounds are inflicted on the unit as they are engulfed in flame.

 

12 hours ago, azoxystrobin said:

It says "as if they weren't there" only for moving across models: not when being within 3" of them.
The thing about them "not being there" is for moving over friendly models, terrain and moving over models during the charge phase because some enemy units can react during the charge phase.

The rule for flying doesn't say "friendly models" only "models", and models mean "friendly" as well as "enemy". If it would only work for friendly models the rule would say "friendly models" as they make also differences for friendly or enemy models in other rules by saying exacty that.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3
2 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

This is more like it. 

How does @Eevika answer differ from mine and @CaptainSoup ?

7 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

The subject of the sentence is the flying model. the action is passing through. That's the part we're looking at.
Is it an enemy unit? Then apply the rules for enemy units - that's where out 3" clause comes in. Does fly cancel the enemy unit 3" clause? NO.
Is it something else? Then no problem.

Yes it does cance that rule with the "as if they not there".  You can move over enemy units. You just can't end within 3" of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2

The change about moving within 3in of enemy models was probably put in place to prevent a particular type of player from squeezing through a hole in the ranks of a unit during the movement phase. 

"Hey, as long as I don't end my movement within 3in its all good right? Should have placed your models on the table better! hurp derp"

As for flying, the rule says it itself. You can move across models as if they weren't there. There is no issue about moving within 3in if there are no models to worry about right? That being said, you still cant end your movement within 3in since the rules specify that this only occurs as you move across the models and not when you finish your movement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2
7 hours ago, azoxystrobin said:

It says "as if they weren't there" only for moving across models: not when being within 3" of them.
The thing about them "not being there" is for moving over friendly models, terrain and moving over models during the charge phase because some enemy units can react during the charge phase.
So still no contradiction, flying models cannot move within 3" of an enemy unit as per the rules.
Until GW FAQs it of course if it was their intention, but it doesn't look like it because the rules are clear.

I'm sorry but you're not making much sense.

If you cannot move within 3in of a model then you cannot move across models either since technically the model in question is within 3in of itself, making the the model part of the fly keyword section of the rules useless. This is the same logic as auras. If you have a unit that produces an aura then depending on the effects of the aura the model is also affected by its own aura. This would also make things awkward if the model is flying is say, Nagash and it is flying over a tiny model base, one so small that Nagash's base engulfs the tiny base of the grounded model well over 3in as well.

I also do not see where the "not being there" part of the flying keyword is only for allied models.

11Capture.PNG.46111d58136858ba1836cacc922acf27.PNG

I could not find any meaningful clarifications to this in any FAQ documents either. The closest being a question about moving between friendly units with the answer being that (any) models can do so with no issue if they can fly. 

The only other thing that I could see what is confusing you is that you may think the previous section of the rules about moving within 3in of enemy models trumps the rules regarding flying which would also be strange since GW has been getting better at fleshing out the wording of their rules. If what you are saying is true then the flying section would say that the moving across models only applies to friendly models instead of just models in general. 

If I am still not seeing what you are saying than please explain it but it seems clear to me that you allowed to move across any models if you have the fly keyword as per the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2
7 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

Firstly you will avoid gratuitous insults they are against forum rules. I didn't insult you and you really don't want that to happen.
The problem is "enemy" unit, not the unit itself. not friendly units.  How can you possibly extrapolate something like that? Where are you even going with such rubbish?
You don't understand why the not being there has nothing to do with friendly models? Maybe it has something to do with being able to draw line of sight and be able to move over them when normally a model can't draw line of sight through everything or move through other models....

The rules say a model cannot move within 3" of an enemy unit during normal movement.
and that rule isn't contradicted by the flight keyword.
THEREFORE flying models cannot move within 3" of an enemy unit during normal movement. Nothing in the fly keyword says otherwise.
As you yourself there is nothing  in FAQs or erratas either that says this is otherwise.

So it looks like we've been playing it wrong. No big deal. We learn and adapt.
I suppose one could house rule it, but some people like to play with the actual rules.

 

That was v1, This is V2 now, the rules have changed.

It was not my intention to insult you in anyway. In clarification I meant it does not make any sense to me. I like everyone else here only want to have a friendly and civil conversation about a game we all love to play, so I would respectfully ask for the sake of the conversation to please calm down. 

That being said I am confused in your explanation posted here. In the flying section of the rules it only mentions that it can pass across models and terrain as if it were not there during any type of movement. No where in the section does it mention that this only applies to friendly models. 

Your original post says there is no contradiction in rules. I would argue that flying is the exception to the previous section of the rules explaining movement. 

As far as the ending within 3in while flying. This was mentioned in the most up-to-date FAQ/Designers Commentary:

111Capture.PNG.6d66624befa96e92875097330e39892c.PNG

10 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

It says "can pass through models as if they weren't there" OK. Pass through.
(Pass though) isn't the same thing as (Not get within 3" of).

It is the same thing though since the model being "passed through" is within 3in of itself. 

From what I can understand your line of thinking is, the rules do not contradict therefore there is an in-explicit wording in the flying section that says only friendly models are affected by the flying keyword. I would argue that is not the case because the flying section of the rules are an exception to the rule. 

20 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

Why does it say "pass through as if there weren't there"? Probably because it's being inclusive of several different types of movement (normal, retreat, charging, other movements) and different unit types (self, friendly, allied, enemy)

It specifically mentions that if you can fly then it is applied to any type of move not only certain types of movement and it does not mention any specific types of units. 

 

23 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

I'm not looking to question why the rules are written in a given way, just apply rules as they are supposed to be applied.

No one here is questioning the rules, we are questioning why you interpret the rules in the way you do. You apply additional things to the rules that are simply not there so we are making argument against that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2
37 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

Ah nice of you to find that FAQ bit, so they have specified that back into the rules, not that it contradicts what I'm pointing out here though. If anything it's confirming it. Insisting that a unit with flight doesn't ignore the 3" clause.

The FAQ quote only mentions when a flying model ends its movement not during the movement. This does not confirm your point.

37 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

Of course a model is within 3" of itself, but it isn't an enemy unit in relation to itself is it? and it isn't the one doing the flying, so who cares? What does it have to do with the price of fish?

I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. "Passing through" a unit means you are passing within 3in of said unit. The original statement you made was there was a difference between passing through and being within 3in of a unit. I disagreed and said they were the same thing. If we agree on this then that means you contradicted yourself and that these rules do in fact "contradict." In other words the flying rule supersedes the moving through enemy rule.  

37 minutes ago, azoxystrobin said:

Yes, that's what I spelled out in the previous reply, it doesn't go into specific cases, it covers several cases.
The previous ruling about enemy units is neither lifted nor annulled by the fly keyword.
Therefore in that specific case normal movement and enemy units, the 3" clause applies.

It covers all cases. This means that it does supersede the enemy units rule. You are making a statement regarding the rules. We disagree, so the burden of proof is on you to prove to us what you are saying is true. You have yet shown any evidence to back up your claim. If you do not or cannot do that then this question might as well be resolved. 

Edited by CaptainSoup
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1

Even if you have the 3in rule that you can‘t come within of 3in wühle flying than just Lift your Model 20 in over the Table while Mobbing. So you are not comming in conflict wir the 3in rule. Well the rules say  you can move a flyer as much as you want it does not count as move if you go upwards. Case closed! 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1
3 hours ago, Isotop said:

I would be happy to discuss this point further with you - I might be not aware of an argument you made.

For the sake of clarity I would suggest people set this post to organize posts per date instead of per vote to get a proper understanding of how the conversation followed if people weren't doing that already. 

I won't go over my explanations throughout the thread in length again, but the crux of my argument stems from the wording of the Flying sections of the rules:

11Capture.PNG.a21467a5c4303ee917bb72b9884c2fa8.PNG

The wording states that if you can fly you can "pass across" (or "passing across" if that helps) models and terrain features as if they weren't there during any type of move. My argument is that if you are currently in the process of moving while having the flying ability, any rules regarding models and moving near or through models is disregarded. 

The reasoning as to why I never included the FAQ question that you had mentioned was because it was only talking about abilities that have an effect if you pass over an enemy unit instead of just flying in general which was the focus of the original question asked. 

As far as the Burden of Proof fallacy, that would depend on who you think made the first statement. I would argue that the original poster did since he did make a state that units with the Flying ability cannot get near enemy units. Even if I concede and state that I was the one that made the first statement, I would argue that I have provided sufficient evidence to prove my claim, thus letting me out of the fallacy. 

The statement of whether "Passing across" is the same was a "within" ability. My argument was that a model with a "within" ability is similar to a "Passing across" ability because when you pass across a model you are "within" their range and that a model with a "within" ability is technically within itself. The same logic applies with the "within" abilities themselves. 
For example, lets take a Fyreslayers Battlesmith's Icon of Grimnir ability:

Battlesmith Warscroll

1111Capture.PNG.d4db8477a249b186c69a7626af41ce73.PNG

Since this ability affects all units within 8in, it also effects the Battlesmith (which was also clarified in the parenthesis). 
Now you can argue that this is not a good argument because the wording included the Battlesmith and I would argue that it was only in clarification, but at this point we are really splitting hairs here. 

4 hours ago, Isotop said:

This, and only this problem was finally solved by @Xerox

I mean if this is what it takes to get us to agree that it is possible to move flying models over enemy units then that's fine. I would agree with you though that it does seem "clunky" and imo a bit silly. This would mean that while you are picking up your models you have to carefully move the model and while you are moving the models you need to make sure and constantly measure that the models are physically moving higher than 3in the entire time and if you somehow slip up and lower your hand below the 3in range then you somehow fail the movement or worse get disqualified from a tournament for "breaking the rules." 

From there we could easily go into your statement about the forum being "RAI" and the debate about that, but we would be going way off topic and that point lol.

I'll end this (what ended up to be) lengthy post by saying what I said early on, it was never my intention to anger, mislead or insult anyone here. My first and foremost thought process is headed in making sure there is clarity in as many things as possible to avoid misunderstandings. I tried to be clear and concise in my wording to get my point across as to make sure people do not lead themselves into different conclusion that I had intended. In this case the OP had a question and I attempted to clear it up. His wording became somewhat aggressive or back handed so I tried to help clarify my statements to the best of my ability. As always I hope this post helps clear things up and that we can all have fun playing the game we all enjoy.

Thanks for reading!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1

For the sake of clarity I would suggest people set this post to organize posts per date instead of per vote to get a proper understanding of how the conversation followed if people weren't doing that already. 

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

How can this claim be true? The FAQ about abilities and passing over models clearly defines what "pass across" means. The definition does not include merely moving within 3" of enemy models without the intersection of bases. Is there anything I am missing in the definition GW gave us with this FAQ?

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

Yes, the question is about abilities requiring to "pass across" enemy models. The answer defines what "pass across" means. Why should this definition not be valid for the "pass across" in the Flying ability?

It seems there is a bit of a hang up on the phrase "Passing across = Within." The phrase itself isn't accurate true, but the claim of the two being exactly the same wasn't really my intent. I think a better phrase would have been "Passing across leads into being Within." Here is an example:

Let's say you have a unit of Hexwraiths and they happen to be "Passing across" an enemy unit of say, Grots. Hexwraiths have an ability that can be activated if the Hexwraith "Pass across" an enemy unit:

11111Capture.PNG.8b483d3c7bef8f5b43c0e66cc0fa9c6c.PNG

This would put them in line with your reasoning that it is okay to fly over those models since you will be making base-to-base contact with them while moving. But the question I would ask is, "but didn't you have to go within their 'within 3in' range into to make base-to-base contact?" You could say that this is fine since the ability gives the model the right to go into the other unit's "within 3in" range, thus overriding the enemy unit ruling of movement, but my rebuttal to that would be how is that any different from having the "flying" ability override the enemy unit ruling of movement? 

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

I am really not getting this argument.

To put it simply, I think the "Within Xin" abilities imply the ability also affects the model(s)/unit(s) from which the ability came from. If this were the case then it lends credence to my argument that "Passing across leads into being Within" or "While you are passing across (touching base to base) you are also Within." Here is a quick diagram I drew up of what I mean:

The argument that you seem to be making to me is the "Within 3in" and similar rules/abilities does not include the model/unit itself and that "Passing across" just means you can move over the model:

image.png.c8b71b1f54e677b02344295918ffb878.png

The argument I am trying to state is that the "Within 3in" also overlaps into the model/unit itself, meaning that "Passing across" is simply an extension of what "Within 3in" has already applied:

image.png.a4c6e9c8f39ae527a664a60f9f1094e6.png

In 40k we call these "auras" and the rules state as such there. Doing research on this for AoS I have found that there are very little abilities that have a "Within" statement that needs the model having the "Within" to also be affected about the ability. This may be intentional on GW's part. 

Regardless that is where my head is at for this. As you've mentioned we all can agree that flying over models is allowed, its just the logic of getting to that conclusion is where we differ. It's a fun mental exercise for me at least lol!

1 hour ago, King Taloren said:

Passing across requires an intersection of bases using the flying ability to allow for what cannot happen in normal movement. You are not allowed to cross over another model’s base without the fly rule even with your own models. Stated clearly in core rules you can’t overlap bases friendly or otherwise.

this is why the fly rule exists and is on all the endless spells as well as flying models to allow for a overlap during movement though once you finish you must maintain the original guideline of either being without the 3” of enemy models. Or if using flight for piling in (because fly is not restricted to normal moves only it states all movement) that you do not move more than 3” and maintain the end closer or equal to closest model.

What you are saying is all true, but that isn't quite where are disagreement is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I am really amazed by the way you discuss with each other. @azoxystrobin, you showed your ability to find a very interesting "mistake" in the rules (because i think in the end it was a mistake by GW). In my opinion your way to analyse rules is really needed in GW´s rules writing and testing team. However, you should have known that most people here would reject your findings - this forum is too often a RAI-forum and you really have to make clear what you are saying if you want to have any chance of sucess. In my view you should have told people what "pass across" means (in your opinion). I assume you had this in mind:

(1) "Pass across" is solely the part of the movement during which the base of the moving model intersects with another model´s base

When I first read this thread, I though this was indeed the definition of "pass across". With this in mind I was 100% on your side - a flying model could not enter the 3" "no go zone" around enemy models because of the basic movement restrictions (since at this point it would not "pass across" models and therefore would not count them as not being there). Anyone of your "opponents" in this thread argueing against you while still accepting (1) are simply wrong. I guess what happened here is one of the following (or a combination):

(a) People reacted harshly without really understanding what you said (which is partly your fault, as I said above)

(b) People got lost in the "RAI-zone" ("it could´nt possibly work this way! It should work that way!") and forced "arguments" out of the rules

(c) People read the following part of the FAQ (I do not think so since nobody mentioned or quoted it):

Q: Some abilities require a model that can fly to ‘pass across’ a model from an enemy unit. How exactly does this work? A: In order for a model to pass across another, part of the moving model’s base must have moved across any part of the other model’s base. To determine if this is the case, trace the flying model’s move across the battlefield, checking to see if its base passed across any part of the other model’s base at any point in its move. Note that this means that the flying model can move up to an enemy model so that their bases overlap, and then move back, and will count as having ‘passed across’ the other model."

(https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Core-Rules-and-Bases-Sizes-EN.pdf, page 4, emphasis mine)

From this we can deduce:

(2) "Pass across" is a description for the whole movement of a model during which its base intersected with another models base.

So, if a flying model starts its movement more than 3" away from an enemy model and intersects with an enemy model during the following move, the whole movement is considered to be "passing across" enemy models and therefore the flying model is allowed to be within 3" of enemy models during the whole move.

If anyone here had this specific FAQ part in mind while arguing, I recommend you stating the basis of your argumentation the next time. If I did not understand another argument that was made (with a clear rules reference) I am sorry and would be happy to be called out upon it.

There is one statement I find highly questionable. It leads nicely to the last point I wanted to mention, though:

18 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

[...] I'm not really sure what you are getting at here. "Passing through" a unit means you are passing within 3in of said unit. The original statement you made was there was a difference between passing through and being within 3in of a unit. I disagreed and said they were the same thing. [...]

Firstly, I assume "Passing through" = "Passing across". "Passing across" is not the same as just "being within 3in of a unit". How are you getting to this conclusion, @CaptainSoup? I quoted and sum up in (2) what "Passing across" means. You later talk about the burden of proof - which lies with you in this case: You are making a claim that is, as far as I can see, not an obvious part of the rules we are talking about.

I would be happy to discuss this point further with you - I might be not aware of an argument you made.

In any case, my last point is the follwing: Are flying models allowed to be within 3" of enemy models during a movement during which they do not interesect with enemy models? So far, we found out:

- Flying models can "ignore" enemy models only if they "pass across" them

- A model "passes across" another model if at any part of its movement its base intersects with the other models base

So far there is no proof flying units can "ignore" enemy models (regarding the "not moving within 3" rule) when they just want to move within 3" of them without passing across models. I was seriously confused that people here thought this would be possible nevertheless - and I would welcome if those people could clearify why they might have this opinion (again, with a clear rules reference). This, and only this problem was finally solved by @Xerox:

4 hours ago, Xerox said:

Even if you have the 3in rule that you can‘t come within of 3in wühle flying than just Lift your Model 20 in over the Table while Mobbing. So you are not comming in conflict wir the 3in rule. Well the rules say  you can move a flyer as much as you want it does not count as move if you go upwards. Case closed! 😅

So yes, a flying model (not planning to intersect with enemy models) can indeed move 999" upwards, then "within 3inches" of enemy models, move "out" and land without ever being within 3" of the enemy models (measuring base-to-base). I am really glad you found this perk, solving the last question I stated. I really have to say that, while abolutely legit, is feels like a really "clonky" solution.

 

I am pretty sure GW just wants people to move flying models "freely" during any kind of move and interaction with other models but they really failed to make this clear in the 2.0 Core Rules. Xerox pointed out a major misunderstanding in the rules which can only be resolved by the FAQ part i posted. I find the way people reacted to this pretty rough, representing a behaviour that, in my opinion, should not be practiced in a rules forum. Xerox should have made themselves more clear from the beginnning, but all in all there should be more logical argumentation, less

19 hours ago, Eevika said:

This is such a stupid tread its so obvious. One of the main advantages of flying is that you can avoid enemy chaff

, which is in no way an argument about rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 hour ago, Isotop said:

(c) People read the following part of the FAQ (I do not think so since nobody mentioned or quoted it):

Q: Some abilities require a model that can fly to ‘pass across’ a model from an enemy unit. How exactly does this work? A: In order for a model to pass across another, part of the moving model’s base must have moved across any part of the other model’s base. To determine if this is the case, trace the flying model’s move across the battlefield, checking to see if its base passed across any part of the other model’s base at any point in its move. Note that this means that the flying model can move up to an enemy model so that their bases overlap, and then move back, and will count as having ‘passed across’ the other model."

 

Yeah, it was missed to quote this.

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

So yes, a flying model (not planning to intersect with enemy models) can indeed move 999" upwards, then "within 3inches" of enemy models, move "out" and land without ever being within 3" of the enemy models (measuring base-to-base). I am really glad you found this perk, solving the last question I stated. I really have to say that, while abolutely legit, is feels like a really "clonky" solution.

 

I am pretty sure GW just wants people to move flying models "freely" during any kind of move and interaction with other models but they really failed to make this clear in the 2.0 Core Rules. Xerox pointed out a major misunderstanding in the rules which can only be resolved by the FAQ part i posted. I find the way people reacted to this pretty rough, representing a behaviour that, in my opinion, should not be practiced in a rules forum. Xerox should have made themselves more clear from the beginnning, but all in all there should be more logical argumentation, less

I think the point for the Question in the FAQ was another one, than here.

It was if the unit has to land behind the target or fly to the target and back  like in those two threads (which both came out after 2.0)

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18607-endless-spells-moving-across-a-unit/

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18590-artefacts-of-power-relics-of-chamon/

 

 

I thought you had to land behind (so it was more tactical) but I was wrong after the FAQ came out

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
53 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Yeah, it was missed to quote this.

I think the point for the Question in the FAQ was another one, than here.

It was if the unit has to land behind the target or fly to the target and back  like in those two threads (which both came out after 2.0)

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18607-endless-spells-moving-across-a-unit/

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18590-artefacts-of-power-relics-of-chamon/

 

 

I thought you had to land behind (so it was more tactical) but I was wrong after the FAQ came out

 

This part of the FAQ cleared up what "pass across" means, which was abolutely necessary to solve the problem presented in this thread. A lot of the problems people having here is a direct result of GW´s rules fuzziness. I really do not get how you start chopping at each other the moment a person points out one of the many examples of sloppy rules writing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -1
21 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

The wording states that if you can fly you can "pass across" (or "passing across" if that helps) models and terrain features as if they weren't there during any type of move. My argument is that if you are currently in the process of moving while having the flying ability, any rules regarding models and moving near or through models is disregarded. 

How can this claim be true? The FAQ about abilities and passing over models clearly defines what "pass across" means. The definition does not include merely moving within 3" of enemy models without the intersection of bases. Is there anything I am missing in the definition GW gave us with this FAQ?

21 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

The reasoning as to why I never included the FAQ question that you had mentioned was because it was only talking about abilities that have an effect if you pass over an enemy unit instead of just flying in general which was the focus of the original question asked. 

Yes, the question is about abilities requiring to "pass across" enemy models. The answer defines what "pass across" means. Why should this definition not be valid for the "pass across" in the Flying ability?

21 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

The statement of whether "Passing across" is the same was a "within" ability. My argument was that a model with a "within" ability is similar to a "Passing across" ability because when you pass across a model you are "within" their range and that a model with a "within" ability is technically within itself. The same logic applies with the "within" abilities themselves. 
For example, lets take a Fyreslayers Battlesmith's Icon of Grimnir ability:

Battlesmith Warscroll

1111Capture.PNG.d4db8477a249b186c69a7626af41ce73.PNG

Since this ability affects all units within 8in, it also effects the Battlesmith (which was also clarified in the parenthesis). 
Now you can argue that this is not a good argument because the wording included the Battlesmith and I would argue that it was only in clarification, but at this point we are really splitting hairs here. 

I am really not getting this argument. But I want to understand it, because in my view it is the only argument you have backing up your claim about what "pass across = moving within 3"". What exactly is the similarity between "pass across" and "within"? No offense, but I do not understand the reasoning you give here.

21 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

I'll end this (what ended up to be) lengthy post by saying what I said early on, it was never my intention to anger, mislead or insult anyone here. My first and foremost thought process is headed in making sure there is clarity in as many things as possible to avoid misunderstandings. I tried to be clear and concise in my wording to get my point across as to make sure people do not lead themselves into different conclusion that I had intended. In this case the OP had a question and I attempted to clear it up. His wording became somewhat aggressive or back handed so I tried to help clarify my statements to the best of my ability. As always I hope this post helps clear things up and that we can all have fun playing the game we all enjoy.

Thanks for reading!

I agree the aggressive and back handed part. This discussion went in a wrong direction really fast. I think in the end we all agree (possibly with different reasoning though) how Flying works on our tabletops. The only thing bothering me is your claim about the definition of "pass across". as I stated above. I hope we can finish this point in a reasonable and productive manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -1

Kind of have to agree with Isotope on this about passing across vs within. 

Passing across requires an intersection of bases using the flying ability to allow for what cannot happen in normal movement. You are not allowed to cross over another model’s base without the fly rule even with your own models. Stated clearly in core rules you can’t overlap bases friendly or otherwise.

this is why the fly rule exists and is on all the endless spells as well as flying models to allow for a overlap during movement though once you finish you must maintain the original guideline of either being without the 3” of enemy models. Or if using flight for piling in (because fly is not restricted to normal moves only it states all movement) that you do not move more than 3” and maintain the end closer or equal to closest model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -5

It says "as if they weren't there" only for moving across models: not when being within 3" of them.
The thing about them "not being there" is for moving over friendly models, terrain and moving over models during the charge phase because some enemy units can react during the charge phase.
So still no contradiction, flying models cannot move within 3" of an enemy unit as per the rules.
Until GW FAQs it of course if it was their intention, but it doesn't look like it because the rules are clear.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...