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.

Alright so this has probably come up before but it was kind of left unresolved. Here is the issue:

Only certain units are allowed on the upper levels of ruins. A dreadknight can be made into a jump infantry unit but still has the inability to be placed on nearly any ruins that have mroe then 3 levels. Meaning the dreadknight cannot move into or assault anyone underneath the bottom level or more importantly the 2nd level of a ruin unless the model itself could fit on that level. Can I get some thoughts on this?

I play in a lot of tournaments so would like the tournament view more then house rules people agreed to.

We ended up ruling the dreadknight could not assault the unit on the 2nd level of a ruins based on the fact that it could not be placed on the 2nd level with or without models being in the way. Even with moving the enemy models the dreadknight could not stand on the ruin. Did we rule this correctly?

A Dreadknight is never made into a Jump Infantry unit, the FAQ states that the teleport pack makes it a Jump Monstrous Creature

To answer your question, yes you ruled correctly.

Steps!!! My Nemesis has been reborn!

STAIRS?!?!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!....
</claptrap>

That's it fellas, keep nice and bunched on the 2nd floor for me... *lights incinerator pilot light*

Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

Pg 98, right hand side just under the picture. That will answer your question easily.

"and only if the model can physically be placed there"

It also goes on to say you should agree with your opponent at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels of a ruin citing that walkers and monstrous creatures "could" be allowed to enter sturdy looking ruins. It would be up to you and your opponent to discuss that in your pre game terrain discussion. If you're not having a detailed discussion about all the terrain features on the board and how they will work and be played in your game BEFORE the dice start rolling you're doing it wrong.

The single most important concept when it comes to discussing and defining terrain in my eyes is being on the same page in terms of path models can/must take. Even terrain that may not be defined as strictly “impassable”, it may still have impassable sections/ areas/elements of features or just places that should not be considered permeable (intact walls). Think of it like this, pacman would be very boring and brutal if the ghosts could just melt through the maze and make a b line for pacman. That said, a lot of people have not truly embraced true los and seem to play all terrain as area terrain that is entirely permeable (you can essentially melt through it) and all it does is slow your movement. Sadly that may make for faster games but it greatly detracts from tactical play, it makes the movement phase less important and overall it just adds far more abstraction than is required for a game that has true los and more recently a less forgiving wounding system that rewards flanking,

I'd suggest reading pg91 "what sort of game".

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't help you there, it's not an entitlement, it's a suggested method for dealing with model placement on crappy terrain and avoiding damaging models due to falling. Also, even if it did not require your opponent’s approval (it does), you'd still need to be able to balance the model in place to prove that it is possible to be placed there before applying wobbly model syndrome. People seem to think it’s an entitlement that circumvents physics, it really doesn’t.

 Crablezworth wrote:
"and only if the model can physically be placed there"

It also goes on to say you should agree with your opponent at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels of a ruin citing that walkers and monstrous creatures "could" be allowed to enter sturdy looking ruins. It would be up to you and your opponent to discuss that in your pre game terrain discussion. If you're not having a detailed discussion about all the terrain features on the board and how they will work and be played in your game BEFORE the dice start rolling you're doing it wrong.

The single most important concept when it comes to discussing and defining terrain in my eyes is being on the same page in terms of path models can/must take. Even terrain that may not be defined as strictly “impassable”, it may still have impassable sections/ areas/elements of features or just places that should not be considered permeable (intact walls). Think of it like this, pacman would be very boring and brutal if the ghosts could just melt through the maze and make a b line for pacman. That said, a lot of people have not truly embraced true los and seem to play all terrain as area terrain that is entirely permeable (you can essentially melt through it) and all it does is slow your movement. Sadly that may make for faster games but it greatly detracts from tactical play, it makes the movement phase less important and overall it just adds far more abstraction than is required for a game that has true los and more recently a less forgiving wounding system that rewards flanking,

I'd suggest reading pg91 "what sort of game".

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

Wobbly model syndrome doesn't help you there, it's not an entitlement, it's a suggested method for dealing with model placement on crappy terrain and avoiding damaging models due to falling. Also, even if it did not require your opponent’s approval (it does), you'd still need to be able to balance the model in place to prove that it is possible to be placed there before applying wobbly model syndrome. People seem to think it’s an entitlement that circumvents physics, it really doesn’t.

Uhm, WMS only requires approval that you agree on it's actual position, not the use of WMS. And circumventing physics is exactly what it is for, the game is an abstraction of fluid warfare using static pieces. Nothing requires you to be able to balance the model there, that was just an example of a situation in which WMS could be utilized. Only having models ending movement in impassable terrain (where allowed, such as skimmers) is it required to show you can physically place the model there.

pg 11
"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature DAMAGED or even broken. In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS HAVE AGREED and know its "actual" location. If later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight."

So if I were to say, dissagree with my opponent, you're saying they can just do it anyway? Where's that part in the rule?

Also, notice the part where it says "If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table" yeah, that would infer you actually have to be able to place it there, it says fall when someone nudges the table not removes their hand from holding it in place. Nice try buddy, but the rules and physics seem to dissagree with you.

Ah, ya must have misread that part about agreeing on it last night. Sorry, was kind of out of it.

Yes, I saw the mention of delicately balancing it in place but that's hardly cause for saying you must have been able to place it there as there are other rules that dictate where a model can and can't be placed.

Have (agreed and know) not (Have agreed) and (know)

a·gree
   [uh-gree] Show IPA verb, a·greed, a·gree·ing.

verb (used without object)
1.
to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often followed by with ): I don't agree with you.

2.
to give consent; assent (often followed by to ): He agreed to accompany the ambassador. Do you agree to the conditions?

3.
to live in concord or without contention; get along together.

4.
to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement: They have agreed on the terms of surrender.

5.
to be consistent; harmonize (usually followed by with ): This story agrees with hers.

Agree and know just means you can not keep the actual location secret.

One player moves his model onto a steep hill and it keeps falling over, so he holds it there and says this is where this guy is.

Now both players agree on the location, and know the location of the model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Agree and know just means you can not keep the actual location secret.

One player moves his model onto a steep hill and it keeps falling over, so he holds it there and says this is where this guy is.

Now both players agree on the location, and know the location of the model.

No, sorry, that's not what it says, First, the example you gave is not correct as the model would have to be able to remain where the owning player placed it on said hill merely at risk of a fall if someone were to nudge the table, that's right there in wms. There is no mention of "would fall the second the player removes his hand". Second, if both players don't agree, what would you say is the next course of action? Where's the sentance under wms that says "if your opponent does not agree, f**k him and do whatever you want"?

What's so hard to understand about the statement "as long as"?

Johnny: "Hey mom, can I go to Billy's?"

Mom: "You can go to Billy's as long as you clean your room."

See, if Johnny doesn't clean his room, he won't be allowed to go to Billy's.




disagree [ˌdɪsəˈgriː]
vb -grees, -greeing, -greed (intr; often foll by with)
1. to dissent in opinion (from another person) or dispute (about an idea, fact, etc.)
2. to fail to correspond; conflict
3. to be unacceptable (to) or unfavourable (for); be incompatible (with) curry disagrees with me
4. to be opposed (to) in principle

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Agree and know just means you can not keep the actual location secret.

One player moves his model onto a steep hill and it keeps falling over, so he holds it there and says this is where this guy is.

Now both players agree on the location, and know the location of the model.

No, sorry, that's not what it says, First, the example you gave is not correct as the model would have to be able to remain where the owning player placed it on said hill merely at risk of a fall if someone were to nudge the table, that's right there in wms. There is no mention of "would fall the second the player removes his hand". Second, if both players don't agree, what would you say is the next course of action? Where's the sentance under wms that says "if your opponent does not agree, f**k him and do whatever you want"?

How can he not agree? The location of the model can't really be disputed - it's right there on the table. He also knows the location of the model - it's right there on the table.
Does he think it should be a quarter of an inch back? Sure. Move it until you both agree on the location.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Agree and know just means you can not keep the actual location secret.

One player moves his model onto a steep hill and it keeps falling over, so he holds it there and says this is where this guy is.

Now both players agree on the location, and know the location of the model.

No, sorry, that's not what it says, First, the example you gave is not correct as the model would have to be able to remain where the owning player placed it on said hill merely at risk of a fall if someone were to nudge the table, that's right there in wms. There is no mention of "would fall the second the player removes his hand". Second, if both players don't agree, what would you say is the next course of action? Where's the sentance under wms that says "if your opponent does not agree, f**k him and do whatever you want"?

How can he not agree? The location of the model can't really be disputed - it's right there on the table. He also knows the location of the model - it's right there on the table.
Does he think it should be a quarter of an inch back? Sure. Move it until you both agree on the location.

The opponent could dissagree because the entire premise of the move is absurd and outside the intent and purpose of the wobbly model syndrome rule. Because the move is proven to not fit the criteria whatsoever (IE a lot of the examples given where physics quite frankly isn't playing ball and the second the owning player removes his hand and lets go of the model it falls, as opposed to say it tenuously balances there until someone nudges the table, as stated in the rules).

First off we know what agree and disagree mean, you do not have to post dictionary definitions of them, and of course it is against forum rules to do so in this situation.

rigeld2 wrote:
How can he not agree? The location of the model can't really be disputed - it's right there on the table. He also knows the location of the model - it's right there on the table.
Does he think it should be a quarter of an inch back? Sure. Move it until you both agree on the location.

Rig is 100% correct.

The location of the model can't really be disputed.

 Crablezworth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Agree and know just means you can not keep the actual location secret.

One player moves his model onto a steep hill and it keeps falling over, so he holds it there and says this is where this guy is.

Now both players agree on the location, and know the location of the model.

No, sorry, that's not what it says, First, the example you gave is not correct as the model would have to be able to remain where the owning player placed it on said hill merely at risk of a fall if someone were to nudge the table, that's right there in wms. There is no mention of "would fall the second the player removes his hand". Second, if both players don't agree, what would you say is the next course of action? Where's the sentance under wms that says "if your opponent does not agree, f**k him and do whatever you want"?

How can he not agree? The location of the model can't really be disputed - it's right there on the table. He also knows the location of the model - it's right there on the table.
Does he think it should be a quarter of an inch back? Sure. Move it until you both agree on the location.

The opponent could dissagree because the entire premise of the move is absurd and outside the intent and purpose of the wobbly model syndrome rule. That would be one example.

That's a disagreement based on implementing the WMS rule, not a disagreement on location or knowledge of location.
If you agree that WMS works, then you can look to WMS to see where you're required to agree.
You're not even passing the first requirement, meaning the 2nd is meaningless and you can't use it to argue.

Now - to address you saying that's not a proper time to use WMS - I disagree. The WMS rule says to use it in cases *like* a model falling if a table is nudged. Since, in DRs example, a model would fall without the table being nudged, I'd say that's a similar occurrence and falls under WMS.

 DeathReaper wrote:
First off we know what agree and disagree mean, you do not have to post dictionary definitions of them, and of course it is against forum rules to do so in this situation.

rigeld2 wrote:
How can he not agree? The location of the model can't really be disputed - it's right there on the table. He also knows the location of the model - it's right there on the table.
Does he think it should be a quarter of an inch back? Sure. Move it until you both agree on the location.

Rig is 100% correct.

The location of the model can't really be disputed.

The criteria you're making up to qualify as a viable move can. Full stop. .


Being able to place it somewhere delicately is part of the rule, no where does it say you can get around that. Also It doesn't say as long as your opponent is made aware of, it says as long as both players have agreed. So I gues I do actually need to explain what an agreement is...

Crable - again you have ignored that your parsing of the rule is incorrect. You have added a comma where none exists. Dont.

You have to have agreed AND know where the model is

pg 11
"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature DAMAGED or even broken. In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS HAVE AGREED and know its "actual" location. If later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight."


In cases like this, you know, where the model is balancing there but a nudge of the table makes it fall. That's a pretty big leap to jump to "or similar cases where your model is unable to levitate in the air on its own without your hand holding it there..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crable - again you have ignored that your parsing of the rule is incorrect. You have added a comma where none exists. Dont.

You have to have agreed AND know where the model is

Exactly, that would be called veto. No one as of yet has answered what happens when your opponent does not agree. No one has pointed to the rule that says "if your opponent disagrees just do it anyway" .

 Crablezworth wrote:
The criteria you're making up to qualify as a viable move can. Full stop. .

Can... be disputed? That's fine. But don't use the WMS rules to argue that.

Being able to place it somewhere delicately is part of the rule, no where does it say you can get around that. Also It doesn't say as long as your opponent is made aware of, it says as long as both players have agreed. So I gues I do actually need to explain what an agreement is...

WMS wrote:Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want.

Yup, meets this criteria.

WMS wrote:If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken.

Oh - I guess plastic and Finecast minis can't use WMS since it's not "very likely" to be damaged. Or maybe this is an example - that makes much more sense.

WMS wrote:In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

I bolded the part you're misrepresenting. "this" is referring to a potentially broken model. "cases like this" means any situation that could result in a broken model.

Could a Dreadknight on a steep hill result in a potentially broken model? I'm not sure, it depends on a lot of things. Since it's possible, however, I'd say WMS is absolutely appropriate.

What happens if your opponent does not agree on the models actual location?

You ask him why he does not agree, and move the model slightly less distance (Maybe you moved it too far) then ask him "Do you agree that this is the actual location of the model, even though it will not stay in this position for very long?"

Then when he agrees on the actual location of the model the game moves on.

rigeld2 wrote:
Could a Dreadknight on a steep hill result in a potentially broken model? I'm not sure, it depends on a lot of things. Since it's possible, however, I'd say WMS is absolutely appropriate.

I use WMS all the time with my Stormravens, they fall over on anything but a perfectly flat section of table.

Crable - any reason you felt the need to repost the rule? It's entirely not needed, especially in large font. Dont.

You seem to think that WMS requires agreement to use the rule - no, it requires agreement on the models location, and for both to know where the model is. Thats what it asks. Your parsing is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crable - any reason you felt the need to repost the rule? It's entirely not needed, especially in large font. Dont.

You seem to think that WMS requires agreement to use the rule - no, it requires agreement on the models location, and for both to know where the model is. Thats what it asks. Your parsing is wrong.

No, I'm saying the rule in istelf is a framework for coming up with an agreement, a solution to the potential problem. What you guys seem to not be understanding the problem (of which you and your opponent are attempting to find a solution) is a risk of a fall due to a table nudge, not a models inability to defy physics. That's the crux of it. If I as an opponent do not agree to and know it's actual location as I feel the move my opponent is attempting does not fit the criteria, where do you go from there? It's perfectly reasonable for me to say "show me that the model can balane there when you remove your hand".

This whole thing came up when someone inferred essentially that one shouldn't worry about a dreadknight not being able to physically be placed on the second level of a ruin (regardless of there being a discussion pre game as to the viability of a mc being able to do just that, or the physical viability of placing the model there) because with wobbly model syndrome, there's apparently no criteria and you can just put a model literally anywhere you want according to some in this thread, say the magic words "wobbly model syndrome" and somehow that will resovle the situation,

Which brings us right back to my inital point, it's not an entitlement, it's a suggested method for dealing with a very specific circumstance that is 100% dependent on both players agreeing to said solution. No where does it say can just put a model wherever you want and your opponent can go to hell.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crable - any reason you felt the need to repost the rule? It's entirely not needed, especially in large font. Dont.

You seem to think that WMS requires agreement to use the rule - no, it requires agreement on the models location, and for both to know where the model is. Thats what it asks. Your parsing is wrong.

No, I'm saying the rule in istelf is a framework for coming up with an agreement, a solution to the potential problem. What you guys seem to not be understanding the problem (of which you and your opponent are attempting to find a solution) is a risk of a fall due to a table nudge, not a models inability to defy physics. That's the crux of it. If I as an opponent do not agree to and know it's actual location as I feel the move my opponent is attempting does not fit the criteria, where of you go from there?

If you are at an impasse the game ends. If one person holds a model in a certain position and says this is the actual location, How can you disagree with that as long as the model was moved up to the number rolled on the Difficult terrain test?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Which brings us right back to my inital point, it's not an entitlement, it's a suggested method for dealing with a very specific circumstance that is 100% dependent on both players agreeing to said solution. No where does it say can just put a model wherever you want and your opponent can go to hell.

You can put the model where it can legally reach, and if it tips over, you hold it there and adjust its position slightly until you both agree on its actual position. Or if your opponent keeps disagreeing then you have to ask him why he is disagreeing with the models final resting place. If it is because you moved the model too far, then you adjust the position and carry on with the game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
No, I'm saying the rule in istelf is a framework for coming up with an agreement, a solution to the potential problem. What you guys seem to not be understanding the problem (of which you and your opponent are attempting to find a solution) is a risk of a fall due to a table nudge

Except the rule isn't limited to that. You keep saying it is, but that statement is wrong.

Crable - it is not a case of us not understanding, it is a case of your contention being incorrect.

If you are stating you cannot agree on the position, then I would ask why. Unreasonable answers, like most cases of someone breaking the social contract in the game, result in the game haltng.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The opponent could dissagree because the entire premise of the move is absurd and outside the intent and purpose of the wobbly model syndrome rule. Because the move is proven to not fit the criteria whatsoever (IE a lot of the examples given where physics quite frankly isn't playing ball and the second the owning player removes his hand and lets go of the model it falls, as opposed to say it tenuously balances there until someone nudges the table, as stated in the rules).

Unless the terrain is declared impassable, there is no conflict with physics. A player can place the model anywhere on any terrain regardless of where it can actually stand. If there is an issue with this, you should have declared that area impassable to start with, which may well resolve most of your problems with WMS.