Here's the scenario:

One of my opponent's wrecked rhinos is 2" away from an objective; there is a sister superior standing right next to the rhino. The rhino is a regular model, he didn't replace it with a damaged model or anything like that.

Here's what he does: rolls for difficult terrain (4) and dangerous terrain (passes); he then proceeds to place the sister "inside" the rhino claiming that he can move "through" the wreck and completely hides her from sight; but still within 3" of the objective... So I can't shoot her or assault her since she's completely out of sight. To be clear: he didn't physically put the model inside the rhino, just placed her on top and claimed she was hiding inside.

Here are the relevant rules I found afterwards:

BRB p.74. Wrecked Vehicles
"Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain (conferring a 5+ cover save), counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been Wrecked in a way they consider suitable."

No mention of it becoming a ruin or anything of that sort, just difficult and dangerous terrain.

BRB p.90. Moving Within Difficult Terrain
"Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle is impassable."

That seems to me to apply to ruins, or other wrecked buildings. How about a steep hill or small cliff designated as difficult and dangerous terrain? Can I just place an objective on it and hide a squad in it? Seems like a plain rule abuse to me.

What do you guys think?

Within the strict letter of the rules, yes, moving right through the wreck (or a hill) is perfectly legal. You'll get some disagreement though over whether or not you can finish the model's move inside such an obstacle, given that you can't physically put the model there. Some players would argue that WMS allows it, some think that WMS requires you to be able to physically place the model in position before it kicks in.


In general practice, it's assumed that you have to move over the wreck, though, not through it. There is not really any rules support for this idea, it's just what most people adopt as the common-sense approach, probably a lot of them without actually considering that there could be any other way to do it.

I would consider your friend's actions RAW legal (for the reasons Insaniak stated) but certainly a little bit gamey (especially since he claimed you couldn't assault/shoot the model).

In response to such a tactic, I would claim that you RAW you are perfectly within your right to assault (making the appropriate difficult/dangerous tests) and I would even argue that given his use of WMS to put the model on the top of the Rhino, it would be an appropriate compromise to allow you to claim LOS to it (albeit with a decent cover save).

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
In response to such a tactic, I would claim that you RAW you are perfectly within your right to assault (making the appropriate difficult/dangerous tests) and I would even argue that given his use of WMS to put the model on the top of the Rhino, it would be an appropriate compromise to allow you to claim LOS to it (albeit with a decent cover save).

RAW, you would be unable to assault, as you can't see the model inside the rhino. WMS doesn't cause you to trace LOS to the model's alternate position... you assume that the model is actually where it is supposed to be.

If it's physically impossible to place a standing model somewhere, you can't put it there. For him to do that he'd have to be able to place the model inside the Rhino.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If it's physically impossible to place a standing model somewhere, you can't put it there. For him to do that he'd have to be able to place the model inside the Rhino.

That's one interpretartion, yes, as I mentioned.

From my experience, it's not the common one. While people may balk at standing inside a rhino wreck, most have no problem with, for example, a model 'standing' halfway through a ruin wall.

Is there a RAW way to counteract this tactic? Especially if the piece of terrain in question is 1.5"x1.5", making it possible for a single model to sit inside it without an enemy model being able to get close enough in the Move Phase to shoot/assault.

Tank-shocking them out into the open would probably be the easiest option.

RAW doesn't support hypothetical posiitons.

If buddy rolled high enough to get to the other side of the wreck and thus out of los, that's one thing, nothing supports hypothetical posiitions. WMS the onus is on the player to show that the model can be placed there, albeit tenuously IE the slightest bump or nudge to the table will make it fall. The whole intent of the wms rule being to avoid damaging models, although some players will try and pull all sorts of horsegak.

My advice to you for future games, discuss in detail and agree on how all terrain will function before dice start rolling, that and put a heavy emphasis on making certain elements impassable. Also, never play this person again, they sound like a dangerously insane human being .


(this image is satire, it pokes fun at how some insane individuals interpret wms)

Exactly! This is a perfect application of the WMS rule. : )

Well, since your opponent was using the wrecked Rhino like a building, shouldn't you be able to shoot/assault it like one?

 Crablezworth wrote:
WMS the onus is on the player to show that the model can be placed there

This part is not true.

By default models can move through a ruined wall. there is nothing stating they can not end their move in a place they are legally allowed to go.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
WMS the onus is on the player to show that the model can be placed there

This part is not true.

By default models can move through a ruined wall. there is nothing stating they can not end their move in a place they are legally allowed to go.

There is nothing stating they can.

There's also nothing in the rules stating I can't smash my opponents models with a hammer either, sadly the rules need to give you permission to do something. The rules in this case if you're playing with melthing through stuff lets models move through stuff, it says nothing about allowing them to exist in the forth dimension wielding incomprehensible magics.

 DeathReaper wrote:
By default models can move through a ruined wall. there is nothing stating they can not end their move in a place they are legally allowed to go.

No, you have this completely backwards. You need permission to count a model as being somewhere else, otherwise you measure range and use TLOS based on its actual position on the table. And that permission is only granted in one specific situation: if you can place a model in a given location but both players agree to move it aside because there's a risk of the model falling off. You are never given permission to point at an arbitrary spot halfway through a wall and say "my model is over there".

Actually the agreement is on the actual position of the model, not that you can invoke WMS

THat is a common mis-parsing of the sentence

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually the agreement is on the actual position of the model, not that you can invoke WMS

THat is a common mis-parsing of the sentence

No. The statement:

... as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

There is only one way to interpret that: both players must agree to invoke the rule, and both players must know its 'actual' location. For the sentence to mean "both players must agree about the location" it would have to say "both players have agreed ON and know its 'actual' location."

Well said peregrine, you hit it right on the nose.

Not true - potentially in US English, but in British English that is a form of redundancy that is commonly used.

Put it this way - my parsing, in the language the book is written in, involves NOT adding additional words. Yours does.

I guess the models height does not exceed the height of the vehicle? If the models taller its always going to have its head sticking out no matter how many walls your moving through.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Put it this way - my parsing, in the language the book is written in, involves NOT adding additional words. Yours does.

No, mine doesn't. The "added" word is what you would have to add to make the sentence correct with your interpretation. You can not say "if you and your opponent agree the location", you have to include the 'on'/'about'/etc to say that. Therefore since the word is not present you have to do it the way I stated: you and your opponent must agree, and you must know the model's location.

No, your approach requires adding "...to use this rule".

Cute that you ignored that this textual redundancy is common here, almost like it didnt matter to the point.

Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in defiance of physics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, your approach requires adding "...to use this rule".

No, it just requires knowing how to read a sentence. The "agree" refers to "to leave the model in a safer position". Let's go through it step by step:

In cases like this,

Reference to the situation of having a model in a dangerous spot, not directly relevant to this question.

we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position,

This explains what we are trying to do.

as long as

This establishes that there are conditions to meet before we can do what we are trying to do.

both players have agreed

This is condition #1. Both players must agree to do the thing we are trying to do.

and

This states that there is a second condition about to be stated.

know its 'actual' location.

This is condition #2. Both players must know where the model is supposed to be.


Conclusion: both players must agree to use the rule (including agreement on how to use it, such as where the model is pretending to be).

OMG. Things like that made me quit 40k. I just had enough of using rules for cheap tricks. WMS is there only to allow you spread your wings in modelling part of the hobby, without handicaping you on the battlefield. Using the rule to brake the game and win it is just lame and childish. Seriously someone needs to win that bad in a game of toy soldiers?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in definace of physics.

Right. Because defying physics is fine, but only if you're moving...

Seriously, the rules allow a model to walk through solid objects. Why is it such a stretch of imagination then to accept the model being able to stop and stand in the middle of that solid object?



Just to be clear here, I'm still not endorsing the 'standing in the middle of a wrecked rhino' thing. I very much doubt that this was intended by the studio. However, most players (again, at least from my experience) have no problem with the idea, within the confines of a rule system that allows models to treat obstacles in difficult terrain features as intangible barriers that can be moved through, that this would mean that a model could move through part way and utilise WMS to stop there.

Whether or not you agree that this is RAW, it is common usage.


So what it really comes down to is just how far you're willing to stretch that usage. For the original example here, I think that it would be perfectly reasonable to treat the wreck as having enough damage done to it that a model inside would still be visible, to avoid this sort of shenanigans.

I don't see anything in the rules that permits you to have models in places you physically can't fit. That makes as much sense as allowing models to be "inside" a tree trunk.

There's a word for what the OP describes, and that word is "cheating". Give your opponent a slap and tell him to sort his gak out.

xruslanx wrote:
I don't see anything in the rules that permits you to have models in places you physically can't fit. That makes as much sense as allowing models to be "inside" a tree trunk.

Which, again, makes as much sense as allowing models to walk through that tree trunk, which is explicitly and unarguably allowed by the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I don't see anything in the rules that permits you to have models in places you physically can't fit. That makes as much sense as allowing models to be "inside" a tree trunk.

Which, again, makes as much sense as allowing models to walk through that tree trunk, which is explicitly and unarguably allowed by the rules.

Well, except from a rules perspective ending within then allows you to claim models are invincible because no one can see to target them, this is not an issue when you are only moving -through-.
Being able to end within, is pretty game breaking. Previosly I would have had no problems with models being partially through a wall, but with this highlighted I might need to rethink.

I really do hate this kind of argument.

The Rhino is now terrain.
It is not a multi-leveled ruin you can climb up or down.
If you stop part way through the model you would end on top of it.
It is like a hill, I do not state I want to stay a level down and burrow into the hill and how would the model meet criteria as "walls"?

Peregrine has stated it 100% correct: that permission to substitute actual location of a model needs to be agreed by both players and is a courtesy to avoid model damage which we all could appreciate.

All this does is promote making iron-clad rules like "if it does not physically fit in there, it does not go there" which is my first thought on the matter.
It is funny that adding notes as a "courtesy" by GW, it is rewarded with further ambiguity.
I really am surprised this is being argued (I suppose I really shouldn't be).

Peregrine - again, you arent actualy listening

(agree and know) is a perfectly common redundancy in British English. You cannot claim otherwise, yet you are trying to here.

To parse it the way you want requires adding additional verbiage that doesnt exist, vs a convention in colloquial english that requires no additional text.

Knowing what I actually know about British English, I'm going with the simplest explanation. Feel free to make an alternative standard if you wish

 phoenix darkus wrote:

BRB p.74. Wrecked Vehicles
"Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain (conferring a 5+ cover save), counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been Wrecked in a way they consider suitable."

I don't see how anyone can read that and say RAW, models can hide in a wrecked transport. They are completely misinterpreting the sentence. It is a piece of terrain 5+cover. They become a block of terrain and can only claim to hide if directly on the other side were LOS is blocked. "Crawling inside" still allows enemy units to shoot them they get a 5+ cover save.

Can you imagine if you shot down my Wave Serpent "wrecked it" all the occupants got out on your turn and then in my turn go back in claiming to "hide" in it. Now it has become an untouchable (at least to shooting) and invulnerable unit, Not even a bunker can claim that. No one can claim that.

The simplest answer is next time you play and you discuss terrain suggest wrecks be treated as impassible for entering, difficult and dangerous for going over. It is also permissible to build a wreck for you vehicles and leave room enough inside to allow models to stand inside.

I agree that a model could walk through the wreckage like they'd walk through a wall, or walk through the bottom of the skyshield.

All terrain is negotiable.

and I agree with Peregrine's reading on WMS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
(agree and know) is a perfectly common redundancy in British English.

Again, you can't say that because it doesn't make any sense. Separate the "and" statement and you have "agree its position and know its position" which is not allowed.

Also, a quick google search for "agree and know" comes up with hardly any results. So your "perfectly common redundancy" doesn't seem to be used very often.

To parse it the way you want requires adding additional verbiage that doesnt exist, vs a convention in colloquial english that requires no additional text.

Again, read more carefully. I'm not adding any extra words. The extra words are the ones that you would have to add to make it say what you think it says. The absence of those words means that it doesn't say what you think it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I don't see anything in the rules that permits you to have models in places you physically can't fit. That makes as much sense as allowing models to be "inside" a tree trunk.

Which, again, makes as much sense as allowing models to walk through that tree trunk, which is explicitly and unarguably allowed by the rules.

The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table. It might be unfortunate that you can't represent every "fluff" location a model should be in, but that's just what happens when you play a game with physical objects. If you can't put the model in a given position then you don't move there. Since this is YMDC and not "what is fluffy" the rules denying it are all that matter.

Peregrine - "Again, you can't say that because it doesn't make any sense. Separate the "and" statement and you have "agree its position and know its position" which is not allowed. "

So it isnt allowed because it is redundant?

Didnt I just state that it was redundant?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So it isnt allowed because it is redundant?

No, it isn't allowed because "agree the model's position" is wrong. You need to say "agree ON the model's position" or "agree ABOUT the model's position" or whatever. The absence of that word means that your interpretation can not be correct.

Ok when a vehicle is wrecked what must you do?

Under wrecked it says must immediately disembark, there are no rules allowing you to re-enter the wreck.

The other thing it says about a wreck is that it confers a 5 up cover only. Your game mate GAMED you there's no other way to look at it.

I'd agree that it seems like he abused the rules pretty hard. Wobbly model says you can agree where it is if it can't stand there. You can put it right on top of the tank so that's out, and unless he could physically fit the model IN the rhino without ripping it apart it would never be inside. You have to be able to place the model where it would go, then if it would fall or damage it you can use wobbly, since he couldn't actually place the model where he wanted it wouldn't apply. And as others have stated it only says 5+ cover save, not LOS Blocking automatically, if he's on the otherside of it, and you can't see the model sure, but not I jump in ze cover I disappear! If that was the case you could wobbly model a 5+ crater and since he can't stand there you pull him off, say he's in the crater and you can't see him because he's in cover. Next time just tell him if he wants the model in the rhino to rip the top off and prove he can put it in there.

 Kubik wrote:
OMG. Things like that made me quit 40k. I just had enough of using rules for cheap tricks. WMS is there only to allow you spread your wings in modelling part of the hobby, without handicaping you on the battlefield. Using the rule to brake the game and win it is just lame and childish. Seriously someone needs to win that bad in a game of toy soldiers?

+100 points to Kubik

And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long. You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge. And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building. If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For some reason this has pissed me off to no end, I am now going to go and rant on a soap box somewhere.

 Peregrine wrote:
The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

Why? Does a breaching charge have a motion sensor that magically re-seals the wall again? So a model has time to walk through the hole, but it re-closes itself if the model tries to stop moving?

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table.

And that's why this argument will keep coming back... because you're not going to get everyone to agree that WMS doesn't apply to this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobaram wrote:
And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long.

Only if you have LOS to the unit you are trying to assault.

You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge.

You might want to have a read of the Building rules... because you can't assault a model in a building.

You also can't assault a model completely hidden from sight behind, say, a large rock, or a single wall piece.

And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building.

Nobody was saying it was a building... although counting it as a building would actually have been a better outcome for the player trying to assault, since in that case they could have at least assaulted the building rather than not being able to attack at all.

If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.

Yes, when an unexpected loophole in the rules comes up in your game, the best response is totally to try to find ways to twist the rules yourself to one-up your opponent. That's guaranteed to get you more games in.

Alternatively, you could just discuss the issue with your opponent, explain why you think that the rule they just made use of is an unintended loophole that kind of breaks the game a little bit, and come to a compromise for how to play it in future games.

But whatever floats your boat.

this is a simple solution ..Blast the rhino ..Because it is now nothing more than a building with Av -11??
So blow it up and the model along with it ..just as if the model had entered a bunker and every glancing/penetrating hit then causes a wound to the unit inside the bunker..if he disagrees then you can see it and you can shoot at the model with a cover save ..its one way or the other since the unit in question does not have move thru over or other hiding type rule

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

Why? Does a breaching charge have a motion sensor that magically re-seals the wall again? So a model has time to walk through the hole, but it re-closes itself if the model tries to stop moving?

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table.

And that's why this argument will keep coming back... because you're not going to get everyone to agree that WMS doesn't apply to this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobaram wrote:
And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long.

Only if you have LOS to the unit you are trying to assault.

You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge.

You might want to have a read of the Building rules... because you can't assault a model in a building.

You also can't assault a model completely hidden from sight behind, say, a large rock, or a single wall piece.

And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building.

Nobody was saying it was a building... although counting it as a building would actually have been a better outcome for the player trying to assault, since in that case they could have at least assaulted the building rather than not being able to attack at all.

If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.

Yes, when an unexpected loophole in the rules comes up in your game, the best response is totally to try to find ways to twist the rules yourself to one-up your opponent. That's guaranteed to get you more games in.

Alternatively, you could just discuss the issue with your opponent, explain why you think that the rule they just made use of is an unintended loophole that kind of breaks the game a little bit, and come to a compromise for how to play it in future games.

But whatever floats your boat.

Do you have a raw argument? I mean just saying some players commonly misinterpret wms to allow you to do this isn't an argument for allowing it to happen.

The RAW for allowing WMS has already been presented earlier in the thread. There's not really much point in me repeating it. Particularly since the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere different to the last WMS discussion.

The only legal way for this to occur is for there to be an open hatch on the Rhino that will allow a model to enter and exit and be visible from said entry and exit.

Otherwise there is no permission to Embark into wrecks, nor is there permission to burrow through terrain and stop "inside" it.

the trouble is the wreck is essentially just a a collection of solid walls that are not impassable terrain by default. Moving through a wall is completely legal, even if that wall blocks line of sight. so you don't embark into a wreck, or occupy it. You just step inside.


The idioms of agree in the English language allow for this sentence "It is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location." to mean "It is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed to its 'actual' location and know its 'actual' location."

So, while you don't need to agree to use WMS, you do need to agree to where the model should be.

Now, the part I use in my game. "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." We take this to mean if you can't physically hold the model in place, it can not actually be there. This prevents models from going inside solid terrain pieces or being half in a wall.

 DJGietzen wrote:
the trouble is the wreck is essentially just a a collection of solid walls that are not impassable terrain by default.

Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems. And why should we make assumptions that cause problems?

DJ - careful, peregrine will tell you youre wrong, repeatedly, if you dare state that idiomatic English allows that.

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

I do not see how you can compare hills to "closed doors, walls and windows" to justify RAW on that statement.

Fragile wrote:
I do not see how you can compare hills to "closed doors, walls and windows" to justify RAW on that statement.

I don't. I'm looking at the difficult terrain rules, not the Ruin rules, because a wrecked vehicle is not a Ruin.

Are you? Because "walls, closed doors, and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles" is the relevant quote from the difficult terrain section. I challenge the assumption that a hill is similar.

Keep in mind also that this is referring to these as difficult terrain as opposed to impassable. A vehicle is already difficult (and dangerous), and not impassable, terrain.

Pyrian wrote:
A vehicle is already difficult (and dangerous), and not impassable, terrain.

No it isn't.

Or did you mean a wrecked vehicle?


If so, I'm still not sure what your point is.

My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

"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." pg 11, BRB, Wobbly Model Snyndrome

Edit: PS: If it was me in your shoes I would then look my opponent in the eye and tell him to do as the rules say or concede...

Edit 2: Damn, missed that it had been quoted! Well, I take it to mean something slightly different anyway.

 Abandon wrote:
My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

It was a wonky move and I think most here agree with this sentiment. My advice is next time make them replace the wreck with a crater... That solves everything and we don't have to argue it ad nauseum for however many pages.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

No problem there either, I'll just use Psychic Shriek and declare the game a draw. I know RAW shenanigans to They don't make for fun games though.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

Being unable to follow a rule is not the same as being unwilling to.

If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

Being unable to follow a rule is not the same as being unwilling to.

If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

A very good point. How ever you want to look at it though, enacting the scenario and forcing the point is just the catalyst for a larger conversation with the gaming group and as I don't see any obvious RAW answer I think the 'house' is going to end up making the call for RAI or HYWPI no matter what I say here. As the question was RAW I did not want to lead things off topic with either of those.

Pointing out how you would choose to resolve a situation not covered by the rules is not off-topic in a thread discussing that situation.

Pyrian - the phrase is "similarly solid"

The similarity is in the solidity. And, I would say a hill is approximately as solid as a 40k wall. What differs is thickness, but that isnt a solidity comparison any longer.

If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

This will, undoubtedly turn into a RAI debate. If you're in a friendly game, decide if the argument is worth the time. If your in a tournament call a TO over to settle it. You might loose.

 insaniak wrote:
If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

Fortunately the rules do not allow you to place models in any location where you would be unable to put them back to check range/LOS, so this situation will never come up. It's nice how consistently the rules work sometimes.

This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

 Crimson wrote:
This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

I think these forums are here to discuss what the actual rules say, not how you feel is right or wrong.

Polecat wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This is one of the situations where it is utterly immaterial what the rules actually say. Anyone trying this is a dick, simple as that. This is like actually trying to claim in a game that Wraithguard cannot shoot as they have no eyes.

I think these forums are here to discuss what the actual rules say, not how you feel is right or wrong.

The forums are here to discuss the rules. What the rules say, how you interpret them and what you think of them is all included. I havn't seen anything asking me to not post an opinion here.

Once a vehicle is Wrecked, arent the occupants forced to disembark? This would likely be due to the fluff reasoning of it not being safe to be inside like a radiation leak or some such irrelevant. I have never seen anyone able to go back inside a Wrecked vehicle... I would say that the cover, difficult and dangerous terrain is based upon climbing on top of the Wreck. I dont have my book with me at work but I would look under the Wreck and disembarking rules for more of an answer.

For myself, if I ever had someone try this against me and insisted they could, I would dice off for the rules to move on, and not play the scammer again. 9-)

Ok, for future thoughts, if we were to agree that wrecked vehicles are impassible terrain for purposes of moving inside them (either by TO ruling or player agreement) would you then have to spend movement to move up a level like you would a building?

Also if this were to apply, Rinos or any of the Box vehicles are easy to consider movement on but what about Eldar Falcon Chasis or (heaven forbid) a wrecked Monolith?

I dont think climbing on to a vehicle would use the same rules as climbing up levels in a ruin. But it would be "difficult and dangerous" to climb over a wrecked vehicle, hence those rolls. Makes sense to me.

I am glad to see so many see this for what it is. It is sad to see others attempt to justify it for whatever pretense.

This thread made me think, but what if the model is actually able to fit where you want it to?

Not with a wrecked vehicle, but lets use the WMS partner the Skyshield. You can actually fit smaller models inside the legs, and leave them there to check LOS.

If the biggest RAW against hiding in stuff is being able to hold the model back where it is supposed to be, then when the models itself fits nicely in the skyshields legs with the objective just next to the leg everything should be 100% raw

For the record I've never tried this, but it could be something interesting to do in a tourny

After reading this thread, I have a new plan:
I will construct a single-level ruin without a roof, with window-less, door-less walls in a square about 5"x5". There will be no LoS into this square. I will place my Purgation Squad inside the square, in a way that is impossible for enemy units to gain LoS (because my models will be up against the wall, and the enemy can't get w/i 1"). The Purgation Squad, not needing LoS to shoot, will then fire happily away with 16 S7 Rending shots per phase. (I'll of course TL them, and hope for 'Perfect Timing' also.)
I'll target any Barrage weapons first, and hope they don't have a Callidus Assassin or Purgation Squad of their own.

I'll probably only be able to use this trick once per opponent, but it will be quite unsportsmanlike and exciting!

SaganGree wrote:
Ok, for future thoughts, if we were to agree that wrecked vehicles are impassible terrain for purposes of moving inside them (either by TO ruling or player agreement) would you then have to spend movement to move up a level like you would a building?

No. The ONLY time you spend a fixed amount of movement to go up or down is in multi-level ruins (ruins according to the rules, not just any terrain that looks kind of like a ruin). In any other situation you measure from the model's initial location to its final location, including any vertical distance, and compare that to its maximum movement value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
After reading this thread, I have a new plan:
I will construct a single-level ruin without a roof, with window-less, door-less walls in a square about 5"x5". There will be no LoS into this square. I will place my Purgation Squad inside the square, in a way that is impossible for enemy units to gain LoS (because my models will be up against the wall, and the enemy can't get w/i 1"). The Purgation Squad, not needing LoS to shoot, will then fire happily away with 16 S7 Rending shots per phase. (I'll of course TL them, and hope for 'Perfect Timing' also.)

If you're going to do that you might as well just make the entire table lethal terrain for your opponent's army. If you're going to make TFG terrain at least do it right.

I would have simply thought being in/on the wrecked vehicle (now being terrain) would simply give a 5+ cover save and count as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Simple really

Thats how we play it, it only blocks line of site if you are behind it kinda thing.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

This will, undoubtedly turn into a RAI debate. If you're in a friendly game, decide if the argument is worth the time. If your in a tournament call a TO over to settle it. You might loose.

I agree with this, though I doubt the "you might lose" part. I find it hard to imagine a TO of any stripe allowing a model to stop inside a wreck or hill.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you want a RAW defense against this tactic here you go.

The RAW allows you to move through doors, windows,walls and similarly solid objects.

Claim a steep hill or battlefield wreckage is not a similarity solid object because the 4 things listed are barriers that you pass from one side to the other, and never remain within.

Note that the rule allows models the move through these obstacles, not remain within them.

Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Mention that impassible terrain is where models physically cannot be placed. The surface of a steep hill or battlefield wreckage would be difficult terrain, but the interior would be impassible.

This point is not true unless both parties agree pre-game that this is true.

If WMS is being tossed about, don't agree the model's actual position is inside the terrain. Reference Points 1 and 2 if needed.

Which of course, does not matter. There can be no argument when you opponent points to a specific location and declares that is where the model is. it really is indisputable.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am glad to see so many see this for what it is. It is sad to see others attempt to justify it for whatever pretense.

Nobody in this thread has been trying to justify it.

Pointing out that the rules are a little screwy is not an argument for actually playing the game that way. It's just pointing out that the rules are a little screwy.

The rules aren't screwy but that is what you want us to believe. According to you my guardians can dig inside a hill to prevent being in enemy LoS. I don't think you're going to find many people that would agree to that.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The rules aren't screwy but that is what you want us to believe. According to you my guardians can dig inside a hill to prevent being in enemy LoS. I don't think you're going to find many people that would agree to that.

I don't 'want' you to believe anything. This is a discussion of the rules. So I present my opinion on how the rules work. You can agree or disagree.

So far as pure RAW is concerned, as I read it, yes, your Guardians can walk into the middle of the hill. That doesn't mean that I think the game should be played that way, just that it's how the rules are written, as I read them.

The thing is, players are going to have to decide for themselves just where to draw the line. The difficult terrain rules specifically allow you to walk through elements of that terrain. Nobody has an issue with it when what you are trying to walk through is a wall or a small rock or a bush...but just how big can the obstacle be before models can no longer walk through it? The rules make no distinction (particularly if you go by the popular interpretation of WMS that models can stop partway through difficult terrain elements) ... so players are just going to have to figure out for themselves what they will and won't allow.


This isn't me trying to push an odd interpretation of the rules on people. It's me pointing out that, in my opinion, the rules on difficult terrain are a mess and players are going to have to make them work as best they see fit.

BRB p.90. Moving Within Difficult Terrain
"Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle is impassable."

as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows and all similarly solid obstacles,

The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it. It says absolutely nothing about you can move inside of dangerous terrain. If so we'd already be doing this with just about any large hill that has rocks.

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

@ insaniak - you make things way too difficult for nothing gained. Your PoV is peculiar.

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

agreed. You have to go 'inside' the terrain to go 'through' the terrain. But through mean to go in one side and out the other. Game Workshop has alternatively used "within" or "enter" when the movement can end before reaching the other side. If you could enter a wall, or move withing it you'd be ok. But you have to move through it and that means you can't end still inside. That is the argument I'd use to (hopefully) stop a bunch of shenanigans.

I'd also point out that if you can't physically place the model there it must be impassible terrain so inside of wrecks is impassible, surface of wrecks are difficult.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
@ insaniak - you make things way too difficult for nothing gained. Your PoV is peculiar.

Odd, I don't recall having anything to do with the writing of the 6th edition rules...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
But through mean to go in one side and out the other.

No it doesn't. If you're swimming in a bowl of treacle, you're moving through treacle. 'Through' simply means 'passing within'... It doesn't have to mean you come out the other side at all.

Otherwise the 'Move Through Cover'rule would suddenly be a whole lot less useful...

 insaniak wrote:
Pointing out how you would choose to resolve a situation not covered by the rules is not off-topic in a thread discussing that situation.

Thought the OP was asking for RAW. How I'd handle it is get my gaming group it house rule it and I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. I'd then point out that the alternative is game-breaking and imply that it is absurd.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. .

So no ending movement inside a forest?

Or a crater?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
The rule says you can move through terrain not inside it.

How do you move through something without ever being inside it...?

agreed. You have to go 'inside' the terrain to go 'through' the terrain. But through mean to go in one side and out the other. Game Workshop has alternatively used "within" or "enter" when the movement can end before reaching the other side. If you could enter a wall, or move withing it you'd be ok. But you have to move through it and that means you can't end still inside. That is the argument I'd use to (hopefully) stop a bunch of shenanigans.

I'd also point out that if you can't physically place the model there it must be impassible terrain so inside of wrecks is impassible, surface of wrecks are difficult.

You are looking with a rather narrow perspective at a word with fairly broad meaning. You can move through time without passing into or outside of it. You can move though a room without entering or leaving. You can even go through a desk without ever even being inside. At best this is an RAI argument for what they meant by 'move through' but I find no supporting text even among your examples that would indicate a limit on the possible definitions of the word in this context. HYWPI is the best that can be done IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd suggest not letting players end a units movement inside a piece of terrain that is not a Ruin or Building and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain. .

So no ending movement inside a forest?

Or a crater?

Abandon wrote: and that in game terms being on top of is considered 'within' the terrain.

That being on top of the forest terrain piece is considered within that terrain type. Sorry if I was not clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Please cite the rule where it says this. You are granted permission to trace a model's movement path through certain obstacles, but you are not ever given permission to point at a spot and declare that the model is ending its move there without actually placing the model in that location.

Wow, OK so how do we represent a rhino full of dudes that isn't wrecked? We put a couple on top... Now it's a wreck...the doors have been blown off, we still can't fit any figs in there so what do we do? We put him {them} on top to represent being in "difficult terrain/ruins" which the brb says confers a 5+ cover save, meaning they can be shot at/assaulted, the wreck is essentially a shed!

First post on Dakka......woot

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Please cite the rule where it says this. You are granted permission to trace a model's movement path through certain obstacles, but you are not ever given permission to point at a spot and declare that the model is ending its move there without actually placing the model in that location.

Exactly, the rules give you permission to pass through certain objects (walls as an example), the rules never give you permission to stop while within them.

Imagine a wild west sheriff and he tells ya that you have permission to pass through his roadblock, where does that give you permission to stop? And if you did just stop while moving through the sheriff's barricade, do you think the sheriff would be happy about that?

He might even say something like "Did I give you permission to stop boy!?" in a deep southern accent.

There are plenty of places where the rulebook mentions "only if the model can physically fit there", ruins for example being one of them. That right there is an indication that even gw kinda factors in physics on rare occasions.



(the rules also allow for you and your opponent to play just about any terrain piece or feature as impassable, it's what some might call a more common sense aproach especially with very involved terrain pieces that can comprise of several different things)

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not true, the allowance to move through is allowance to end the move at that location.

Please cite the rule where it says this. You are granted permission to trace a model's movement path through certain obstacles, but you are not ever given permission to point at a spot and declare that the model is ending its move there without actually placing the model in that location.

In the rules that allow you to freely move through a wall as if it were not there with a DT test.

You need to find a restriction on a model not being able to stop in a place it is legally allowed to go. Not the other way around...

 DeathReaper wrote:
You need to find a restriction on a model not being able to stop in a place it is legally allowed to go. Not the other way around...

No, you have this completely backwards again. You need permission to treat a model as being somewhere other than the exact spot that it is in on the table. The fact that the laws of physics do not allow you to place a model in a location that you would like to place it in, even one where the rules of the game would have no objection, does not change this fact. If you don't place a model in a spot then it hasn't moved there.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
@ insaniak - you make things way too difficult for nothing gained. Your PoV is peculiar.

Odd, I don't recall having anything to do with the writing of the 6th edition rules...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
But through mean to go in one side and out the other.

No it doesn't. If you're swimming in a bowl of treacle, you're moving through treacle. 'Through' simply means 'passing within'... It doesn't have to mean you come out the other side at all.

Otherwise the 'Move Through Cover'rule would suddenly be a whole lot less useful...

Ok, I'll give you that. GW uses through and within interchangeably (and incorrectly).

 Peregrine wrote:
If you don't place a model in a spot then it hasn't moved there.

Why not?

WMS says that you leave the model somewhere else. Not that you place it an then move it somewhere else.

 insaniak wrote:
WMS says that you leave the model somewhere else. Not that you place it an then move it somewhere else.

The WMS rule:

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 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 opponent is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight.

Highlighted parts in order:

1) WMS describes the permitted situation as when it is hard to place a model. Hard, not impossible. Balancing a model on top of an uneven bit of rubble at the top of a tall ruin is hard. Placing a model inside another object is impossible.

2) WMS describes the permitted situation as balancing a model, not being unable to place it at all (for example, because you are trying to make two pieces of plastic occupy the same space).

3) WMS is permitted in cases like the ones previously described. Now you have the burden of proof to establish that a case where the laws of physics do not permit you to place a model where you want is sufficiently similar to one where you could place the model if you try hard enough, but would risk dropping it.

4) WMS allows you to place the model in a safer position, not in a more convenient position. Again, reinforcing the fact that WMS is only allowed when the issue is protecting a model.

5) WMS requires you to hold the model in place to check LOS, something that would be impossible if the model must be placed inside another object. And no, the argument that this happens later so it's irrelevant doesn't work. Not only does it reinforce the argument that WMS is only about model safety, not extra movement options, as soon as I declare that I want to check LOS to your physics-defying model you are cheating.


Conclusion: WMS only applies when you are able to place a model in a desired location but are concerned about knocking it off that spot. You are NOT permitted to use WMS to point at an arbitrary spot inside of a hill and declare that your model is standing there.

BRB p.74. Wrecked Vehicles
"Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain (conferring a 5+ cover save), counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been Wrecked in a way they consider suitable."

-they- consider suitable guys.. -they-. The Rhino you are using as a 'counts as' wreck should not provide LOS blocking like an unscratched model. Nobody is agreeing to a Rhino you can stand inside of and gain LOS blocks from everything. The mutual agreement clause is right in the rules.

 Rismonite wrote:
BRB p.74. Wrecked Vehicles
"Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain (conferring a 5+ cover save), counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been Wrecked in a way they consider suitable."

-they- consider suitable guys.. -they-. The Rhino you are using as a 'counts as' wreck should not provide LOS blocking like an unscratched model. Nobody is agreeing to a Rhino you can stand inside of and gain LOS blocks from everything. The mutual agreement clause is right in the rules.

You should not be removing the vehicle model from the table as wrecked vehicles are left on the table. They will block LoS (not LOS as 'of' does not get capitalized) just like they did before. You are only given permission to mark the vehicle as a wreck in a mutually agreeable way. Marking it and replacing it are different things.

So I'm gonna move my model inside here and gain los on all sides ok? "I do not agree to that"

Raw doesn't seem to matter in this one. Both rules say the players must mutually agree to placement.

Just say no and move on.

 Peregrine wrote:

The WMS rule:

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 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 opponent is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight.

Nothing in that rule says that the model physically had to be placed in the position before you put it somewhere else. This is an assumption that you have made.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The WMS rule:

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 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 opponent is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight.

Nothing in that rule says that the model physically had to be placed in the position before you put it somewhere else. This is an assumption that you have made.

I specifically want to see you delicately hold your model inside the rhino while I check for LOS.

EDIT I don't mean it rude, just a lulz point I wanted to make about the ridiculous in this. Honestly if I dont agree that you can be wholey inside the dangerous terrain I don't see how we agree the model can be there.

 Rismonite wrote:
I specifically want to see you delicately hold your model inside the rhino while I check for LOS.

We already covered that.


Just to be clear here, once again, I am not arguing that anyone should actually play with models being allowed to hide inside wrecks. Just pointing out that the rules covering the situation are a little messy.


Not allowing the model to finish its movement there is one potential house rule to get around the problem. As I suggested earlier in the thread, just assuming that the model inside is visible but in cover would be another.

Read the thread, and it seems like the ability to "move through" is granted but not the ability to 'stop inside of.' So, doesn't ending movement in a wall/hill/wreck require using WMS which the requires consent, making this whole thing kind of moot at this point?

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
I specifically want to see you delicately hold your model inside the rhino while I check for LOS.

We already covered that.


Just to be clear here, once again, I am not arguing that anyone should actually play with models being allowed to hide inside wrecks. Just pointing out that the rules covering the situation are a little messy.


Not allowing the model to finish its movement there is one potential house rule to get around the problem. As I suggested earlier in the thread, just assuming that the model inside is visible but in cover would be another.

But you are arguing for it. The rules are only messy if you try to stretch them in a direction. WMS describes the reasoning for it, DT explains what examples you can move through solid items. Neither have an allowance for blanket burrowing through terrain, which you are advocating.

You should have used the True LoS rules against him (for being a DB with such a cheesy move) and told him the ONLY way he can hide the model "inside" the wrecked tank is to actually place the model INSIDE the tank. Since the model was on top of the tank, you may draw LoS to the model and shoot it dead (granting the appropriate cover save of course).

Fragile wrote:

But you are arguing for it. The rules are only messy if you try to stretch them in a direction. WMS describes the reasoning for it, DT explains what examples you can move through solid items. Neither have an allowance for blanket burrowing through terrain, which you are advocating.

And, again, I explained why.

The rules give examples of things that can be moved through... But examples are not exhaustive, they are just examples. So it's left up to players to determine just what can be moved through, which is sloppy design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rapture wrote:
Read the thread, and it seems like the ability to "move through" is granted but not the ability to 'stop inside of.'

'move through' does not automatically mean 'move completely through from one side to the other, in one single movement'.

Otherwise, again, Move Through Cover will only give a benefit if a model starts and finishes their movement outside the terrain as well...

The idea that you can end a move in a place where the model cannot physically exist is a complete fabrication and no way supported by the rules. You could just as well move directly upwards and use WMS to claim that the models actual position is six inches above the tabletop.

 insaniak wrote:

'move through' does not automatically mean 'move completely through from one side to the other, in one single movement'.

Otherwise, again, Move Through Cover will only give a benefit if a model starts and finishes their movement outside the terrain as well...

I don't understand - the definition of 'through' seems to mean exactly that. 'Through' means 'through.' Nothing more and nothing less. Anything else taken from the word of the rule would have to be implied and if we are resorting to what is implied, then this whole conversation is worthless as the avoidance of abuse like this is always implied in GW's rules. For example, if a TSA representative told you to walk 'through' a metal detector at the airport, that is an express statement that is meant to be taken literally, meaning that you cannot stop in the middle of the device, but must walk 'through' it to the opposite side.

I also don't understand what you mean about MTC. The trigger for that rules is "when rolling to move through difficult terrain," which you can do regardless of where you start or end you move provided that at any point the unit is required to roll for difficult terrain.

 Crimson wrote:
The idea that you can end a move in a place where the model cannot physically exist is a complete fabrication and no way supported by the rules.

As noted my Insaniak, your statement is not true.

You could just as well move directly upwards and use WMS to claim that the models actual position is six inches above the tabletop.

This is "no way supported by the rules." though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You could just as well move directly upwards and use WMS to claim that the models actual position is six inches above the tabletop.

This is "no way supported by the rules." though.

I couldn't find a rule that says in which direction moves may be made. This is actually more valid use of WMS, as then you could at least hold the model in the air for LoS purposes as instructed.
(Or then we could just accept that rules are written with the assumption that laws of physics must be followed when placing the models.)

Rapture wrote:

I don't understand - the definition of 'through' seems to mean exactly that. 'Through' means 'through.' Nothing more and nothing less. Anything else taken from the word of the rule would have to be implied and if we are resorting to what is implied, then this whole conversation is worthless as the avoidance of abuse like this is always implied in GW's rules. For example, if a TSA representative told you to walk 'through' a metal detector at the airport, that is an express statement that is meant to be taken literally, meaning that you cannot stop in the middle of the device, but must walk 'through' it to the opposite side.

That's only one usage of the word, though. Moving 'within' is also moving 'through'. See my treacle example from earlier.

There is also, a I said, no time limit. In your metal detector example, yes, you would be expected to move through without stopping. But that's because people don't generally walk 6 inches and then stop and wait for everyone else to have a go before moving further.

If you move a model into a terrain piece this turn, and then move it out the other side of the retain piece next turn, the model moved through the terrain piece. It just didn't do it in one hit.

I also don't understand what you mean about MTC. The trigger for that rules is "when rolling to move through difficult terrain," which you can do regardless of where you start or end you move provided that at any point the unit is required to roll for difficult terrain.

If you interpret 'through' as meaning 'completely through from one side to the other in a single movement phase as people are doing here with the difficult terrain rules, then MTC will only give a model a bonus movement die if the model moves completely through the terrain from one side to another in a single movement phase.

The wreck is difficult and dangerous terrain period. It's not something someone can embark within.

If there were holes in the doors, like open doors (which most Rhinos do not have modeled as such) then the model could move through the door, in which case it could be shot at and assaulted assuming someone from the offensive unit could see inside the Rhino.

If the doors were closed then the model could not open them, as it's just plain DnD terrain, not something to be opened and embarked within, and the model would have to move onto or over the Rhino.

Models do not get to move pieces of terrain, like opening a door either. If it's a wreck, that damn door wouldn't work!

Nobody is saying that the rhino can be embarked into. But as difficult terrain, a model can technically move through it.

Trees and rocks don't have functional doors either, but can be moved through because of the same rule.

You're attempting to say that moves through is the same as move into, which is false.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You're attempting to say that moves through is the same as move into, which is false.

So a model with MTC in open terrain, moving into a forest base, rolls how many dice?

As above. Stating "moves through" can only mean "moves completely through" is adding in a qualifier that does not exist - the clue is, you have to add additional words to get to the phrase you are claiming is written.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You could just as well move directly upwards and use WMS to claim that the models actual position is six inches above the tabletop.

This is "no way supported by the rules." though.

I couldn't find a rule that says in which direction moves may be made. This is actually more valid use of WMS, as then you could at least hold the model in the air for LoS purposes as instructed.
(Or then we could just accept that rules are written with the assumption that laws of physics must be followed when placing the models.)

Well the only allowance is lateral movement, except in ruins that specify you can move vertically...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Stating "moves through" can only mean "moves completely through" is adding in a qualifier that does not exist - the clue is, you have to add additional words to get to the phrase you are claiming is written.

completely through and through are the same thing, the completely is redundant. The definition of through is clear. You go in one side and come out the other.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/through?q=through
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/through_1?q=through
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=through&submit.x=48&submit.y=15
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/through?s=t

Trouble is, as it has been pointed out in this thread, Games Workshop has used "through" where they should have used "within" on more then one occasion. So the definition of "through"has no weight on the discussion.

The second adverb bullet in your first link is the definition of 'through' that GW are using here. It's not incorrect at all.

It's also the second definition in your third link. So both UK and US usage allows that definition.

through


/θruː/

preposition & adverb

preposition: through; adverb: through

1. moving in one side and out of the other side of (an opening, channel, or location).

"stepping boldly through the doorway"

synonyms:

into and out of, to the other/far side of, from one side of … to the other, from end to end of, between, past, by, down, along, across, by way of, via; More

throughout, around in, all over

"it takes about twenty-five minutes to get through the tunnel"

from one side to the other, from one end to another, from end to end, from side to side, from top to bottom, in and out the other end/side

"cosmic rays strike against atoms in the atmosphere as they pass through"


so as to make a hole or opening in (a physical object).


"the lorry smashed through a brick wall"



moving around or from one side to the other within (a crowd or group).


"making my way through the guests"

so as to be perceived from the other side of (an intervening obstacle).

the sun was streaming in through the window"

expressing the position or location of something beyond or at the far end of (an opening or an obstacle).

"the approach to the church is through a gate"

expressing the extent of turning from one orientation to another.


"each joint can move through an angle within fixed limits"

 insaniak wrote:
The second adverb bullet in your first link is the definition of 'through' that GW are using here. It's not incorrect at all.

It's also the second definition in your third link. So both UK and US usage allows that definition.

allow for it yes, it is an acceptable word to describe the action.It is not the best word to describe the action. The best word to use is "within".

I guess I should have said they used it improperly.

The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

It's rare form to see a moderator trolling their own forum.

Rapture wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

If it is a legal place you are allowed to be then cite the rule that restricts stopping there. Page and Graph please.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

If it is a legal place you are allowed to be then cite the rule that restricts stopping there. Page and Graph please.

Cite the rule that allows it.

That argument is missing the point. You don't need permission to stop somewhere, but that has nothing to do with the reason why you can't stop inside of terrain. You need permission to draw LOS or measure range to a model in any way other than using its actual position on the table, and you are never given permission to just point to an arbitrary spot and say "my model is there". If you have not placed the model in a given location then it doesn't matter whether or not that location could be a legal move if you had placed it there, you didn't do it and so you didn't move there*.


*Excluding WMS, which is not relevant here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Nothing in that rule says that the model physically had to be placed in the position before you put it somewhere else. This is an assumption that you have made.

No, it's not an assumption at all. The rules say perfectly clearly that you have to demonstrate that it is hard to place the model in a spot, not impossible. IOW, you at least have to put it there and try to balance it with a plausible chance of success, even if you don't spend 15 minutes trying to get it perfect. And then the rules also state that you have to put the model in the desired spot if your opponent wants to check LOS, which is not possible if you are not able to place the model there prior to moving.

So I suppose technically you could move somewhere without placing the model there first (and demonstrate "hard" vs. "impossible" another way), but as soon as you do it I'm going to check LOS and force you to either put it there or admit to being a cheater. You're not gaining any advantage by refusing to place the model in that spot, so I don't see any point in continuing to push for that interpretation.

Rapture wrote:

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

By that logic, movement to any open surface on the table would be illegal...


But again, permission to move through something does not equal a requirement to move through it in a single turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's rare form to see a moderator trolling their own forum.

The fact that you disagree with an interpretation of the rules does not make it trolling.

Is what happened to OP legal? Probably.
Does it make the guy a TFG? In my opinion: yes.
Would I have to take the time to go over every piece of terrain with him before I play him? Sadly, yes.
Would I just avoid that trouble and not play that person? Yup.

If you have to play somebody like that, just do the "take vehicle off the table, place craters" thing and safe yourself a headache.

 Peregrine wrote:

So I suppose technically you could move somewhere without placing the model there first (and demonstrate "hard" vs. "impossible" another way), but as soon as you do it I'm going to check LOS and force you to either put it there or admit to being a cheater. You're not gaining any advantage by refusing to place the model in that spot, so I don't see any point in continuing to push for that interpretation.

Not considering whether or not you are going to want to draw LOS to the model when I place it doesn't make me a cheater. And not being able to place the model in place when you want to simply means that the movement rules allow for a situation where the LOS rules can not be followed. Or in other words, the rules in this situation are broken, which has been my point all the way through this thread.

I'm not looking for an advantage. I'm not advocating playing this way. I'm simply pointing out that there rules covering this situation are inadequate, and players are going to have to decide for themselves how to deal with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Would I have to take the time to go over every piece of terrain with him before I play him? Sadly, yes.

You should be doing that anyway...

If you have to play somebody like that, just do the "take vehicle off the table, place craters" thing and safe yourself a headache.

Replacing with a crater applies to exploded vehicles, not to wrecks.

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Would I have to take the time to go over every piece of terrain with him before I play him? Sadly, yes.

You should be doing that anyway...

I've just never had to. My group is pretty casual and we just never had any argument about terrain like that. Maybe we just never had anybody feel the need that they had to win bad enough to think of a move like that, but it would just result in him being told "don't be a dick'. Keep in mind that we are a group where people simply won't take certain power builds simply because playing them (or against them) "isn't fun". None of us are tournament players, so maybe that is the difference in mindsets...

 insaniak wrote:
Not considering whether or not you are going to want to draw LOS to the model when I place it doesn't make me a cheater.

No, but failing to put the model in the proper location to draw LOS to it when the rules tell you to do so makes you a cheater. If you refuse to obey the rules you're cheating.

And keep in mind that this is only one part of the argument. The rules also make it clear elsewhere that the one exception to "always draw LOS and measure range using the model's actual location" only applies to situations where you can put the model there but are concerned about bumping it and damaging something. So unless you're already breaking that rule then the LOS issue can never come up and that statement just reinforces the point that WMS does not allow you to do it.

And not being able to place the model in place when you want to simply means that the movement rules allow for a situation where the LOS rules can not be followed.

Alternatively, you willingly placed the model in a location where you knew you would not be able to follow the LOS rules and are cheating. The rules do not give you an exception to the "must put in that position to check LOS" rule just because you are unable to do it. It would be like arguing that you can't roll your saves and take your wounds because you misplaced your dice.

I'm simply pointing out that there rules covering this situation are inadequate, and players are going to have to decide for themselves how to deal with that.

They're only inadequate if you deliberately look for inadequacy. The rules state over and over again how things are intended to work, and the "flaw" (if one even exists) is about as relevant as the argument that models wearing helmets can't draw LOS because they have no eyes.

Not being able to follow a rule is not cheating. It's a flaw in the game rules.

 insaniak wrote:
Not being able to follow a rule is not cheating. It's a flaw in the game rules.

At first I thought the guy saying you were troling your own forum was being hyperbolic.. now I just don't know.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well the only allowance is lateral movement, except in ruins that specify you can move vertically...

This is not true. Movement rules do not specify direction of the movement.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well the only allowance is lateral movement, except in ruins that specify you can move vertically...

This is not true. Movement rules do not specify direction of the movement.

The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

If it is a legal place you are allowed to be then cite the rule that restricts stopping there. Page and Graph please.

Cite the rule that allows it.

I have, it is in the allowance to move as if the wall was not there.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

Everything not classified as something else is open ground. Also, Treeain rules don't say you have to move on terrain, merely what effects it has if you do.


In any case, why this whole hiding in solid objects thing doesn't work (even in theory), is because you don't meet requirements for invoking WMS. I know GW writes unclear rules from time to time, but this is not one of them.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

Everything [that is a part of the battlefield] not classified as something else is open ground. Also, Treeain rules don't say you have to move on terrain, merely what effects it has if you do.


In any case, why this whole hiding in solid objects thing doesn't work (even in theory), is because you don't meet requirements for invoking WMS. I know GW writes unclear rules from time to time, but this is not one of them.

Fixed that for you with the red text.

Above the battlefield is not the battlefield.

Do not ignore the context of the terrain/game board section of the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

Everything is open terrain by default unless classified otherwise. It's just generally assumed by players that models have to actually move along the ground unless they have some for of flight apparatus.

It's one of those little things that I doubt even the most conscientious rules writer would bother to actually include in a ruleset.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

Everything is open terrain by default unless classified otherwise. It's just generally assumed by players that models have to actually move along the ground unless they have some for of flight apparatus.

It's one of those little things that I doubt even the most conscientious rules writer would bother to actually include in a ruleset.

Everything on the battlefield is open terrain by default. the Terrain rules make this clear.

"Battlefield Size: This section assumes that you arc playing on a battlefield that can be divided equally into 2'by 2' sections. " (P. 120)

"Models on open ground are often said to be 'out in the open'." (P. 90)

Note where you play...

 insaniak wrote:

It's one of those little things that I doubt even the most conscientious rules writer would bother to actually include in a ruleset.

Yes, just like the thing that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space!

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, just like the thing that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space!

If models were forced to walk around or climb over obstacles, I would happily agree with you. But in a ruleset where a model can happily wander right through the middle of a rock, can you honestly not see how some people might not have an issue with them not moving right through it in a single turn?


I suspect that part of the communication problem is that people are still seeing everything in the context of a single turn. A model moves its 6", and then stops until next turn. But that's not what is supposed to be being represented there. A model that moves 6" this turn and 6" next turn didn't move 6 inches, wait for everyone else on the battlefield to move, and then move another 6". He moved 12", and a bunch of stuff happened while he was doing that.

So a model finishing its movement phase inside a tree isn't necessarily actually hanging out inside a tree. That's just where he happens to be located when the 'snapshot' of that part of the battle is taken. And he can do that because the tree that he is currently inside is not meant to represent an actual, physical tree... it's just a part of a marker that says 'Here be terrain'.


Again, I totally agree that a model hiding inside a wreck and as a result being practically invulnerable is dodgy as all heck, and is not what should happen. But within the structure of the rules as they currently stand, I see nothing that would disallow it from happening... Although the game will break when the enemy tries to shoot at them. Which is just one of the reasons that it should be house-ruled one way or another to not be able to happen.

The fact that models must physically be somewhere stops it. You do not meet the requirements to invoke WMS.

 Crimson wrote:
The fact that models must physically be somewhere stops it. You do not meet the requirements to invoke WMS.

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'... It's only an issue when someone tries to shoot at him and you can't put the model where is supposed to be.

But that doesn't prevent him from moving there. It just breaks the game when shooting tries to happen.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rapture wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, if you're trying to make a rule that refers to any movement that includes difficult terrain in any part of that movement, 'through' is the better word to use, as it covers movement into the terrain, movement within the terrain, and movement out of the terrain. In all three of those cases, a model would be moving through the terrain.

If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

Notice that you refer to it as movement, not stopping. Permission to move through something does not establish permission to stop within something.

If it is a legal place you are allowed to be then cite the rule that restricts stopping there. Page and Graph please.

Cite the rule that allows it.

Pg 10 "Models move up to 6" in the movement phase." The use of 'up to' allows models to stop before reaching the full 6". This is not qualified in any way, so to restrict a model form stopping withing its 6" movement you need a rule that limits this permission in some way such as models may not end their movement on impassible terrain.

insaniak wrote:If they used 'within', then that would only include movement inside the terrain, not entering or leaving it.

I disagree. If any part of the movement included being in the terrain, i.e starting in the terrain or ending in the terrain or both, then within is the correct word to use. Within does not convey the totality that through should.

 insaniak wrote:
[You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'... It's only an issue when someone tries to shoot at him and you can't put the model where is supposed to be.

But that doesn't prevent him from moving there. It just breaks the game when shooting tries to happenquot.

It also breaks the game when you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' and I say 'I disgree'. We do have to agree on his location, and I'm not going to agree he should be someplace I feel he cannot go.

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

One might say that if it is impossible to do a thing , then it most certainly is difficult to do that thing.

Ok. Vehicle wreck rules say it effectively becomes terrain, difficult terrain, and dangerous terrain. It does not say it is classified as Area Terrain.

You can't move the wrecked model to get a legal measurement to determine how far inside the wreck you can move, so it's an illegal move. You would need the permission to move the model to make measuring easier, permission only granted in the Area Terrain section.

From my experience and opinion, the best way to deal with a situation like this is to agree on a circumstance that both players are happy with. If you don't object to somebody doing something in your game, then you can only blame yourself for the outcome. Similarly you don't have to play with anybody who does a move like that. Some may argue that that isn't "cheating" or "rule bending", others might disagree. But if the player cannot stand a player's desicion, then he has the right to walk away. I would anyway...

I don't have a rulebook on me at this moment in time, but even if I did I probably wouldn't be able to glean anymore meaning from this particular rule than what has been already put here. It seems that this rule can have many connotations put on it (like insaniak said at the beginning of the thread), and that it is every mind to itself when determining exactly what WMS allows you to do. Personally, the only thing that matters to me is that the game I play is fun for me and my opponent, not one or the other. With that in mind, I would simply agree a compromise with my opponent on where his model really is. If he disagrees, and if I think that one move will really change the outcome of the game, then I will pack and leave - for me at least, there is no need to continue.

Still, an interesting read on this - I still can't decide which set of circumstances and rules too adhere too....

You can't end inside a destroyed building, that becomes impassible terrain. Transported models are forced to disembark. Why would you be allowed to get back in?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Well the only allowance is lateral movement, except in ruins that specify you can move vertically...

This is not true. Movement rules do not specify direction of the movement.

The rules for Movement, in the context of the Terrain rules, make it clear that you move through terrain (Open, Difficult) so if you find a rule stating that straight up is open or difficult terrain then you can move there.

So context matters for terrain rules eh?

the movement rules do say UP to 6" first line, permission to move up.

I've seen others arguing here that if a skyshield is on the table then levitating under it is allowable as well.

But I agree with the context that you shouldn't be moving and levitating around the battlefield, as all terrain should be discussed I guess we should agree air is not terrain and models don't float

Another helpful post there. No, "UP" to isnt correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Another helpful post there. No, "UP" to isnt correct.

Cite the restriction then.

 DJGietzen wrote:

One might say that if it is impossible to do a thing , then it most certainly is difficult to do that thing.

WMS is pretty clear on the context it is meant to be used.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Another helpful post there. No, "UP" to isnt correct.

Cite the restriction then.

"Up to" being the phrase, really

Hard to explain such a basic phrasing, but then youre just trolling, and not being serious. Again.

Why wouldn't I be able to have models stand 2 inches down under the surface of the table if my opponents are suddenly allowed to stand inside of an element of terrain?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Another helpful post there. No, "UP" to isnt correct.

Cite the restriction then.

"Up to" being the phrase, really

Hard to explain such a basic phrasing, but then youre just trolling, and not being serious. Again.

Right, up meaning up. We have permission to move up, aren't you one of the ones that will argue for levitating around and under skyshields?

I was addressing deathreaper, not you. Just because you don't get the point I'm making doesn't make me a troll. You've fully earned your troll title and the only troll around here.

The point is, which you failed to quote when you started this is models don't levitate even though the rules say you can, because context. contextually the game is a 2D game pretending to be 3D. Like usual you missed the point and went off on an irrelevant tangent. So if you are going to argue you can levitate under a skyshield, then you can levitate anywhere around the battlefield. The rules make much more sense when taken holistically than ruling different ways for what is really the same situation.

"UP TO", stop removing words from sentences, or ignoring the phrase

You can move up to 6", means a move of 0 - 6 is permitted. It does not allow levitation, because the phrase does not say that.

Skyshields havea specific allowance for moving up to them by rolling high enough on the diff. terrain test.

Example of specific permission. Oh, and reported, again. It wasnt an irrelevant tangent, it was correcting your misquoting of rules. Again.

 davou wrote:
Why wouldn't I be able to have models stand 2 inches down under the surface of the table if my opponents are suddenly allowed to stand inside of an element of terrain?

Because you play on the table, not under or over it...

My post explains it, but Ill quote it again for those that missed it:

"Battlefield Size: This section assumes that you arc playing on a battlefield that can be divided equally into 2'by 2' sections. " (P. 120)

"Models on open ground are often said to be 'out in the open'." (P. 90)

Note where you play...

(On, models are on the (open) ground)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"UP TO", stop removing words from sentences, or ignoring the phrase

You can move up to 6", means a move of 0 - 6 is permitted. It does not allow levitation, because the phrase does not say that.

Skyshields havea specific allowance for moving up to them by rolling high enough on the diff. terrain test.

Example of specific permission. Oh, and reported, again. It wasnt an irrelevant tangent, it was correcting your misquoting of rules. Again.

Nice straw man there. if you'd quit quote mining me, you'd see that is exactly what I said to start with. so I quoted a rule that you requoted here saying I misquoted it, LOL.

up to 6" means you move up to 6"
up being up puts you 6" above the battlefield.
RAW

Oh, and reported, again.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"UP TO", stop removing words from sentences, or ignoring the phrase

You can move up to 6", means a move of 0 - 6 is permitted. It does not allow levitation, because the phrase does not say that.

Skyshields havea specific allowance for moving up to them by rolling high enough on the diff. terrain test.

Example of specific permission. Oh, and reported, again. It wasnt an irrelevant tangent, it was correcting your misquoting of rules. Again.

Nice straw man there. if you'd quit quote mining me, you'd see that is exactly what I said to start with. so I quoted a rule that you requoted here saying I misquoted it, LOL.

up to 6" means you move up to 6"
up being up puts you 6" above the battlefield.
RAW

Oh, and reported, again.

You are not parsing that sentence correctly.

Taken in context "up to" means you can move between 0 inches and 6 inches (Inclusive). it does not mean you can move in an upwards direction. Basic English comprehension skills will tell you this, so it seems like you are not being serious.

...OK.

Public warning time.

There really aren't many rules here on Dakka Dakka, and they rally aren't hard to follow.

Everyone needs to start following all of them immediately, or, you know, warnings, suspensions, etc.

First and last warning in here.

sirlynchmob wrote:

up to 6" means you move up to 6"

THats the right rule

sirlynchmob wrote:up being up puts you 6" above the battlefield.
RAW

Which isnt the rule, as you know. The rule is "up to", not "up".

 insaniak wrote:
Not being able to follow a rule is not cheating. It's a flaw in the game rules.

It becomes cheating when the only reason you can't follow the rule is that you have deliberately caused a situation where you will refuse to follow that rule by doing something that is blatantly against the intent of the rule. It's not like we're talking about some obscure interaction between rules in different books, the "conflict" is with two sentences in the same paragraph describing a sequence of actions. When you declare that the model is inside the terrain you know perfectly well that you are required to place it there to check LOS as soon as your opponent asks you to, so it crosses the line from "unanticipated weird situation" into "deliberate choice to defy the rules".

In fact, given the close proximity of the two rules, they are arguably part of one single rule describing how WMS works. If you consider WMS to be the entire process instead of breaking it up into arbitrary sections then it's just a refusal to meet all of the requirements to use WMS, not a conflict between two rules at all.

 insaniak wrote:
You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'... It's only an issue when someone tries to shoot at him and you can't put the model where is supposed to be.

And in that case you measure range and draw LOS using the model's actual position on the table*. Your statement about "he's in the wreck" is as relevant as my statement that "my assault unit is totally going to table you this turn". It's a cool bit of fluff that you are pretending your space marine is inside that wreck taking cover as the vehicle's stored ammo explodes and burning fuel drips all over his armor, but it has nothing to do with the game.


*Since, as has been well established, WMS is the single exception to this rule and does not apply.

 Peregrine wrote:
*Since, as has been well established, WMS is the single exception to this rule and does not apply.

And that, ultimately, is the crux of it. I thnk WMS applies to the situation, you don't. At this point, we're no more likely to resolve that discrepancy than last time this was discussed.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
*Since, as has been well established, WMS is the single exception to this rule and does not apply.

And that, ultimately, is the crux of it. I thnk WMS applies to the situation, you don't. At this point, we're no more likely to resolve that discrepancy than last time this was discussed.

If rule can be interpreted two ways (and Peregrine's interpretation seems way more straightforward to me) why would you intentionally interpret it way that breaks the game, especially as you already said it shouldn't be played that way? What you're doing here is intentionally misinterpreting the rule, so that you can complain that the rule is stupid.

Crimson wrote:
If rule can be interpreted two ways (and Peregrine's interpretation seems way more straightforward to me) why would you intentionally interpret it way that breaks the game, especially as you already said it shouldn't be played that way?

Because I disagree that it can be interpreted two ways. Peregrine's interpretation of WMS requires the addition of extra conditions that do not exist in the rule as written.

I'm not intentionally choosing to apply a broken interpretation. I'm saying that the rule as written is broken, and should be house ruled to function in a way that works for both players.

What you're doing here is intentionally misinterpreting the rule, so that you can complain that the rule is stupid.

That would only be the case if I agreed that the other interpretation was more valid than my own. I don't. I'm not misrepresenting the rule. I'm stating how I read it. If I were just looking to complain about stupid rules in 6th edition 40k, there would be plenty of examples to choose from without resorting to making them up.

 Crimson wrote:

If rule can be interpreted two ways (and Peregrine's interpretation seems way more straightforward to me) why would you intentionally interpret it way that breaks the game, especially as you already said it shouldn't be played that way? What you're doing here is intentionally misinterpreting the rule, so that you can complain that the rule is stupid.

Exactly. I am relatively new here, but there has been a recent and sharp devolution into antagonistic nonsense on this site. Everyone wants to 'play devil's advocate' or gets so lost in their argument that they forget that the game has to be played with the rules that are given. The very concept of this idea is ridiculous and the attempts at supporting it result in an interpretation of the rules where models can move below the surface of the table to traverse the battlefield.

Looking at this from the perspective that the game must function, the is no available justification for models entering and remaining in what exist as solid objects.

Rapture wrote:
... or gets so lost in their argument that they forget that the game has to be player with the rules that are given..

It really doesn't.

There are any number of cases where the rules that GW have given us simply don't work, and players have to find their own workaround for the situation. This is just one of them.

 insaniak wrote:
Because I disagree that it can be interpreted two ways. Peregrine's interpretation of WMS requires the addition of extra conditions that do not exist in the rule as written.

I've already quoted the rule and highlighted where it contains the conditions I'm "adding" to it.

I'm not intentionally choosing to apply a broken interpretation. I'm saying that the rule as written is broken, and should be house ruled to function in a way that works for both players.

You're interpreting it against the explicitly stated intent of the author, in a way that nobody will ever play it, for the sole purpose of adding a house rule to change it back to the way everyone else says it should work. This is like the "models with helmets can't shoot" argument: the problem only exists if you go looking for problems to fix.

 Peregrine wrote:
. This is like the "models with helmets can't shoot" argument: the problem only exists if you go looking for problems to fix.

The 'models with helmets can't shoot' was never an issue becuase having a helmet doesn't preclude having eyes. The issue you're looking for is drawing LOS from models without eyes (like wraithguard) or heads, for that matter, like artillery. The fact that people choose to apply a house rule to deal with this gap in the rules, in many cases without even realising that they are doing so, doesn't make it any less a hole in the rules.

You may think it's not worth the bother, and more power to you if that's the case. But personally, I would rather know when I am playing by the rules and when I am using a hosue rule... even if it's a house rule used almost universally because people just assume that it's how things are supposed to work.

More so, even, since in that case it tends to be an even bigger surprise when someone comes along who does it differently and you have to try to explain why they are wrong... and discover that the rules don't back up what you have always thought to be the way it's supposed to work.


The thing with this thead though, for me, is that once you get past the whole 'hiding in a rhino' thing, it highlights a much bigger issue with the way people play difficult terrain. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we generally have no problem with models walking right through small obstructions, because the rules say they can... but exactly where do we draw the line? Is it with obstructions up to a certain size? Is it with obstructions that can be moved through in a single turn of movement? Something else?

The rules don't tell us. And that's why I felt that this topic was worth continuing... because people have certain assumptions about how difficult terrain works, and those assumptions aren't always in line with the actual rules of the game.

Rismonite wrote:Ok. Vehicle wreck rules say it effectively becomes terrain, difficult terrain, and dangerous terrain. It does not say it is classified as Area Terrain.

You can't move the wrecked model to get a legal measurement to determine how far inside the wreck you can move, so it's an illegal move. You would need the permission to move the model to make measuring easier, permission only granted in the Area Terrain section.

^Best argument against this kind of move I've seen so far. Technically if you cannot measure to where the model 'actually is' you cannot know if it was moved a legal distance. The rules only permit you to measure with with a tape measure, per BRB pg 4 - Measuring Distances, so guesstimating, geometry, reason, etc are not acceptable ways of determining distance. You must use a tape measure to measure from point A to point B and failing that per RAW the distance is unknown which is not stated as an acceptable distance to move.

 Abandon wrote:

Rismonite wrote:Ok. Vehicle wreck rules say it effectively becomes terrain, difficult terrain, and dangerous terrain. It does not say it is classified as Area Terrain.

You can't move the wrecked model to get a legal measurement to determine how far inside the wreck you can move, so it's an illegal move. You would need the permission to move the model to make measuring easier, permission only granted in the Area Terrain section.

^Best argument against this kind of move I've seen so far. Technically if you cannot measure to where the model 'actually is' you cannot know if it was moved a legal distance. The rules only permit you to measure with with a tape measure, per BRB pg 4 - Measuring Distances, so guesstimating, geometry, reason, etc are not acceptable ways of determining distance. You must use a tape measure to measure from point A to point B and failing that per RAW the distance is unknown which is not stated as an acceptable distance to move.

Except you can measure it, just hold the tape measure parallel with the ground but above the battlefield enough so that the tape measure is above the wreck. Then find the distance the model has moved.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Rismonite wrote:Ok. Vehicle wreck rules say it effectively becomes terrain, difficult terrain, and dangerous terrain. It does not say it is classified as Area Terrain.

You can't move the wrecked model to get a legal measurement to determine how far inside the wreck you can move, so it's an illegal move. You would need the permission to move the model to make measuring easier, permission only granted in the Area Terrain section.

^Best argument against this kind of move I've seen so far. Technically if you cannot measure to where the model 'actually is' you cannot know if it was moved a legal distance. The rules only permit you to measure with with a tape measure, per BRB pg 4 - Measuring Distances, so guesstimating, geometry, reason, etc are not acceptable ways of determining distance. You must use a tape measure to measure from point A to point B and failing that per RAW the distance is unknown which is not stated as an acceptable distance to move.

Except you can measure it, just hold the tape measure parallel with the ground but above the battlefield enough so that the tape measure is above the wreck. Then find the distance the model has moved.

Creating points C and D as equal distance and measuring those unobstructed to determine the distance between points A and B is reasonable. You're not permitted to use reason to determine the distance though.

 insaniak wrote:
The 'models with helmets can't shoot' was never an issue becuase having a helmet doesn't preclude having eyes.

Sure it does. Having a (closed-face) helmet means the model has no eyes. You can speculate that fluff-wise the space marine has eyes behind the eye lenses in the helmet, but the actual model does not have any eyes.

But, like WMSing into the middle of a hill, the intent of the rule is so obvious that it only becomes a "problem" if you're deliberately trying to make it one.

The thing with this thead though, for me, is that once you get past the whole 'hiding in a rhino' thing, it highlights a much bigger issue with the way people play difficult terrain. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we generally have no problem with models walking right through small obstructions, because the rules say they can... but exactly where do we draw the line? Is it with obstructions up to a certain size?

The discussion reveals a problem, but it's an unrelated problem. Ending your move inside another model is dealt with by the rules already. The question of how much of an obstruction you're allowed to move through in the process of going to a spot where you can actually place the model is a relevant one (though one that depends more on personal ideas of "fairness" than what the rules say), but the rules involved in that situation are entirely different ones. If you feel that it's a worthy discussion you should start a separate thread to discuss it properly.

Is it with obstructions that can be moved through in a single turn of movement?

This is an implied limit because you are never given permission to end your move in a spot where the model can't be placed. You don't need a special debate about how difficult terrain is handled because the rules already eliminate any possible situation where you could move through an obstacle that you can't cover in a single turn of movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except you can measure it, just hold the tape measure parallel with the ground but above the battlefield enough so that the tape measure is above the wreck. Then find the distance the model has moved.

How exactly are you measuring from the model's initial spot inside the wreck? Remember that the model is not on the table at all and there is no way of marking its exact position, and even very small measurement errors can have a big impact on a game where weapon and charge ranges are absolute pass/fail tests.

 insaniak wrote:
But, like WMSing into the middle of a hill, the intent of the rule is so obvious that it only becomes a "problem" if you're deliberately trying to make it one.

Does it? Where do you draw LOS from on a model without a head?

Ending your move inside another model is dealt with by the rules already.

Ending your move inside another model was never the issue. We're talking about ending your move inside difficult terrain, not another model.

This is an implied limit because you are never given permission to end your move in a spot where the model can't be placed.

And there's that assumption again. WMS never requires you to physically place the model on the table in the spot where they are counted as being. We keep coming back to that point, and WMS keeps not saying what you want it to say.

 insaniak wrote:
Does it? Where do you draw LOS from on a model without a head?

That's a question for debate. But I'm talking about the specific case of "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" where there's an obvious head and eye-like object to draw LOS from without any controversy, but strictly RAW there is no eye and you can't draw LOS. Just like WMS abuse that "problem" only exists if you deliberately make it a problem, since the intent of the rule is so obvious even if you can nitpick some tiny flaw in the exact words.

Ending your move inside another model was never the issue. We're talking about ending your move inside difficult terrain, not another model.

I mean "model" as in "physical object on the table", not the game rules definition. As in, a model of a hill.

WMS never requires you to physically place the model on the table in the spot where they are counted as being.

No, but it does require two things:

1) That it be hard to place a model. And note that hard is not the same as impossible. Balancing a model on the very top of a tall ruin is hard. Putting a model inside a hill is impossible. The only realistic way to establish that it is hard is to put the model there and demonstrate it.

2) That both players know where the model will count as being. The only realistic way to get this agreement is to put the model there and say "this is the spot".

So it might not be an absolute requirement in that you could satisfy #1 by modeling the situation in physics software and proving that it can be done and #2 by drawing a detailed map (with exact dimensions) of where the model will be, but the vast majority of the time you will just put the model in the spot. And even if you don't place the model you don't get any exemption from the requirements or any ability to put it in a location where you can't satisfy them by temporarily placing the model.

 Abandon wrote:
Creating points C and D as equal distance and measuring those unobstructed to determine the distance between points A and B is reasonable. You're not permitted to use reason to determine the distance though.

Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

 Peregrine wrote:

I mean "model" as in "physical object on the table", not the game rules definition. As in, a model of a hill.

So you'd make the situation worse by saying that a situation where someone sculpted the hill into the table works differently than a situation where someone has hills that are physically separate? Because if you're close enough to a college with an architecture department, you'll get plenty of examples of hills being integrated components of the table.

Edit: The same situation for hills comes up with building walls, trees, and other features getting built into the table components.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Creating points C and D as equal distance and measuring those unobstructed to determine the distance between points A and B is reasonable. You're not permitted to use reason to determine the distance though.

Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

I'm glad it's close enough for you. I'd go so far as to say that is commonly accepted. It is in fact the way I usually do it as you said. It's not RAW though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

How do you know exactly where point A is when it is inside a solid object?

 solkan wrote:
So you'd make the situation worse by saying that a situation where someone sculpted the hill into the table works differently than a situation where someone has hills that are physically separate? Because if you're close enough to a college with an architecture department, you'll get plenty of examples of hills being integrated components of the table.

Sigh. Read the context. I said "model" as part of "one model inside the other", describing the situation where two objects (which are usually 'models' in a non-rules sense) attempt to occupy the same space, not to divide objects into models and non-models for rule purposes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

How do you know exactly where point A is when it is inside a solid object?

Because it is directly below the end of your tape measure, just like when you are moving in open ground...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it is directly below the end of your tape measure, just like when you are moving in open ground...

I mean how do you know the model's exact position inside the tank (you know, since it isn't actually there) so you know where to start measuring from?

Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top. I think movement rules were on page 11. No part of the wrecked vehicle rule makes it a piece of area terrain that can be move to allow easier measuring either.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS. As per pg 91 couldn't we skip that for players since it would damage models or cause considerable more modeling work to be done?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

 Rismonite wrote:
I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

According to what rules? Even the suggestions in the book that go beyond "put a 'wrecked' icon on top of the model" only involve turning it upside down or putting some smoke on top of it. There is nothing that even comes close to suggest modifying the model with mandatory LOS-allowing holes.

or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save

There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

 Rismonite wrote:
Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

That would be the WMS rules, which have been referenced throughout this thread.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top.

If you're just putting the model on the roof above the position it would be in if it was inside the wreck, there is no need to measure to the inside of the vehicle. A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

Based on what?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

Not really, no. You're just told to put a marker on it to show that it is a wreck, not alter the model.

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

Simply discussing before the game which difficult terrain models can move through and which they have to go over seems like an easier option...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

If you allow models to be inside the wreck, it's a reasonable house rule, though, as I suggested way back towards the start of the thread...

Peregrine wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

According to what rules? Even the suggestions in the book that go beyond "put a 'wrecked' icon on top of the model" only involve turning it upside down or putting some smoke on top of it. There is nothing that even comes close to suggest modifying the model with mandatory LOS-allowing holes.

or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save

There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

Sorry I'm at work so I don't have my book. There was something I was looking at last night when I had my book out except that I think I was trying to say the the vehicle wreck would also be area terrain but I think I gave up on that thinking when I realized it said specifically at the end of the area terrain section the little blurp about moving and replacing models to get measurements. I'll go back and look at pg 74 tommorow and see what I was thinking maybe I'll post it. My apologies.

insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

That would be the WMS rules, which have been referenced throughout this thread.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top.

If you're just putting the model on the roof above the position it would be in if it was inside the wreck, there is no need to measure to the inside of the vehicle. A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

Based on what?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

Not really, no. You're just told to put a marker on it to show that it is a wreck, not alter the model.

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

Simply discussing before the game which difficult terrain models can move through and which they have to go over seems like an easier option...

"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it.

Apologies about the swiss cheese model thing I'll go look at my book when I get home.

EDIT and the WMS thing bothers me yes I did read the thread.

 insaniak wrote:
If you allow models to be inside the wreck, it's a reasonable house rule, though, as I suggested way back towards the start of the thread...

I agree that it would be a reasonable house rule, but the quoted post presented it as something supported by the standard rules that could be used to invoke the 4+ it rule.

 Rismonite wrote:
"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it..

Sorry, you might need to explain that one, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it..

Sorry, you might need to explain that one, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

I think you are letting them do geometry to determine model location, instead of measuring to the location as described on pg (11?) movement phase.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in definace of physics.

Seriously, the rules allow a model to walk through solid objects. Why is it such a stretch of imagination then to accept the model being able to stop and stand in the middle of that solid object?

Well a rhino isn't a solid object per say, but it's still sketchy to claim to be hiding in one.

And walking through solid walls makes can make sense. The 5th ed Rulebook had a part in the move through difficult terrain rule on page 14 saying...

"Note as part of. Their move through difficult terrain, models may move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all sorts of similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle in impassable. This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows, using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on"

But we don't know if they removed that from the 6th ed Rulebook for a reason of forgot to put it in.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in definace of physics.

Seriously, the rules allow a model to walk through solid objects. Why is it such a stretch of imagination then to accept the model being able to stop and stand in the middle of that solid object?

Well a rhino isn't a solid object per say, but it's still sketchy to claim to be hiding in one.

And walking through solid walls makes can make sense. The 5th ed Rulebook had a part in the move through difficult terrain rule on page 14 saying...

"Note as part of. Their move through difficult terrain, models may move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all sorts of similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle in impassable. This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows, using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on"

But we don't know if they removed that from the 6th ed Rulebook for a reason of forgot to put it in.

IXLoiero95XI, It is on Page 90 and it says something similar to what it did in 5th ed.

It doesn't have the part on bold

The part in bold is fluff, and has no bearing on how the rules work.

If you can walk through parts of a difficult terrain feature, then it ultimately shouldn't matter what that difficult terrain feature is, unless the rules make a distinction for different types of difficult terrain.


So the problem isn't the difficult terrain rules... it's the fact that wrecks, hills, and other things that probably shouldn't be moved through are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through.

first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable. That ends the discussion right there. If you opponents says yes, and you say no that ends the discussion, it should have been decided at the start of the game before the first dice roll.

Personally I would have said that sure you can occupy it, but it would have only conferred a 5+ or 4+ cover save, and treat it just like difficult terrain for assault purposes and shooting. It's not a vehicle any more. Its the ruins of a vehicle. Some treads, a few fused hunks of metal and electronics scattered around.

 insaniak wrote:
The part in bold is fluff, and has no bearing on how the rules work.

If you can walk through parts of a difficult terrain feature, then it ultimately shouldn't matter what that difficult terrain feature is, unless the rules make a distinction for different types of difficult terrain.


So the problem isn't the difficult terrain rules... it's the fact that wrecks, hills, and other things that probably shouldn't be moved through are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through.

I'm not sure that wrecks and hills are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through are they? The BRB only tells us that models can move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles..

Is a hill or a wrecked vehicle similar to a closed door or a wall or a window?

But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

Somewhat tangential to the main argument of the thread, but this is totally wrong.

A metal Zoanthrope cannot be placed on a flat ramp with a 45 degree slope. It's not merely "difficult" to place the model there, it's completely impossible -- it will fall over every time. A Finecast Zoanthrope would be able to stand there. The slightest bump would topple it, but the original placement would be attainable. Are you suggesting that the metal model would be prohibited from moving to the same position as the Finecast model?

Note that 45 degrees is an arbitrary measurement, since I obviously don't know *exactly* what the cutoff point would be in this example. But there is one, and that's what matters.

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Altruizine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

Somewhat tangential to the main argument of the thread, but this is totally wrong.

A metal Zoanthrope cannot be placed on a flat ramp with a 45 degree slope. It's not merely "difficult" to place the model there, it's completely impossible -- it will fall over every time. A Finecast Zoanthrope would be able to stand there. The slightest bump would topple it, but the original placement would be attainable. Are you suggesting that the metal model would be prohibited from moving to the same position as the Finecast model?

Note that 45 degrees is an arbitrary measurement, since I obviously don't know *exactly* what the cutoff point would be in this example. But there is one, and that's what matters.

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

But you can physically place your metal Zoanthrope on that 45 degree slope if you hold it in place can't you? Yes. Therefore it is not impossible to place it there. The fact that it topples over when you let it go is specifically what WMS is for. Can you physically place your model inside of say, a hill or wall? No. Then WMS does not apply.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

That would only be a simple solution if your opponent agrees to let you use WMS.

We can't embark into the transport so I'd be okay with my opponent physically placing his model inside the wrecked vehicle. If he doesn't fit then he must quit. (Trying to be tfg).

This is another rules debate that can be ended by simply telling your opponent "no".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

The rules say you both must agree to use WMS. So stuff that model into a Rhino if you desire, and make sure he's standing tall and proud. I might be able to fit a gribble in one !

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

So what are the other definitions of through? Dictionary definitions that is? How does the fact that the 'move through cover' SR is (arguably) poorly worded, change the standard definition of 'through'?

They were already given on this thread

When you swim through water, do you have to completely clear the water in one "action"?

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

And your definition is just as faulty

Altruizine wrote:

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Nope, that's basically a community house rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Nope, that's basically a community house rule.

The fact that every single diagram in the book shows models upright is purely coincidental I assure you

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

That would only be a simple solution if your opponent agrees to let you use WMS.

We can't embark into the transport so I'd be okay with my opponent physically placing his model inside the wrecked vehicle. If he doesn't fit then he must quit. (Trying to be tfg).

Opponents can not stop you from using WMS. They can not agree on the position of the model, but you can clearly explain to someone exactly where a model should be using the WMS rules and if they still disagree they are just being difficult.

This is another rules debate that can be ended by simply telling your opponent "no".

It really can't, you can not deny your opponent the use of WMS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were already given on this thread

When you swim through water, do you have to completely clear the water in one "action"?

Well that's not a exactly a definition, but sure it's correct use of the word.

How about this. If I move through a door but stop before I come out the other side, have I moved through it, or moved into it?

You are moving through it.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
How about this. If I move through a door but stop before I come out the other side, have I moved through it, or moved into it?

Nobody is denying that 'from one side to the other' is one definition of 'through'. It's just not the only definition, nor the correct one for this situation.

Seriously, this was all covered earlier in the thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

That would only be a simple solution if your opponent agrees to let you use WMS.

We can't embark into the transport so I'd be okay with my opponent physically placing his model inside the wrecked vehicle. If he doesn't fit then he must quit. (Trying to be tfg).

Opponents can not stop you from using WMS. They can not agree on the position of the model, but you can clearly explain to someone exactly where a model should be using the WMS rules and if they still disagree they are just being difficult.

This is another rules debate that can be ended by simply telling your opponent "no".

It really can't, you can not deny your opponent the use of WMS.

The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule, if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

Stormbreed wrote:
The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule,

No it does not, read it again.

if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

Actually the game would stop as you know where the location of the model is, but for some reason are not acknowledging it.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

Stormbreed wrote:
The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule, if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

You're misreading the rule. It says that the two of you have to agree on the model's actual position. It's not a blanket veto for one player to decide that he doesn't like the situation and refuse to allow it. It's just both players acknowleding the model's actual location so that there are no misunderstandings later.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

Yes, this has been discussed at length already. It doesn't stop the model from moving there, it just breaks the game when you try to shoot at them.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Opponents can not stop you from using WMS.

Yes they can. The WMS rule explicitly states that both players must agree to use it. Just like the requirement that placing the model in the spot has to be hard, not impossible, you keep ignoring this.

They can not agree on the position of the model, but you can clearly explain to someone exactly where a model should be using the WMS rules and if they still disagree they are just being difficult.

Or they just don't think that you've demonstrated the model's position with sufficient accuracy by declaring "it's in the wreck" without actually placing it in a spot for both players to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
By removing the back hatch and showing you.

So does this mean you're conceding that you can't do this with any wreck or terrain feature that doesn't have a removable hatch for you to place a model inside? Because that's a pretty thorough concession if you're falling back on a situation which doesn't involve the "impossible for a model to be placed there" problem.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

Well if the hatches are not on, then he can place the model in the wreck and there would not be a WMS issue.

Fragile wrote:

Well if the hatches are not on, then he can place the model in the wreck and there would not be a WMS issue.

You could similarly put models inside hollow plastic hills. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a dick move and certainly against the spirit of the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Opponents can not stop you from using WMS.

Yes they can. The WMS rule explicitly states that both players must agree to use it. Just like the requirement that placing the model in the spot has to be hard, not impossible, you keep ignoring this.

1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

2) Trying to place a model within a terrain feature like a wall, is Hard to do... (No ignoring anything)

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
By removing the back hatch and showing you.

So does this mean you're conceding that you can't do this with any wreck or terrain feature that doesn't have a removable hatch for you to place a model inside? Because that's a pretty thorough concession if you're falling back on a situation which doesn't involve the "impossible for a model to be placed there" problem.

You can do it, there are other ways to explain where the model is without actually placing the model in the location.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

DR, as has been noted, it is not area terrain you are allowed to manipulate. Opening it is no different than moving it which is to say, it is not allowed.

Rismonite wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it..

Sorry, you might need to explain that one, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

I think you are letting them do geometry to determine model location, instead of measuring to the location as described on pg (11?) movement phase.

This is true. By the book geometry is not accepted as a means of measurement.
"distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick ... Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"- Measuring Distances pg 4, BRB
Per RAW you must measure from the base of the model, not hovering the measuring tape over it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because it is blatantly ignoring the intent of the rules while trying to gain an advantage. I said it earlier, I'd rank this on the same level as claiming that opponents wraith-constructs can't shoot as they lack eyes.

 Abandon wrote:
"distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick ... Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"- Measuring Distances pg 4, BRB
Per RAW you must measure from the base of the model, not hovering the measuring tape over it.

You do realize that this is not always possible right?

Say you have a model on the first floor of a ruin, and you make your DT test and move out of that ruin through a wall. In this situation it is physically impossible to measure from the base of the model to the end position because the wall is physically blocking the tape measure...

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because it is blatantly ignoring the intent of the rules while trying to gain an advantage. I said it earlier, I'd rank this on the same level as claiming that opponents wraith-constructs can't shoot as they lack eyes.

So you are arguing Intent and not RAW?

Noted, and since intent is your opinion there can be no debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

That would be the part where the WMS rule says "as long as both players agree".

2) Trying to place a model within a terrain feature like a wall, is Hard to do... (No ignoring anything)

No, it is impossible.

You can do it, there are other ways to explain where the model is without actually placing the model in the location.

Please, explain these alternate ways of demonstrating exactly where the model is and that no part of it (even 0.000000000000000001" of the top of the head) extends outside of the wreck/hill/etc to draw LOS to.

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because you're not following the rules. You're playing it against RAW, and you're certainly playing it against RAI. This is as "reasonable" as arguing that models wearing helmets can never shoot or charge because they have no eyes to draw LOS from.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

That would be the part where the WMS rule says "as long as both players agree".

Yea, you might want to quote the whole sentence to find out why your statement is incorrect.

Please, explain these alternate ways of demonstrating exactly where the model is and that no part of it (even 0.000000000000000001" of the top of the head) extends outside of the wreck/hill/etc to draw LOS to.

By measuring the length, height, and width of the model in question and the length, height, and width of the difficult terrain in question and comparing them to show that the model would not stick out.

Because you're not following the rules. You're playing it against RAW, and you're certainly playing it against RAI. This is as "reasonable" as arguing that models wearing helmets can never shoot or charge because they have no eyes to draw LOS from.length, height, and width

The rules actually allow you to move through DT with a DT test, so rules followed...

As I said earlier Intent comes down to opinion so that can not be debated.