61651
Post by: Lovechunks
so 2 of my buds go bck and forth so much abt this
if you have the sky sheild closed and models in it and a enemy model assualts you the atop but can be placed any were in base to base due to ur models being all over the skyshield does the enemy model fail the assualt as it cant be placed base to base?
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
It's fairly split on Dakka as well. Basically it all depends on how you look at WMS.
35071
Post by: Enigma Crisis
Here is a thread with it talking about it. Plus there is no how you look at it for WMS. WMS is pretty cut and dry.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/528197.page
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Yet people have 2 separate views on it.
So yes it really does depend on how you view WMS.
Otherwise everyone would agree that WMS just simply does X
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
WMS isn't an entitlement to defy physics, it's there so you don't damage models if someone bumps the table (which is bound to occur as you reach for models). People will use WMS for some pretty spectacular stuff, like holding hypothetical positions.
This is sadly how some people think it works:
Check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/490885.page
49616
Post by: grendel083
The spelling/grammar of this poll makes me worry for humanity.
Unless you're typing on a 10 year old Nokia, there's really no excuse...
61651
Post by: Lovechunks
WMS = The rule just gives you permission to count as being somewhere that you could place the model but don't want to place it because of the risk of getting knocked over, it doesn't give you permission to count it as being somewhere that you can't place it at all.
so you would need to shoot some models out of the way first other wise you cant be in base to base as you cant float.. and its a unique terrian so you cant ur ruins or building rules
Automatically Appended Next Post: i use to play video games so my words are all out of place :(
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Yeah and it;s worth pointing out that ruins have a rule that allows you to fudge the base to base requirements for close combat, allowing units to fight cc a floor above or below their location. The Skyshield does not have that, you and your opponent could certainly implement that in your pre game discussion but with the rules it currently has it can be quite troublesome to assault up there.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
I've balanced some of those models in those positions on tables just to prove it can be done. It takes a long time to find the "sweet spot" but with patience you can do it. I for one don't mind taking up an hour doing my movement if you wanted to disagree that my model won't sit there.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I've balanced some of those models in those positions on tables just to prove it can be done. It takes a long time to find the "sweet spot" but with patience you can do it.
I for one don't mind taking up an hour doing my movement if you wanted to disagree that my model won't sit there.
You must be a popular opponent...
I'll give you credit though, at least you agree that you have to show the model can balane where you're attempting to place it, many on dakka choose to ignore that part of the rules and go straight to treating wms as an entitelemt.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Well, placing a model in the air halfway up the Skyshield is no mean feat. WMS or not.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Crablezworth wrote:jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I've balanced some of those models in those positions on tables just to prove it can be done. It takes a long time to find the "sweet spot" but with patience you can do it.
I for one don't mind taking up an hour doing my movement if you wanted to disagree that my model won't sit there.
You must be a popular opponent...
I'll give you credit though, at least you agree that you have to show the model can balane where you're attempting to place it, many on dakka choose to ignore that part of the rules and go straight to treating wms as an entitelemt.
I'd only do so if they argued impossible, I have a couple odd skills. Balancing stuff and Claw Machines. Most people in our play group know I won't do the impossible, just the improbable. Also worth noting it makes gameplay go alot smoother if we take that into account.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Shandara wrote:Well, placing a model in the air halfway up the Skyshield is no mean feat. WMS or not.
Agreed
99
Post by: insaniak
Crablezworth, as was pointed out the first time it was posted, nobody thinks that's how WMS works.
It doesn't allow models to go somewhere they couldn't actually move to.
That's not the issue with the Skyshield, however, since the Skyshield rules explicitly allow models to ignore gravity as they move. It's not an issue of using WMS to place models somewhee they couldn't actually go. It's an issue of using WMS to allow models to be somewhere that the rules specifically allow them to go, even though that isn't actually physically possible.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
insaniak wrote:Crablezworth, as was pointed out the first time it was posted, nobody thinks that's how WMS works.
It doesn't allow models to go somewhere they couldn't actually move to.
That's not the issue with the Skyshield, however, since the Skyshield rules explicitly allow models to ignore gravity as they move. It's not an issue of using WMS to place models somewhee they couldn't actually go. It's an issue of using WMS to allow models to be somewhere that the rules specifically allow them to go, even though that isn't actually physically possible.
It doesn't give them the same permissions as ruins or barricades to fight without being in base to base, justs because you want it to doesn't make it so. As I've said, talk about it pre game with your opponent.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
And this is why no one in my group uses a fortification except ADL with Quad-Gun.
99
Post by: insaniak
Crablezworth wrote:It doesn't give them the same permissions as ruins or barricades to fight without being in base to base, justs because you want it to doesn't make it so. .
I have never claimed that it does. Although I very strongly suspect that if it is ever FAQ'd, that's how it will go.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:It's an issue of using WMS to allow models to be somewhere that the rules specifically allow them to go, even though that isn't actually physically possible.
The rules don't allow you to go there. Moving from the bottom to the top is a difficult terrain test, if you roll high enough you move instantly from the ground to the top, if you fail to roll high enough you stay on the ground. There is no option to remain floating in the air next to the platform.
Also, WMS explicitly requires you to place the model before moving it away to a safer location. If you can't place it at all (for example, because the spot in question is an arbitrary point in midair) WMS doesn't apply and you can't move there.
99
Post by: insaniak
I'm fairly sure we went over all of that last time around, and established that WMS does not, in fact, explicitly require you to physically place the model first, and that such a requirement would make WMS next to useless.
The simple fact is that there are great gaping holes in all of the fortification rules. In this case, we're told that models can move up to the to with a difficult terrain test, but not how to resolve it if that test is not sufficient to reach the top. In all other difficult terrain except ruins, you simply move the model as far as they can move. Your rule about not being able to stop between levels comes from the ruins rules... And if we're going to borrow rules from ruins, we might as well also borrow the one about being able to assault models on the level above, since that prevents a situation where models in an otherwise normally accessible location can be unassailable due to dodgy terrain design creating a grey area in the rules.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
insaniak wrote:I'm fairly sure we went over all of that last time around, and established that WMS does not, in fact, explicitly require you to physically place the model first, and that such a requirement would make WMS next to useless.
The simple fact is that there are great gaping holes in all of the fortification rules. In this case, we're told that models can move up to the to with a difficult terrain test, but not how to resolve it if that test is not sufficient to reach the top. In all other difficult terrain except ruins, you simply move the model as far as they can move. Your rule about not being able to stop between levels comes from the ruins rules... And if we're going to borrow rules from ruins, we might as well also borrow the one about being able to assault models on the level above, since that prevents a situation where models in an otherwise normally accessible location can be unassailable due to dodgy terrain design creating a grey area in the rules.
This. The most common approach I see to handling the Skyshield is to treat it like a two-level ruin.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:I'm fairly sure we went over all of that last time around, and established that WMS does not, in fact, explicitly require you to physically place the model first, and that such a requirement would make WMS next to useless.
You said it, but that doesn't make it true. WMS clearly says it's talking about placing a model and then moving it to a safer location, and it doesn't make it useless. I've used it correctly many times to protect delicate models.
In this case, we're told that models can move up to the to with a difficult terrain test, but not how to resolve it if that test is not sufficient to reach the top.
Because we don't need to. The situation is already covered by the general rule that if you can't place a model at the desired end point of its move you can't move there. In this case you end your move on the ground, within the distance rolled on your difficult terrain test.
Your rule about not being able to stop between levels comes from the ruins rules...
No, it comes from the fact that you can't have a model floating in midair.
And if we're going to borrow rules from ruins, we might as well also borrow the one about being able to assault models on the level above, since that prevents a situation where models in an otherwise normally accessible location can be unassailable due to dodgy terrain design creating a grey area in the rules.
But it isn't normally accessible. This is no more of a problem than units behind LOS blocking terrain being unshootable.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:You said it, but that doesn't make it true. WMS clearly says it's talking about placing a model and then moving it to a safer location, and it doesn't make it useless. I've used it correctly many times to protect delicate models.
Absolutely me saying it doesn't make it true. The rulebook never actually saying what you claim it does is what makes it true...
The situation is already covered by the general rule that if you can't place a model at the desired end point of its move you can't move there.
Where is this general rule located?
No, it comes from the fact that you can't have a model floating in midair.
Citation needed.
I've explained the rules that allow it in this particular case several times previously. Where is your rule that says otherwise?
But it isn't normally accessible.
Yes it is. Models are free to move up or down off the skyshield as they please.
For any other piece of non-enclosed terrain, models don't become unassaultable just because enemy models don't have room to move onto the same piece of terrain... You either move up to the edge, or (in the case of ruins) just move as close as you can.
The skyshield creates a unique situation where, if you decide that a model's ability to move through a given part of the battlefield is contingent on whether or not it finishes its movement there) models are unassaultable simply by standing on the edge of a big, open (but indestructible) platform. And that's gakky game design.
Either of the two options (using WMS to allow models to stand just off the platform, or using the rules for assaulting in ruins) keeps the skyshield in line with every other piece of terrain in the game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:The rulebook never actually saying what you claim it does is what makes it true... 
Let's read the rulebook:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken."
This is very clearly talking about a situation in which a model CAN be placed in a given location, but the owner would prefer to have it in a safer spot. And then we see this:
"... it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.
So use of WMS at all is dependent on your opponent giving permission. Besides the fact that I'm entitled to refuse your request to use it (including attempting to assault onto a Skyshield) this strongly supports the idea that WMS is about protecting models, not gaining extra movement options.
Where is this general rule located?
It's located in the place where you find absolutely no mention of being able to count models as being somewhere that it is impossible to place the model.
Citation needed.
No, you have this backwards. YOU need to cite the rule that allows you to have a model count as being somewhere that it isn't. And WMS and ruins don't apply.
Yes it is. Models are free to move up or down off the skyshield as they please.
Only if they have a legal ending point for their move. If there isn't space to place a model on the Skyshield then it isn't accessible. For example, if the Skyshield is sitting on top of lethal terrain you don't get to ignore the lethal terrain just because you want to move off of it.
For any other piece of non-enclosed terrain, models don't become unassaultable just because enemy models don't have room to move onto the same piece of terrain...
Sure they do. The only case where you CAN assault without being in base contact is when both sides have models in base contact with opposite sides of a wall. In any other case if terrain prevents you from putting the models in base contact you don't get to assault.
The skyshield creates a unique situation where, if you decide that a model's ability to move through a given part of the battlefield is contingent on whether or not it finishes its movement there) models are unassaultable simply by standing on the edge of a big, open (but indestructible) platform. And that's gakky game design.
Maybe you should consider bringing some guns and using your shooting phase to make room for your models to assault onto the platform?
Either of the two options (using WMS to allow models to stand just off the platform, or using the rules for assaulting in ruins) keeps the skyshield in line with every other piece of terrain in the game.
No, they take it OUT of line with all other terrain by creating a special case where models can float in midair to assault, just because it would be "overpowered" if they can't.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:Besides the fact that I'm entitled to refuse your request to use it (including attempting to assault onto a Skyshield)...
Fine by me... My current approach to fortifications is to not use them until GW write actual, complete rules for them, so it would be unlikely to come up in game anyway
It's located in the place where you find absolutely no mention of being able to count models as being somewhere that it is impossible to place the model.
Ah. So your 'general rule' doesn't actually exist, then?
No, you have this backwards. YOU need to cite the rule that allows you to have a model count as being somewhere that it isn't. And WMS and ruins don't apply.
Well, yes, if you discount the rule that applies to the situation, there is no rule that applies to the situation. Well done.
No, they take it OUT of line with all other terrain by creating a special case where models can float in midair to assault, ...
... which is a situation that GW created by allowing models to walk through empty air to get up there...
...just because it would be "overpowered" if they can't.
GW have shown in the past that they are quite happy to change rules to satisfy perceived game balance. Reference the Dark Angels power field vs transport vehicle ruling in the DA FAQ.
65464
Post by: Unyielding Hunger
The rule you are looking for is called "Ruins and Assaults". No WMS is included anywhere in the area, so you don't need to read anything that will refer to it. Seriously, don't. It's not helping you. Now, onto the simple wording of the rule. Prepare for simplicity with textual enhancements.
In some cases, the ruin might genuinely be unstable or uneven, or the space could be very limited on a particular level, making it impossible to move charging models into base to base contact with the unit they wish to charge. When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to place models as close to their foe as possible, including the level below or above, providing that you make it clear to your opponent which of your models are in base to base contact with his models. We find that directly below or above works well, representing them charging up or down a flight of stairs.
And to quote the beautiful bold lettering above that, "...A model is engaged in combat if it in base contact with one or more enemy models, if it is within 2 inches of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models on the same level or if it is within 6 inches of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models on a different level.
Gentlemen, case closed, glad to be of help.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Oh no, Not again!
RAW, assault fails.
It's not a ruin, and the rules do not allow you to levitate, or defy gravity. Or can I use WMS to levitate over impassible terrain?
Can we stop looking at one static picture of the skyshield when we have this conversation and trying to warp physics to make it work? ie non RAW.
if you assault it, your entire unit needs to be able to reach the top or the assault fails due to not being able to maintain coherency. It does not make the skyshield unassaultable, just shoot it some more to make room and assault the next turn.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it isn't. The Skyshield is not a ruin, therefore the rules for ruins are about as relevant as the rules for WHFB.
99
Post by: insaniak
So models move up to the platform... how, exactly? Automatically Appended Next Post:
As has been pointed out, the skyshield is not a ruin.
It's a common workaround to use the ruins rules, but not actually RAW.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
With a difficult terrain test, that is how you move onto, or off from the shield. It does not mean the entire area under the shield is difficult terrain. Otherwise just moving under the shield would always be difficult terrain, and its not. It's just that simple, you make the test, and if you roll 4+" you can get onto or off from the shield, if not, you can not float under the shield. Like any other difficult terrain test, if you don't roll high enough to get into the terrain, you still need to make the test and use the results. Otherwise you are advocating you can levitate around the battle field and I can then levitate over other dangerous or impossible terrain.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
It's completely possible to make a Skyshield literally impervious to assault without WMS.
You need LoS to assault. It's pretty easy to stand 1.5" or so back from the edge with short models (Rippers, Scarabs, Grots, etc.) and ensure you cannot place a model on top to get LoS. "Just shoot them". Sure. No problem. Every time you shoot something it does, right? You've never failed to kill something?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
rigeld2 wrote:It's completely possible to make a Skyshield literally impervious to assault without WMS.
You need LoS to assault. It's pretty easy to stand 1.5" or so back from the edge with short models (Rippers, Scarabs, Grots, etc.) and ensure you cannot place a model on top to get LoS. "Just shoot them". Sure. No problem. Every time you shoot something it does, right? You've never failed to kill something?
Ya because no one uses barrage weapons, fliers, MC's or places their units up in ruins that can have a view of the thing. If they're relying on the 4++ that still means every 2 wounds caused, 1 model takes a wound.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Doesn't matter, you use the standard rules for moving through difficult terrain and go from point A to point B, ignoring "impossible" obstacles in the way. How you justify it fluff-wise is up to you.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
So... Did you read the entire post? Where I acknowledge something far away could shoot them...
Which also means your assault unit gets to stay useless for a bit if the shooting fails. And a 4+ does not guarantee 1 wound for every 2 - that's the statistical average, but relying on averages is rarely the best plan.
65464
Post by: Unyielding Hunger
The Skyshield is classified as Unique Terrain, as per it's Terrain Type. The top surface is classified as open terrain, while moving off or onto the Skyshield counts as moving through difficult terrain. Through technicalities on the definition of Unique Terrain, that can also mean that this is more than one type of Terrain at the same time. For instance, it could easily count as a "Ruin without Base". Other fortifications were luckily classified with actual building definitions, while the Skyshield remains "Unique Terrain". Until an update is released on the subject however, it's all up in the air.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else. Asking for a rule for this is like demanding a rule that you don't fire 10 shots at half range with a rapid fire weapon.
Well, yes, if you discount the rule that applies to the situation, there is no rule that applies to the situation. Well done.
No rule besides the general one, which is sufficient to cover the situation.
... which is a situation that GW created by allowing models to walk through empty air to get up there...
And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.
GW have shown in the past that they are quite happy to change rules to satisfy perceived game balance. Reference the Dark Angels power field vs transport vehicle ruling in the DA FAQ.
Sure. We can speculate all we want about how GW might change the rules in the future, but the question here is what they say now.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
rigeld2 wrote:So... Did you read the entire post? Where I acknowledge something far away could shoot them...
Which also means your assault unit gets to stay useless for a bit if the shooting fails. And a 4+ does not guarantee 1 wound for every 2 - that's the statistical average, but relying on averages is rarely the best plan.
And how would your assault unit be in assault range on the first turn? odds are you'll have 2 full turns of shooting before your assault units get into position, sometimes 3 if they're deep striking in.
And depending on the mission, as he can't place any objectives on the shied, you can also just hide under the shield yourself, place some blocking terrain next to other objectives and wait him out.
The law of large numbers means you can pretty much rely on statistical averages. so after 3 rounds of shooting there should be plenty of room for your assault unit, if there's any models left on the shield
99
Post by: insaniak
sirlynchmob wrote:With a difficult terrain test, that is how you move onto, or off from the shield. .
Ah. So this difficult terrain test allows them to move directly up to a platform 3 times their height above the ground... but doesn't allow them to levitate, or defy gravity....
Like any other difficult terrain test, if you don't roll high enough to get into the terrain, you still need to make the test and use the results.
Except the terrain you are trying to enter is not difficult terrain in this case. The top of the skysheidl is open.
In any other situation where you have open terrain surrounded by difficult terrain, a difficult terrain roll that is insufficient to reach that open ground would not stop you from using the distance that you have rolled.
Otherwise you are advocating you can levitate around the battle field and I can then levitate over other dangerous or impossible terrain.
No, I'm just advocating that a specific piece of terrain that allows models to levitate to reach it allows models to levtitate to reach it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:Ah. So this difficult terrain test allows them to move directly up to a platform 3 times their height above the ground... but doesn't allow them to levitate, or defy gravity....
Again, you're confusing fluff with rules. The rules for difficult terrain permit you to move from point A to point B, even if "impossible" barriers like a wall without a door are in your path. How you justify this fluff-wise is up to you. The Skyshield is no different, you can move across the obstacle as long as your ending point is legal, but that doesn't give you permission to pretend that your model is hovering in midair as its final position.
Except the terrain you are trying to enter is not difficult terrain in this case. The top of the skysheidl is open.
Doesn't matter. You have to roll for difficult terrain (and are limited to the result of that roll) if you move through ANY difficult terrain, even if you start and end your move in clear terrain.
In any other situation where you have open terrain surrounded by difficult terrain, a difficult terrain roll that is insufficient to reach that open ground would not stop you from using the distance that you have rolled.
But a failed roll to get onto the Skyshield doesn't stop you either. If you roll a 1 for your movement distance you are still permitted to move 1" in some other direction along the ground.
No, I'm just advocating that a specific piece of terrain that allows models to levitate to reach it allows models to levtitate to reach it.
No, you're advocating allowing a model to end its move on the ground but pretend that it's floating in midair.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else.
Oh, of course. How silly of me.
You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.
And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.
The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air. The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain. Models are only able to fly if they have some rules-based means of doing so.
The skyshield ignores that, and allows models to fly to the top surface with a difficult terrain test. However you want to slice it, this sort of movement is outside the normal scope of the game. The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is... It takes empty air and makes it something that normal models can walk on. And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:No, you're advocating allowing a model to end its move on the ground but pretend that it's floating in midair.
... in this specific situation, where the rules allow models to move through empty air as if it is terrain, yes.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote: Peregrine wrote:Of course it exists. Models are where they are on the table unless explicitly given permission to count as being somewhere else.
Oh, of course. How silly of me.
You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.
And then covered by the difficult terrain rules where you are given permission to move through obstacles (such as walls with no doors) and go from point A to point B. That does not imply any permission to have models stop and hover in midair.
The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air. The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain. Models are only able to fly if they have some rules-based means of doing so.
The skyshield ignores that, and allows models to fly to the top surface with a difficult terrain test. However you want to slice it, this sort of movement is outside the normal scope of the game. The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is... It takes empty air and makes it something that normal models can walk on. And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top.
You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.
99
Post by: insaniak
sirlynchmob wrote:You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.
It wouldn't be applied because I wouldn't be asking for it. In the peculiar event that I decided to play a game against someone using a skyshield, I would by arguing for the far more commonly accepted 'treat it as a ruins' approach. It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:You just need the owner of the sky shield to agree with your WMS interpretation, so there's a pretty good reason it won't get applied.
It wouldn't be applied because I wouldn't be asking for it. In the peculiar event that I decided to play a game against someone using a skyshield, I would by arguing for the far more commonly accepted 'treat it as a ruins' approach. It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.
For the record, I'd say no to both. The skyshield is no where near as OP as people try to make it out to be. It doesn't need any funny playing with rules, it really is fine the way it is.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:You know what this game needs? A rule allowing models to count as being somewhere they're not able to be placed. They could call it, I don't know, 'Models that wobble' or something.
And, again, WMS does not cover this. WMS covers a situation where the model CAN be placed but the owner would prefer to have it in a safer location. It does NOT give you additional movement options.
The difficult terrain rules allow you to move through obstacles. They don't really deal with empty air.
They don't need to. Empty air is just another obstacle, the difficult terrain roll allows you to pass through it and go from point A to point B (if your movement distance is sufficient).
The general assumption made by players (in the absence of your 'general rule') is that in order for a model to move somewhere, it has to do so along the terrain.
Which is wrong according to the rules. For example, you can move through a wall without a door instead of having to move along the terrain up the wall, across the top, and down the other side (a considerably longer distance).
The only reason this movement is possible at all is that the skysheild rules say that it is...
And that's all you need. Roll difficult terrain, move directly from point A to point B if your movement distance is sufficient. How you justify fluff-wise what your models are doing is up to you, the rules don't care.
And within that context, there is absolutely no reason for WMS to not apply if the model doesn't make it all of the way to the top.
Except for the requirement that the model be successfully placed before asking to use WMS, which you can't do.
Except for the requirement that your opponent give you permission to use WMS (which they will never do in this situation). Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote:It achieves effectively the exact same result, but is less headache-causing.
And why do we need to obtain that result? Why don't we just play it as the rules say to play it, since the rules work just fine?
99
Post by: insaniak
It's not really an issue of it being particularly overpowered, just of one specific interpretation of the rules not making any sense within the (admittedly rather limited) scope of the rules they wrote for the thing.
If you're going to allow models to levitate to the platform in the first place, there is absolutely no reason to not assume that they can levtitate to assault it.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:It's not really an issue of it being particularly overpowered, just of one specific interpretation of the rules not making any sense within the (admittedly rather limited) scope of the rules they wrote for the thing.
If you're going to allow models to levitate to the platform in the first place, there is absolutely no reason to not assume that they can levtitate to assault it.
Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn? Now if only there was any permission anywhere for models to levitate. It's a near impossible scenario and I guess we can go over it again next week
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:They don't need to. Empty air is just another obstacle, the difficult terrain roll allows you to pass through it and go from point A to point B (if your movement distance is sufficient).
You realise that this interpretation leads you to crazy places, like models balancing on the top of trees as in Crablezworth's picture?
Why don't we just play it as the rules say to play it, since the rules work just fine?
Because, apparently, some people have issues with WMS applying to this situation...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn?
No, models levitating around the battlefield doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately... Skyshield. Levitating. Ho!
The thing is, you could make the same argument about ruins. Why bother allowing models to assault a level up in ruins when there is no room for them to get there? Surely they could have just said 'Nup, can't do it. Just shoot them, or something'...
Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:You realise that this interpretation leads you to crazy places, like models balancing on the top of trees as in Crablezworth's picture?
Not really, since the model has to have enough movement distance to get up there (don't forget to count vertical distance) AND you have to be able to place the model successfully (good luck on the top of a pointy tree). It's certainly less ridiculous than having models floating in midair.
Because, apparently, some people have issues with WMS applying to this situation... 
So because your request for a house rule is denied your response it to insist that we need a different house rule to obtain the same goal? Why don't we just follow the rules instead? Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote:Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.
That's your assumption. The alternative is that the Skyshield is a defensive structure, so making it a better defensive position than a ruin is a good thing.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:So because your request for a house rule is denied your response it to insist that we need a different house rule to obtain the same goal? Why don't we just follow the rules instead?
No, because the way I feel the rules actually apply to this situation is rather counter-intuitive, I would prefer to use the more commonly accepted house rule that achieves the same effective end result but is easier for people to wrap their heads around.
You are of course free to disagree that the rules work the way I say they do, and given the odds of us ever winding up on opposite sides of the table, that is unlikely to ever cause a significant problem.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:Because levitating around the battle field makes more sense than your assault just failing that turn?
No, models levitating around the battlefield doesn't make much sense. Unfortunately... Skyshield. Levitating. Ho!
The thing is, you could make the same argument about ruins. Why bother allowing models to assault a level up in ruins when there is no room for them to get there? Surely they could have just said 'Nup, can't do it. Just shoot them, or something'...
Clearly, this unassaultable level scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They specifically addressed it with ruins. They didn't with the skyshield, but that's most likely for the same reason that the rules for most of the fortifications are incomplete... they just didn't bother finishing them before publishing 6th edition.
permissive rule set remember?
Ruins give you permission for extra rules for assaults, the sky shield does not. If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?
99
Post by: insaniak
sirlynchmob wrote:Ruins give you permission for extra rules for assaults, the sky shield does not.
Isn't that what I just said...?
If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?
Just as soon as you present the rule that allows you to do so, certainly.
This is a rule that allows models to ignore gravity and levitate up to the top of the skyshield. There is no such rule that applies to moving over the top of enemy models.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:No, because the way I feel the rules actually apply to this situation is rather counter-intuitive, I would prefer to use the more commonly accepted house rule that achieves the same effective end result but is easier for people to wrap their heads around.
Which is your right, of course. Just don't present it as if the rules allow you to do it, just say "I think this is stupid, I prefer to house rule that you treat it as a ruin and can assault". I have a problem with your incorrect claims about the use of WMS and the difficult terrain rules, not your desire to have a sensible house rule.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:
If we want to deal with unsassaultable situations, then I suppose you wouldn't have a problem with me levitating over a guard blob that are keeping me from assault a tank hiding in the corner?
Just as soon as you present the rule that allows you to do so, certainly.
This is a rule that allows models to ignore gravity and levitate up to the top of the skyshield. There is no such rule that applies to moving over the top of enemy models.
Odd, I don't see anything about ignoring gravity or levitating in the rules. But if WMS allows levitation, then you can levitate over a unit to get to a unit behind them. Clearly, this unassaultable scenario is something that GW didn't want to occur. They just didn't bother finishing thee rules before publishing 6th edition.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:Which is your right, of course. Just don't present it as if the rules allow you to do it, just say "I think this is stupid, I prefer to house rule that you treat it as a ruin and can assault".
Except that IS exactly what I was saying.
The difference is simply coming from the fact that you disagree as to how the rules actually work here, so you're seeing both of my options as house rules. I, obviously, see it somewhat differently. Automatically Appended Next Post:
It doesn't.
The skyshield allows levitation.
WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:
It doesn't.
The skyshield allows levitation.
WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.
Citation needed. The skyshield does nothing of the sort.
99
Post by: insaniak
Yeah, I don't think we really need to climb back onto that roundabout yet again.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:Yeah, I don't think we really need to climb back onto that roundabout yet again.
I agree, Just stop saying levitation and unassaultable. Neither one is the case here. Sure you might not be able to assault something you want for a turn or two, but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops? This recurring thread bugs me because people look at one snap shot and just give up, saying its unassaultable in this one situation. You have 5-7 turns to do something about it, and at some point you should be able to assault units on it, hence it is able to be assaulted.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.
No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.
99
Post by: insaniak
sirlynchmob wrote: but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops?
You can assault those troops instead. You can't attack the skyshield.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: but how is that really any difference that the tank in a corner surrounded by troops?
You can assault those troops instead. You can't attack the skyshield.
But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Look, if you want to play it as a ruin talk to your opponent about it during the pre game terrain discussion and feel them out on it. I'm sure there's plenty of players who are willing to play it that way.
As others have pointed out, the requirement for los still stands regardless of whether you need to be in base to base or not so depending on the ruin you can run into a similar situation where you can't assault.
I tend to play with as little asbtraction as possible when it comes to terrain. Obviously there has to be some climbing mechanic and the one for ruins works well for most things but it's important to have that detailed dicussion about everything before the game.
I also agree with you when it comes to fortifications, I'm not a fan of any of them and won't play againsts them unlesss I have to (tournament).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Peregrine wrote: insaniak wrote:WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand. No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.
Actually it does... Wobbly Model Syndrome: Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall I 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" P. 11 Clearly the underlined permits a model to be in a location that is not able to be placed within, as DT rolls let models melt through walls of runs and as such the models can move through solid walls, but the model can not be placed "exactly where you want" at the end of its move as it would physically be within a ruins, but solid, wall.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
DeathReaper wrote: Peregrine wrote: insaniak wrote:WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.
No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.
Actually it does...
Wobbly Model Syndrome:
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall I as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken In cases like this, we find i t is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a s afer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location" P. 11
Clearly the underlined permits a model to be in a location that is not able to be placed within, as DT rolls let models melt through walls of runs and as such the models can move through solid walls, but the model can not be placed "exactly where you want" at the end of its move as it would physically be within a ruins, but solid, wall.
LMAO!! you're really reaching reaper, even for you :p
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Do you have a rules argument or are you just stating things with no rules backing, which is not allowed as per the tenets of the forum?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it doesn't. It says that it might be HARD to put a model exactly where you want, not IMPOSSIBLE. Hard is balancing on an uneven bit of rubble on the top of a tall ruin where the model could fall to inevitable damage. Impossible is having a model floating in midair.
And then in the next sentence it refers to delicately balancing it in place. This is very clearly talking about a situation where you can place the model but would prefer to have it somewhere safer, not a situation where the model can't be placed at all because no terrain exists to hold it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Hard is also putting it within a space that does not allow the model to stay, like within the confines of a wall in a ruin or other DT.
It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall.
After all, the DT rules allow models to move through walls, so it is within the scope of the WMS rules to actually stop there.
99
Post by: insaniak
sirlynchmob wrote:But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.
It's not a matter of me accepting it. You asked what the difference was. I gave you a difference.
But if I were to insist that the assault on the unit on top of the skyshield should be allowed, it would be because it is allowed, as I read the rules, and because in the only directly comparable situation, GW last edition ruled that it should be allowed, and this edition built that allowance into the ruins rules.
And yes, once again, the skyshield isn't a ruin... But it's not a huge leap of faith to expect it to be ruled the same way if they ever do FAQ it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DeathReaper wrote:It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall.
No, that is impossible, not hard. No amount of careful balancing will ever allow you to place the model inside the wall.
After all, the DT rules allow models to move through walls, so it is within the scope of the WMS rules to actually stop there.
No it is not. WMS very clearly requires you to place the model, not just point at a spot and declare that it will count as being there.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Additionally, peregrine, you are parsing the "agreement" incorrectly
The agreement is NOT to use WMS at all, but that you both "agree AND KNOW" the location. As in, both of you agree where the model is, and both know where the model is. Without agreement on the location you could both "know" it is in a different location.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
nosferatu1001 wrote:The agreement is NOT to use WMS at all, but that you both "agree AND KNOW" the location. As in, both of you agree where the model is, and both know where the model is. Without agreement on the location you could both "know" it is in a different location.
Let's look at the quote again:
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.
Note that it says "agreed", not "agreed on its location". And the "agreed on its location" interpretation would make it a redundant statement, if both players know its actual location then they've agreed on it. The sentence makes a lot more sense if the agreement is to use WMS at all. Then you have two non-redundant requirements. IOW:
Player A: Hey, that model looks like it's about to fall off, can I WMS it?
Player B: Sure, just put a die there to mark the spot.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Not true, it isnt redundant
I can "know" it is in position A. You can "know" it is in position A+1. Without Agreement "knowing" is insufficient.
Your parsing is incorrect.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No you can't. If we both "know" that it is in a different position then one of us doesn't know where it is, since a model can only be in one place. You can only have both players know where the model is if they agree on its location.
Your parsing is incorrect.
No. Even if you believe that yours is a legitimate interpretation that doesn't mean that mine isn't. At best the sentence is ambiguous enough that yours could be a second possible interpretation.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, your parsing IS incorrect, as you are inserting a comma that doesnt exist in order to come to the conclusion you have done -that you can separate the agreement from the "and know" part it is actually joined to.
"...have agreed, and know..." is the way to write what you are parsing the sentence as, however that isnt how the sentence is written.
You do not need to agree that WMS can be used - it is part of the rules. You only have to agree on the location of the model.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
nosferatu1001 wrote:"...have agreed, and know..." is the way to write what you are parsing the sentence as
No it isn't. The version with no comma works just fine. For example, I can say "you need to bring your paint and glue to work on that model", I don't have to put a comma between them.
In fact, you're the one who is reading it wrong. To mean what you think it means the correct statement would be:
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 ON and know its 'actual' location.
The "on" is what tells you that the agreement is about the location. Without it the agreement is not necessarily about the location, it's just a requirement of "have agreed" and "know its actual location" before you can move the model.
You do not need to agree that WMS can be used - it is part of the rules.
It is part of the rules, but it requires agreement to use them. Just like how in the terrain setup rules you're given permission to adjust the random terrain as long as both players agree to do so.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
My take on this;
>if models in a skyshield cannot be assaulted then it's broken as feth
>ergo they can be assaulted in the skyshield, and boot shall be applied to the asses of any who disagree
35071
Post by: Enigma Crisis
Dakkamite wrote:My take on this;
>if models in a skyshield cannot be assaulted then it's broken as feth
>ergo they can be assaulted in the skyshield, and boot shall be applied to the asses of any who disagree
No one is saying it can never be assaulted. What they are saying is you can't have a model floating in midair so the charge fails for that turn. So shoot the squad that is occupying the Skyshield the next turn then try the assault again the next turn.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
I'm referring to the original question, which is "can I stop you assaulting the sky shield with various shenanigans"
Why customizing a model can be considered TFG, but gak like this isn't, is well and truly beyond me.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.
It's not a matter of me accepting it. You asked what the difference was. I gave you a difference.
But if I were to insist that the assault on the unit on top of the skyshield should be allowed, it would be because it is allowed, as I read the rules, and because in the only directly comparable situation, GW last edition ruled that it should be allowed, and this edition built that allowance into the ruins rules.
And yes, once again, the skyshield isn't a ruin... But it's not a huge leap of faith to expect it to be ruled the same way if they ever do FAQ it.
And calling it a ruin is a horrid idea. Most seem to think delaying an assault by a turn or two is so horrendous, wait til they see my entire ork army with a 4++ as they conga line around the field to claim objectives  Invuln saves for near 200 models, not bad for 75 points. Because the unit gets the 4++, so any one model on the sky shield is enough for the unit to claim the save. Ergo we stick with the coherency RAW and terrain type RAW and that solves that issue.
oh and speaking of this WMS levitation stuff, couldn't I ring the wall of the skyshield with models? This would deny you any possible space for your models to levitate off from. Or would you claim you can levitate in mid air?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Peregrine - no, it requires both players to agree and know the position of the models you are replacing with tokens. Not agreement on using hte rule at all - either player may always use that rule, no matter what their opponent thinks.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Peregrine wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall. No, that is impossible, not hard. No amount of careful balancing will ever allow you to place the model inside the wall.
No that is not impossible, it is hard to put it in a solid wall, as you would have to modify the terrain to get it to fit in a location where the model is clearly allowed to move. It can be done, it is not impossible, but it sure is hard to do as you would need a cutting instrument to get the model to stay in that location. No it is not. WMS very clearly requires you to place the model...
Actually WMS requires no such thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: sirlynchmob wrote:speaking of this WMS levitation stuff, couldn't I ring the wall of the skyshield with models? This would deny you any possible space for your models to levitate off from. Or would you claim you can levitate in mid air?
Well the Skyshield rules do say to take a DT test to move on or off. Models in the center of the skyshield can move directly downward and through the Skyshield with a DT test, as per the rules. so they can float in midair as long as they are under the Skyshield as per the rules for the Skyshield.
71953
Post by: Tactical_Genius
I'm firmly with Peregrine on this. The rules do not tell you to "levitate" onto the skyshield at all. Furthermore, I strongly agree with him on his interpretation of WMS. That is how it has always been played around my area too. Also, with regards to DeathReapers comment about using cutting tools, and therefore it is not impossible: smashing up my opponents tank with a hammer is not impossible, but am I allowed to do that RAW? I somehow doubt it. Therefore claiming that you can use WMS to place a model in a wall because you "could" cut it with some tools is absurd. As is levitating.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Actually they do by saying you can move onto and off of the Skyshield with a Difficult Terrain test.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys (nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Crablezworth wrote:For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys ( nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
DeathReaper wrote: Crablezworth wrote:For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys ( nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.
sure there is, permissive rule set remember?
you have to move onto the shield, stopping 1/2 way is not moving onto the shield. Maybe you can show me where models float or levitate in the rules and how to handle it?
53035
Post by: Sopoko
Even before fortifications rules, me and my brother have always played it the same way: In order to move onto the platform, you must use one of the 4 access points on the model.
RAW: "Access Points & Fire Points: AS PER MODEL"
This is the same rule for imperial bastions (which has a door on the front) and FOR.
For ye who are still thick headed:
1: Take melts bombs
2: "Hey, this is the same material as a Bastion," *charge a leg.
3: Hope for Detonation or Total Collapse
Congratulations, it is now a ruin. Assault away on the person who refuses to accept a quasi ruin assault adaptation.
If you still don't like this interpretation. Don't allow a sky shield without an agreement on which rule to use. I would check out page 95 about battlements if you still dislike the access points that are on the model.
You would be better off assaulting from underneath where you can't get hit by enemy fire before you can get in charge range.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sopoko wrote:
You would be better off assaulting from underneath where you can't get hit by enemy fire before you can get in charge range.
You need line of sight to charge.
53035
Post by: Sopoko
Well, I mean move up from underneath, then launch assault.
Common sense still works best unless GW has a rule saying it doesn't.
Just use the access points if your opponents say you can't levi-charge them like ruins. They are in the RAW at least. I'm not even sure I would allow a floating move up to the top since it has access points. Only jet packs or skimmers could get off the edge or else I'd make you take a Leaping Down (p95) test.
71953
Post by: Tactical_Genius
DeathReaper wrote: Crablezworth wrote:For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys ( nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.
Citation needed... Where do the rules say "float"?
99
Post by: insaniak
That was changed in the Rulebook errata about 3 and a half minutes after the Rulebook was released. The skyshield has no access or firepoints. You just move onto it from anywhere you want with a difficult terrain test.
For ye who are still thick headed:
1: Take melts bombs
2: "Hey, this is the same material as a Bastion," *charge a leg.
3: Hope for Detonation or Total Collapse
The skyshield is not a building. There are no rules for attacking any terrain that is not a building.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
insaniak wrote: There are no rules for attacking any terrain that is not a building.
And Weapon Emplacements.
53035
Post by: Sopoko
insaniak wrote:
That was changed in the Rulebook errata about 3 and a half minutes after the Rulebook was released. The skyshield has no access or firepoints. You just move onto it from anywhere you want with a difficult terrain test.
Well that really mucks it up. The rule was fine as written... /break game
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DeathReaper wrote:No that is not impossible, it is hard to put it in a solid wall, as you would have to modify the terrain to get it to fit in a location where the model is clearly allowed to move. It can be done, it is not impossible, but it sure is hard to do as you would need a cutting instrument to get the model to stay in that location.
This is a joke, right? You aren't allowed to cut a hole in terrain to make room for your model, so it is impossible to have a model placed halfway through one.
Actually WMS requires no such thing.
I guess this is the strategy of "repeat it often enough and people will believe it is true"? I've quoted the WMS rules, and it says you have to successfully place the model (and then ask for permission) before moving it to a safer location.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote: DeathReaper wrote:No that is not impossible, it is hard to put it in a solid wall, as you would have to modify the terrain to get it to fit in a location where the model is clearly allowed to move. It can be done, it is not impossible, but it sure is hard to do as you would need a cutting instrument to get the model to stay in that location.
This is a joke, right? You aren't allowed to cut a hole in terrain to make room for your model, so it is impossible to have a model placed halfway through one.
And yet, for the vast majority of players (at least from my experience) it is played as allowing you to have a model halfway through a wall.
Regardless of your personal opinion on the RAW, it is worth considering how the game is actually played, and how that impacts a rules issue. In this case, the idea that WMS allows you to put the model there despite it not being physically able to be placed is both consistent with one interpretation of the rule, and how the game is generally played. YMMV, depending on your interpretation of WMS and your local game, obviously.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
This must be the first time that a majority of players getting a rule wrong is used as a justification for playing it that way...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crablezworth wrote:This must be the first time that a majority of players getting a rule wrong is used as a justification for playing it that way...
Line of sight, blasts wounding out of line of sight, equivalence of wounds and pens/glances...
There's more, but no - this isn't the first. And if you wouldn't mind toning down the patronizing tone that'd be great.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Tactical_Genius wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Crablezworth wrote:For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys ( nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.
Citation needed... Where do the rules say "float"?
In the case of the Skyshield Move/Float is the same thing as they allow you to move onto or off of the skyshield with a DT test. You can be in the center of the Skyshield, roll for DT and move through the floor off of the skyshield.
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
DeathReaper wrote:Tactical_Genius wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Crablezworth wrote:For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys ( nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.
Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.
Citation needed... Where do the rules say "float"?
In the case of the Skyshield Move/Float is the same thing as they allow you to move onto or off of the skyshield with a DT test. You can be in the center of the Skyshield, roll for DT and move through the floor off of the skyshield.
Yes you can move onto the skyshield if you have room. You can't float onto it if there's no room for your models. As Peregerine said you can go from point A to point B, but you can't decide to stop in the middle
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Skimask Mohawk wrote:Yes you can move onto the skyshield if you have room. You can't float onto it if there's no room for your models. As Peregerine said you can go from point A to point B, but you can't decide to stop in the middle
Why can you not stop in an area that the rules allow you to move through? Got a Page and Graph that says this, or is it just an assumption?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DeathReaper wrote:Why can you not stop in an area that the rules allow you to move through?
Because you can't place the model there. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Why can you not stop in an area that the rules allow you to move through?
Because you can't place the model there. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
That's perfectly easy to understand. But irrelevant to someone who disagrees with your take on WMS.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:That's perfectly easy to understand. But irrelevant to someone who disagrees with your take on WMS.
And I don't understand how anyone can possibly disagree. WMS says very clearly what you have to do, and it does not include pointing to a spot in midair and saying "that's where my model is".
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:And I don't understand how anyone can possibly disagree. WMS says very clearly what you have to do, and it does not include pointing to a spot in midair and saying "that's where my model is".
Understand it or not, people do disagree.
That's not the end of the world. The thread doesn't have to end with one 'correct' answer and the other 'side' falling on their swords. Sometimes the end result of these sorts of discussions is that it turns out that there is more than one way that people are playing it, and it just becomes something to discuss with your opponent.
63094
Post by: Gravmyr
Seeing as GW has problems articulating how they wanted things to work as a general rule it seems what they were attempting to say in the original rules for the Skyshield was do so at the ladders. Does this make it hard to assault the Skyshield? Clearly. Far from impossible though. Before anything is said about hard to assault units I point to buildings. There is no way to assault a unit that is in a building unless you are in another part of the building, though obviously in the real world units inside of buildings are assaulted regularly. If they were going to treat a unit on the Skyshield as "embarked" onto it similar to a building/battlement then there would be no way to assault as you have to be in the same building. Buildings or vehicles are the only things with Fire Ports and Access points which would be why they had to be removed from terrain as there are no rules for dealing with them on terrain.
Short term fix: "To move onto or off of the landing pad a model must be moved to within 2" of one of the ladders and counts as moving though difficult terrain."
99
Post by: insaniak
So you're suggesting that a land raider gets on and off via the ladders?
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
insaniak wrote: Peregrine wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Why can you not stop in an area that the rules allow you to move through?
Because you can't place the model there. Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?
That's perfectly easy to understand. But irrelevant to someone who disagrees with your take on WMS.
WMS seems to indicate that you need to actually be able to place the model and that you need opponents permission.
99
Post by: insaniak
Skimask Mohawk wrote:WMS seems to indicate that you need to actually be able to place the model and that you need opponents permission.
Yes, we've been over that. There is some disagreement that this is actually what WMS says, and common usage also goes against that interpretation.
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
insaniak wrote: Skimask Mohawk wrote:WMS seems to indicate that you need to actually be able to place the model and that you need opponents permission.
Yes, we've been over that. There is some disagreement that this is actually what WMS says, and common usage also goes against that interpretation.
If theres still disagreement I'd say we haven't really been over it enough lol. Also just because the common usage of WMS is flat out wrong doesn't give that wrong usage a free pass. A comparison would be to say the world commonly used slavery for thousands of years; it must be right.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The common usage of WMS is not flat out wrong.
The rule states "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want" P. 11
clearly it is hard to put a model "exactly where you want" when moving onto a Skyshield as there is nothing below the Skyshield to rest the model on.
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" P. 11
65717
Post by: Elric Greywolf
DeathReaper wrote:You can be in the center of the Skyshield, roll for DT and move through the floor off of the skyshield.
What rule allows you to do this? I know that Ruins work in this manner, but usually with terrain you have to move to the edge of a cliff and then move down. Why assume that moving onto/off of the Skyshield includes moving through the piece of terrain?
99
Post by: insaniak
Skimask Mohawk wrote:If theres still disagreement I'd say we haven't really been over it enough lol. Also just because the common usage of WMS is flat out wrong doesn't give that wrong usage a free pass. A comparison would be to say the world commonly used slavery for thousands of years; it must be right.
Yeah, because slavery is totally a reasonable comparison to a game of toy soldiers...
We're talking about a game here. And in a game, common usage does give a 'wrong' interpretation a 'free pass'. If enough people play a rule a given way, then what the rule actually says becomes irrelevant... games will be played with the commonly used version regardless.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Elric Greywolf wrote: DeathReaper wrote:You can be in the center of the Skyshield, roll for DT and move through the floor off of the skyshield.
What rule allows you to do this? I know that Ruins work in this manner, but usually with terrain you have to move to the edge of a cliff and then move down. Why assume that moving onto/off of the Skyshield includes moving through the piece of terrain?
The rule for the Skyshield, on page 115, that says "To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DeathReaper wrote:clearly it is hard to put a model "exactly where you want" when moving onto a Skyshield as there is nothing below the Skyshield to rest the model on.
Sigh. Once again, hard is not impossible.
Balancing a model on a rough bit of debris in a ruin is hard. It might take a while to get it balanced and you might have to keep putting it back every time someone bumps the table, but with enough effort it can be done.
Placing a model in midair below a Skyshield is impossible. No amount of effort will make it happen.
Conclusion: WMS does not cover models floating in midair.
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
insaniak wrote: Skimask Mohawk wrote:If theres still disagreement I'd say we haven't really been over it enough lol. Also just because the common usage of WMS is flat out wrong doesn't give that wrong usage a free pass. A comparison would be to say the world commonly used slavery for thousands of years; it must be right.
Yeah, because slavery is totally a reasonable comparison to a game of toy soldiers...
We're talking about a game here. And in a game, common usage does give a 'wrong' interpretation a 'free pass'. If enough people play a rule a given way, then what the rule actually says becomes irrelevant... games will be played with the commonly used version regardless.
Hahahahahah........Sorry, I was just laughing at you. It's going to sound like I'm not taking you seriously but that's only because I'm not.
@DeathReaper It is difficult to rest a model on thin air. Its just like ascending levels in a ruin; if you roll a 2 to go up a level you don't get to be 1" from the destination. You can go from point A to point B, but you can't stop in the middle
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
It's also worth pointing out that ruins have a rule that models may only be placed where they can fit. A trygon not being able to fit between a second and third floor of a ruin means shockingly enough that it cannot be placed there, in the eyes of the wms = magic crowd that justs means you "wms" it, in the eyes of individuals with a stable hold on common sense it means you actually just cannot put your model there. Shocking stuff.
99
Post by: insaniak
Crablezworth wrote:It's also worth pointing out that ruins have a rule that models may only be placed where they can fit. A trygon not being able to fit between a second and third floor of a ruin means shockingly enough that it cannot be placed there, in the eyes of the wms = magic crowd that justs means you " wms" it,
You keep saying this, and it's still not true.
WMS doesn't allow a model to go somewhere it is not allowed to go. If a rule says you can't place the model there, then you can't place the model there. WMS doesn't change that.
And this sort of nonsense:
in the eyes of individuals with a stable hold on common sense ...
Is not constructive. If you can not remain civil, I would recommend taking a break from the thread. Automatically Appended Next Post: Skimask Mohawk wrote: Its just like ascending levels in a ruin; if you roll a 2 to go up a level you don't get to be 1" from the destination. You can go from point A to point B, but you can't stop in the middle
Except it's not just like ascending levels in a ruin, because it's not a ruin. You can't stop between levels in a ruin because the ruins rules specifically say you can't. That doesn't apply to anything that isn't a ruin.
Of course, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, I'm more than happy to apply the ruins rules to the skyshield, since that neatly fixes the assault issue by allowing you to assault models on the pad from the ground anyway.
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
insaniak wrote: Crablezworth wrote:It's also worth pointing out that ruins have a rule that models may only be placed where they can fit. A trygon not being able to fit between a second and third floor of a ruin means shockingly enough that it cannot be placed there, in the eyes of the wms = magic crowd that justs means you " wms" it,
You keep saying this, and it's still not true.
WMS doesn't allow a model to go somewhere it is not allowed to go. If a rule says you can't place the model there, then you can't place the model there. WMS doesn't change that.
What part of his statement is untrue? the part about models not being able to be placed where they can't fit? Or that you guys use wms as an excuse for not following the rules?
The 40k rules are not permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do an action you can't do said action. Here's an example: the rules don't say I can stand up on the table and step on models. The rules also don't say you can float in mid air when trying to ascend a skyshield
99
Post by: insaniak
Skimask Mohawk wrote:What part of his statement is untrue? the part about models not being able to be placed where they can't fit? Or that you guys use wms as an excuse for not following the rules?
Since I just explained in the post you quoted which part I was referring to as untrue, this post is fairly blatant trolling. If the extent of your contribution is going to be to mark snarky remarks about interpretations you disagree with not following the rules, we're pretty much done here.
Consider this a last call for the thread. If the discussion can not be continued without the snark, the thread will be closed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:Except it's not just like ascending levels in a ruin, because it's not a ruin. You can't stop between levels in a ruin because the ruins rules specifically say you can't. That doesn't apply to anything that isn't a ruin.
You're right, the rules for ruins don't apply since the Skyshield is not a ruin. But it does suggest that GW doesn't like the idea of models counting as floating in midair, and that the explicit requirement in the WMS rules isn't a mistake.
(Not that you need the ruins rules, since the Skyshield is already covered by the lack of permission to count a model as being somewhere it can't be placed and the fact that you can't place a model in midair next to a Skyshield.)
Of course, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, I'm more than happy to apply the ruins rules to the skyshield, since that neatly fixes the assault issue by allowing you to assault models on the pad from the ground anyway.
Again, you're assuming that there is an issue at all when there isn't. Not being able to assault onto a Skyshield isn't a problem, just like not being able to shoot through LOS blocking terrain isn't a problem. Sometimes the terrain just blocks you from doing what you want to do.
99
Post by: insaniak
Not being able to assault when enemy models were filling an entire floor in a ruin wasn't really a huge problem either. And yet when people raised it as an issue, GW agreed and changed the ruins rules.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
insaniak wrote:Not being able to assault when enemy models were filling an entire floor in a ruin wasn't really a huge problem either. And yet when people raised it as an issue, GW agreed and changed the ruins rules.
Sure, but that's a rule change in the context of an entire edition change, not a house rule. They are two very different things.
And, like I said, if you want to propose a house rule that you can assault onto a Skyshield (by whatever method) to fix the perceived problem, that's fine. I have no problem with you playing the game in a way that makes more sense to you, I only have a problem with your incorrect statements about how the rules as published by GW work (including WMS). Just admit that it's a house rule to change something you don't like and that's the end of it.
99
Post by: insaniak
Peregrine wrote:Sure, but that's a rule change in the context of an entire edition change, not a house rule. They are two very different things.
It wasn't just the edition change. They changed that rule halfway through 5th edition.
But my point was simply that we have a rule that people are taking a couple of different ways, and a very, very similar issue that GW has addressed in the past. It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to ignore that precedent.
While consistency isn't something that GW always care about, it's usually a good place to start.
Just admit that it's a house rule to change something you don't like and that's the end of it.
Agreeing that we both read the WMS rules differently is just as much an end to it... There are no prizes for 'winning' the thread
65717
Post by: Elric Greywolf
DeathReaper wrote: Elric Greywolf wrote: DeathReaper wrote:You can be in the center of the Skyshield, roll for DT and move through the floor off of the skyshield.
What rule allows you to do this ( edit: "move through the floor")? I know that Ruins work in this manner ( edit: being able to move through solid matter), but usually with terrain ( edit: hills, buildings, gun emplacements, archeotech) you have to move to the edge of a cliff and then move down ( edit: you may not move through physical objects that aren't Ruins). Why assume that moving onto/off of the Skyshield includes moving through the piece of terrain (edit: unlike most other terrain [yes, I know about Ruins])?
The rule for the Skyshield, on page 115, that says "To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain."
As do you, I own the rulebook, and read it frequently. I read this rule before asking my question. Did my phrasing throw you off? Did you need an example? I added some clarifications to my question, included in this post.
99
Post by: insaniak
The rules fir difficult terrain allow you to move through obstructions.
63094
Post by: Gravmyr
insaniak wrote:So you're suggesting that a land raider gets on and off via the ladders?
If they had made it a battlement this would already be answered with the rules for embarking and access points, like the original rules seemed to support with the mention of access points. This would have lead to a unit the was impossible to assault though which they seem to be trying to address by making it just terrain but allowing vehicles to move onto it which caused different problems like no rules for assaults and hovering models.
We play it no land based vehicles on or off but YMMV. While I agree it says they can get on or off we try to play it in a way that makes some sense with you know physics and all.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Gravmyr wrote: insaniak wrote:So you're suggesting that a land raider gets on and off via the ladders?
If they had made it a battlement this would already be answered with the rules for embarking and access points, like the original rules seemed to support with the mention of access points. This would have lead to a unit the was impossible to assault though which they seem to be trying to address by making it just terrain but allowing vehicles to move onto it which caused different problems like no rules for assaults and hovering models.
We play it no land based vehicles on or off but YMMV. While I agree it says they can get on or off we try to play it in a way that makes some sense with you know physics and all.
but allowing vehicles is one of the best way to free up room on the skyshield. Tank shock a unit up there and squish a few, enjoy the 4++ while they try to get rid of your vehicle. Then if they blow it up, take the position that the explosion doesn't count as enemy fire, because a enemy unit didn't shoot them and they don't get the 4++ from vehicle explosions.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
A packed skyshield is a Mawlocs best friend...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Elric Greywolf wrote:As do you, I own the rulebook, and read it frequently. I read this rule before asking my question. Did my phrasing throw you off? Did you need an example? I added some clarifications to my question, included in this post.
No example needed. Phrasing did not throw me off.
as insaniak said the rules for difficult terrain allow a move through obstructions. (Page 90, Right column, 2nd Graph,1st sentence for those that have not read it).
65717
Post by: Elric Greywolf
insaniak wrote:The rules fir difficult terrain allow you to move through obstructions.
Well, that solves the problem.
71953
Post by: Tactical_Genius
But they don't allow you to stop halfway through the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Tactical_Genius wrote:But they don't allow you to stop halfway through the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
Citation needed.
Where does it say a model needs to move until it is clear of the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
A model is allowed to move through an area of DT with a DT test, it is also allowed to stop before its full movement.
74327
Post by: Skimask Mohawk
DeathReaper wrote:Tactical_Genius wrote:But they don't allow you to stop halfway through the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
Citation needed.
Where does it say a model needs to move until it is clear of the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
A model is allowed to move through an area of DT with a DT test, it is also allowed to stop before its full movement.
you're only allowed to melt through terrain if its area terrain though, and only "to make moving the models easier" ( pg 91)
71953
Post by: Tactical_Genius
DeathReaper wrote:Tactical_Genius wrote:But they don't allow you to stop halfway through the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
Citation needed.
Where does it say a model needs to move until it is clear of the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
A model is allowed to move through an area of DT with a DT test, it is also allowed to stop before its full movement.
Where in the rules does it say you can place a model somewhere it cannot be placed?
99
Post by: insaniak
Skimask Mohawk wrote:you're only allowed to melt through terrain if its area terrain though, and only "to make moving the models easier" ( pg 91)
This is incorrect. The second paragraph of the 'Moving through Difficult Terrain' section on page 90 quite explicitly allows you to move through obstructions as you move through the terrain.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
And how does that let you hold a hypothetical position/float in mid air?
99
Post by: insaniak
The same way it lets you put a model halfway through a wall.
Of course, if you don't think that WMS allows that, that means it doesn't.
But from my experience, most players don't have the slightest problem with models being placed halfway through a wall via WMS. The generally accepted view of WMS is that this is exactly the sort of thing that it is intended for.
The skyshield is a unique situation, in that it is a piece of raised terrain that specifically allows models to move somewhere that it doesn't look like they should be able to move. It does this by allowing them to take a difficult terrain test and move through empty air up to the platform.
If you accept that WMS allows models to be 'placed' regardless of whether or not you can physically stand the model there, then this would allow you to stop the model at any point in that movement up to the skyshield via WMS.
If you don't accept that WMS is supposed to allow that, then there's not really anywhere else that this thread can go... It's just going to continue with some people saying 'WMS allows this' and other people saying 'No it doesn't'
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
insaniak wrote:The same way it lets you put a model halfway through a wall.
Of course, if you don't think that WMS allows that, that means it doesn't.
But from my experience, most players don't have the slightest problem with models being placed halfway through a wall via WMS. The generally accepted view of WMS is that this is exactly the sort of thing that it is intended for.
The skyshield is a unique situation, in that it is a piece of raised terrain that specifically allows models to move somewhere that it doesn't look like they should be able to move. It does this by allowing them to take a difficult terrain test and move through empty air up to the platform.
If you accept that WMS allows models to be 'placed' regardless of whether or not you can physically stand the model there, then this would allow you to stop the model at any point in that movement up to the skyshield via WMS.
If you don't accept that WMS is supposed to allow that, then there's not really anywhere else that this thread can go... It's just going to continue with some people saying ' WMS allows this' and other people saying 'No it doesn't'
Except for pg 10, Models cannot, however, voluntarily move off the board. If you are floating over the board, you are not on the board, you are off the board. so please stop with this levitation nonsense.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So you cannot move up ruins either? That involves voluntarily moving them off the board.
There is only one person spouting nonsense.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DeathReaper wrote:Where does it say a model needs to move until it is clear of the obstruction unless you can physically place the model there.
It doesn't, but there is no rule that allows you to pretend that a model is somewhere that you can't place it. So if you want to have your model inside the wall you'll need to find a way to get around the laws of physics and have two objects occupying the same space and then put it there. Until then your model is on one side or the other, and if that means you have unused movement distance too bad.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you cannot move up ruins either? That involves voluntarily moving them off the board.
There is only one person spouting nonsense.
I'm glad you can admit it's you. Or do you need more straws to grasp at? They have a a bunch at the dollar store.
16387
Post by: Manchu
More on-topic dicussion, less sniping ~ Thanks
99
Post by: insaniak
insaniak wrote:Consider this a last call for the thread. If the discussion can not be continued without the snark, the thread will be closed.
So... looks like we're done here.
|
|