Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?