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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

So context matters for terrain rules eh?

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

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

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

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

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

Cite the restriction then.

 DJGietzen wrote:

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

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

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

Cite the restriction then.

"Up to" being the phrase, really

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

Cite the restriction then.

"Up to" being the phrase, really

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note where you play...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and reported, again.

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and reported, again.

You are not parsing that sentence correctly.

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

...OK.

Public warning time.

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

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

First and last warning in here.

sirlynchmob wrote:

up to 6" means you move up to 6"

THats the right rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

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

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

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

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

It really doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, but it does require two things:

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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