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.

 erick99 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because I disagree with your assertion and have explained why.

And you are wrong. There is only one way to interpret that sentence.

I guarantee I can make my model stand in the middle of that wall. It's absolutely possible. It's very hard, but possible.

No you can't, at least without modifying either the terrain or the model (which you are not permitted to do).

I personally have at times been able to put a model in the middle of a wall. It did not involve modifying the model or terrain.

_e

Which RAW is 100% legal. So long as it can actually fit without modifying the model or terrain mid game.

We also have a rule that specifically tells me that if my opponent is considering shooting at the model I must be able to place the model.

Since the entire principle of being able to shoot at a model involves drawing line of sight, being able to completely remove the model "temporarily" is as stated; needs to be moved back when shooting is to happen.

I apply my final rule on this one: if you absolutely insist on removing your model and saying it is there I will look at you like your insane and find someone else less crazy to play games with.

<edit> Look up the psychic power "invisible", even then your model is not removed

After reading through this debate, I am of the persuasion that too many 40k players moonlight as insurance lawyers on the side. Or bloodsucking vampires.

This is nothing more than unfair and unsportsmanlike shenanigans. Do the rules allow it? Maybe, hell, it's a toss up. Would you play it like that? Only if you're comfortable being TFG. Doesn't matter if the rules allow it; it's absurd and pandering to rules lawyer behavior.

The vast majority of the discussions we have here have nothing to do with how we would play the game on the table top. It has more to do with figuring out how certain types of rule-sets, often as they are exactly written, function. Not just in relation to each other but also in relation to the concept of rules within games in the first place. Not so we can find ways to exploit them in play, but simply so we have a better understanding of the rules and can assist people in rule based disputes that are undoubtedly going to happen thanks to the poor quality of Game Workshop's editors.

 mr_bruno wrote:
After reading through this debate, I am of the persuasion that too many 40k players moonlight as insurance lawyers on the side. Or bloodsucking vampires.

Come on now. Everyone knows there is no such things as "insurance lawyers". They are a mythical creature designed to scare little kids.

There are so many clear-cut RAW rules going against this situation.

I guarantee a half-serious tournament player wouldn't even try to pull this off, let alone a even poor judge allowing it.

True line of sight, the RAW AND spirit of WMS directly go against this.

If someone did this to me in a even casual game and wouldn't budge on the ruling I'd pack up my stuff and walk away. I care about having fun and having a fair shot at winning far more than he/she.

Edit: If someone tried to abuse my compliance with the fact that a "wrecked" rhino or crater isn't available I'd immediately ask them to replace it with something appropriate.

This is like placing smoke over a wrecked Wave Serpent for ambiance and then hiding your farseer behind it claiming there is no LOS. Insanity

Aijec wrote:
This is like placing smoke over a wrecked Wave Serpent for ambiance and then hiding your farseer behind it claiming there is no LOS. Insanity

Uh... why is that a problem...?

 insaniak wrote:

Aijec wrote:
This is like placing smoke over a wrecked Wave Serpent for ambiance and then hiding your farseer behind it claiming there is no LOS. Insanity

Uh... why is that a problem...?

Because markers and counters aren't physically there, an ammo runt or pain token shouldn't provide cover or block los. I use smoke markers all the time for wrecks, never in my life would I try and claim cover or los from it. As this thread has shown though, some players will try and get away with anything.

Yeah, adding smoke and calling it LOS blocking is adding/modifying terrain midgame. No no.

Sure... But its something the rules tell you to add, and I can certainly see an argument for treating the smoke cloud is Los-blocking bring more 'cinematic'...

Don't get me wrong, I generally play as ignoring markers of any kind as well. I just don't see that this particular example is particularly our there, and would have no problem with playing it that way if an opponent wanted to do so.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure... But its something the rules tell you to add, and I can certainly see an argument for treating the smoke cloud is Los-blocking bring more 'cinematic'...

Don't get me wrong, I generally play as ignoring markers of any kind as well. I just don't see that this particular example is particularly our there, and would have no problem with playing it that way if an opponent wanted to do so.

It's the context of whipping it out mid game without prior dicussion and agreement that's out there, not the concept IMO.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Sure... But its something the rules tell you to add, and I can certainly see an argument for treating the smoke cloud is Los-blocking bring more 'cinematic'...

Don't get me wrong, I generally play as ignoring markers of any kind as well. I just don't see that this particular example is particularly our there, and would have no problem with playing it that way if an opponent wanted to do so.

It's the context of whipping it out mid game without prior dicussion and agreement that's out there, not the concept IMO.

I think me and insaniak first read it as hiding behind the wrecked vehicle, now I see you mean hiding behind the smoke added on for "Funzies" which yea is not cool.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure... But its something the rules tell you to add, and I can certainly see an argument for treating the smoke cloud is Los-blocking bring more 'cinematic'...

Don't get me wrong, I generally play as ignoring markers of any kind as well. I just don't see that this particular example is particularly our there, and would have no problem with playing it that way if an opponent wanted to do so.

Where in the BRB or any GW approved literature does it say a wrecked vehicles provides enough smoke to grant any cover saves?

What is the official GW model of said smoke? Diagram? Anything?

If you are sure that your opinion on the matter is correct I invite you to try said tactics. As others have said, I'd find someone else to play with immediately.

Aijec wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Sure... But its something the rules tell you to add, and I can certainly see an argument for treating the smoke cloud is Los-blocking bring more 'cinematic'...

Don't get me wrong, I generally play as ignoring markers of any kind as well. I just don't see that this particular example is particularly our there, and would have no problem with playing it that way if an opponent wanted to do so.

Where in the BRB or any GW approved literature does it say a wrecked vehicles provides enough smoke to grant any cover saves?

What is the official GW model of said smoke? Diagram? Anything?

If you are sure that your opinion on the matter is correct I invite you to try said tactics. As others have said, I'd find someone else to play with immediately.

It does say you may add thematic elements to a wrecked vehicle so as to add ambiance to the battlefield. While it doesn't specifically say these elements block LoS, the game does work on a TLoS system so they would, theoretically, grant such a benefit.

I believe Insaniak is trying to say that it's well within the bounds of the game to do such a thing but (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) it is always wise to discuss it with your opponent beforehand. The Most Important Rule, after all, might be cheesy but I think it applies. While you're more than welcome to be very discerning when it comes to your opponents, the "I'm taking my models and I'm going home!" attitude only goes so far before it starts to sound childish.

DoW

Aijec wrote:
If you are sure that your opinion on the matter is correct...

I didn't say it was 'correct'... I said I wouldn't have a problem with it.

so the people saying you can stand, INSIDE of physical terrain (you are given permission to place models on top of, or to move through, but not put models inside of another model or piece of terrain)

otherwise,

EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF TERRAIN CAN HAVE THIS DONE.

oh that hill there?

my models are INSIDE IT

that sky sheild lander?

my wraith knight is underneath it!

that big tree there? my warlord is INSIDE it, you cant shoot him or assault him.

neener neener neener and all that...


there is NO RAW allowing you to place models inside of the terrain models themselves, aside from buildings.

Aside from, you know - all the rules quoted in this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:
Aside from, you know - all the rules quoted in this thread.

no there isnt rigeld2, WMS, and playing models that are moving through terrain, on top of the table, are not rules for placing models WITHIN the ACTUAL TERRAIN/TABLE itself, those are the only rules being quoted, and they are not being used properly in this case.

where is the "im allowed to place models INSIDE terrrain/the table top" rule? quote it if its there instead of being condescending,

moving THROUGH terrain, is not the same as being INSIDE terrain that represents the top of the table, in a position the model cannot be placed in,

you are allowed to place models on the table, terrain is considered part of the table, or we cannot place models on it.

specific rules for ruins and buildings address when terrain isnt considered the "top of the table"

otherwise rigeld2, you argue that I can hide ANY model, inside ANY terrain, not just vehicles. making anything I want to, unseeable unshootable unassaultable, simply because any piece of terrain is nearby and I can go "inside" what is supposed to be the table top or terrain.

the same "rules" you claim "prove" you can hide units in terrain, would allow any model to enter any terrain, even the table top terrain like hills, or the table flocking itself,

you are equating WMS to have powers it doesnt have like "wobbly model syndrome lets my guards men sink half an inch into the table, so they get cover, but can still shoot you" or sink into any other terrain like a vehicle

through the terrain works for going inside hills only if you acknowledge the inside of the hill as terrain. Most players I know will only recognize the surface as terrain.

 easysauce wrote:
the same "rules" you claim "prove" you can hide units in terrain, would allow any model to enter any terrain, even the table top terrain like hills, or the table flocking itself,

Not quite.
Those rules technically allow any model to enter any difficult terrain, since the rules that allow this are the combination of WMS and the Difficult Terrain rules.

And yes, that means that models can technically walk through hills. They shouldn't be able to, but the difficult terrain rules are badly written.

 easysauce wrote:
otherwise rigeld2, you argue that I can hide ANY model, inside ANY terrain, not just vehicles. making anything I want to, unseeable unshod table unassaultable, simply because any piece of terrain is nearby and I can go "inside" what is supposed to be the table top or terrain.

As proven in this thread (if you'd read it) this is what the rules allow.
I wouldn't play this way however.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
otherwise rigeld2, you argue that I can hide ANY model, inside ANY terrain, not just vehicles. making anything I want to, unseeable unshod table unassaultable, simply because any piece of terrain is nearby and I can go "inside" what is supposed to be the table top or terrain.

As proven in this thread (if you'd read it) this is what the rules allow.
I wouldn't play this way however.

Well the rules don't allow you to stop inside (occupying the same space) the terrain, but move through yes, I think most people move over hills mountains ect, but there could be some fun added into games by saying the hills are riddled with shelters from years of war.

Stormbreed wrote:
Well the rules don't allow you to stop inside (occupying the same space) the terrain, but move through yes

Citation needed.

If you are allowed to move there what rule is restricting you from stopping there?

You forgot that important word "through". Does your strawman keep crows away?

 Crablezworth wrote:
You forgot that important word "through". Does your strawman keep crows away?

'
No strawman at all.

We are allowed to move models through it. It does not restrict this to a single movement phase. Unless you have a citation that says otherwise (But I know you do not).

Maybe try and use some actual rules citations instead of claiming strawman with no basis.

 Crablezworth wrote:
You forgot that important word "through".

Which, as we established earlier in the thread, does not automatically equate to 'from one side to the other in a single movement phase'

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
You forgot that important word "through".

Which, as we established earlier in the thread, does not automatically equate to 'from one side to the other in a single movement phase'

I love how words like "in" or "through" somehow become enigmatic obtuse or vague all of sudden in relation to 40k.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
You forgot that important word "through".

Which, as we established earlier in the thread, does not automatically equate to 'from one side to the other in a single movement phase'

I love how words like "in" or "through" somehow become enigmatic obtuse or vague all of sudden in relation to 40k.

I love how people pretend there's only ever been one. Definition of through and that these new ones are being invented on the spot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Well the rules don't allow you to stop inside (occupying the same space) the terrain, but move through yes

Citation needed.

If you are allowed to move there what rule is restricting you from stopping there?

The rules, without moving the actual terrain on the board you would not be able to place your model in its exact location whenever I consider shooting at it.

RAW I think inside a wrecked rhino is okay if the hatch is open and you can fit your model inside however.

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
Well the rules don't allow you to stop inside (occupying the same space) the terrain, but move through yes

Citation needed.

If you are allowed to move there what rule is restricting you from stopping there?

The rules, without moving the actual terrain on the board you would not be able to place your model in its exact location whenever I consider shooting at it.

RAW I think inside a wrecked rhino is okay if the hatch is open and you can fit your model inside however.

That is what the WMS rule is for.