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.

Well, given the way the OP phrased his post, he clearly anticipated the Ruin rules being referenced and wished to avoid that, as it can be argued that they are specific to Ruins only.

Hmmm... Even though I started posting somewhat against being able to assault, I can see the other side of it too. I know that if I were on the other side of the landing pad (the assaulting side) I would probably try to come up with all kinds of things to be able to get up there too.... So, to be clear, if a model can be somewhat balanced on a surface, a D6 can be put in its place? What about larger bases, would you just use bigger dice? So I would just need to line the tops of the barricade edges of the skyshield landing pad with dice to simulate my orks being there? It kind of does suck the way anything can be proven/disproven... I guess it all depends on what hat you're wearing that day... I try my hardest to leave my hole hat at home when I go to play.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So wobbly model syndrome lets you levitate, in mid air?

In this particular situation, where the model is given permission to walk on empty air in order to reach the top of the platform, yes.

I'm sorry, that's just not in accordance with the rules.


We can discuss a friendly solution, I've already given the example of borrowing the mechanic from barricades and ruins and along with your opponent in your pre-game terrain discussion agreeing to play it that way (both parties agree prior to the start of the game) but wobbly model syndrome simply does not allow you to do whatever you want.

You can play as loose as you want with terrain rules and just say everything is permeable and you can just melt through every terrain piece, if that is indeed how you and your opponent agree to play terrain in your pre game discussion but wobbly model syndrome is not an entitlement, it's every bit as much of a two person decision as the pre game terrain discussion.


Here, I'll post it again:

pg 11
"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 as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature DAMAGED or even broken. In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS HAVE AGREED and know its "actual" location. If later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight."



There are times when a unit is "un-assaultable". Why do you think people started bubble wrapping tanks with infantry? If there's isn't enough room to get up on the skyshield, might I suggest as others have to perhaps shoot until you have space? That's just a thought now...

 Crablezworth wrote:
"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want.

RIght. Like when you are moving onto a Skyshield, and don't want to move the model completely onto the top level.

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.

Yup, that's likely to happen in this situation, since few models are equipped with suspension units.

In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, AS LONG AS BOTH PLAYERS HAVE AGREED and know its "actual" location. If later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight."

And there's the solution.

So... Excellent, WMS covers the situation perfectly.



And for what it's worth:

If there's isn't enough room to get up on the skyshield, might I suggest as others have to perhaps shoot until you have space? That's just a thought now...

Note that this is exactly the solution that people suggested to trying to assault a unit taking up the entire floor in a ruin... right up until GW amended the rules to specifically allow them to be assaulted.

It is highly unlikely that they would rule any differently in the case of the skyshield, if they ever bother to rule on it at all.

Here's the big hole in your logic, if wobbly model syndrome (I'm just gonna start calling it magic) allows you to do whatever you want, then why the specific fudging of base to base requirement in the case of ruins and barricades? Why any mention at all if "magic" deals with it so well?


You also missed the part about both players having to agree... the ruins/barricades rules don't give your opponent veto...

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's the big hole in your logic, if wobbly model syndrome (I'm just gonna start calling it magic) allows you to do whatever you want, then why the specific fudging of base to base requirement in the case of ruins and barricades? Why any mention at all if "magic" deals with it so well?


You also missed the part about both players having to agree... the ruins/barricades rules don't give your opponent veto...

If both players don't agree I suppose the game would end there as they would just argue it til the end of time. Its also so both players can agree on a point where the model is at, not so that magic can be used at all.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's the big hole in your logic, if wobbly model syndrome (I'm just gonna start calling it magic) allows you to do whatever you want, then why the specific fudging of base to base requirement in the case of ruins and barricades? Why any mention at all if "magic" deals with it so well?

For Ruins, it's because there is a specific rule forbidding them from stopping in between levels.
For barricades, because it's easier to just let models on either side of the barricade whack at each other than to force them to climb over it.

And again, WMS doesn't allow you to do 'whatever you want'...

You also missed the part about both players having to agree...

No, I didn't. I generally work on the assumption that an opponent is a reasonable person until proven otherwise. That's generally worked for me in the past.

Both players need to agree that the place you are trying to position the model is somewhere that they would be able to actually stand. In general, that just relies on looking at the terrain, and going 'Yeah, he could stand there...' And in just about any other situation, that would require something to actually stand on. However, the empty air around the skyshield for some inexplicable reason is counted as difficult terrain rather than as empty air... and so within that context, it is perfectly reasonable for models to be able to stand on it.

if the assaulting playet can balance the model on the terrain then WMS applies, but if there is.no possible configuration that the model can stay on the terrain then that model cant claim WMS. allowing a dreadknight to WMS on a 1mm space on the edge of skyshield is silly

shock_at wrote:
if the assaulting player can balance the model on the terrain then WMS applies, but if there is.no possible configuration that the model can stay on the terrain then that model cant claim WMS. allowing a dreadknight to WMS on a 1mm space on the edge of skyshield is silly

However WMS still applies. Silly or not. Saying thou shall not assault is more silly than that ^^

but WMS specifically says [...]if you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as SOMEBODY NUDGES THE TABLE[...]

From this i understand it that the model must be able to balance on the terrain it wants to go on but if any shaking occurs that can make it fall off then you can use WMS. A dreadknight trying to stand on a 1mm edge as long as you can in a way that it will balance and NOT FALL when the table is still, then you can use WMS as rationale.

Personally ill use the ruins rules for assaulting a skyshield, but i will not justify it using WMS but instead admit that there is a lack of rules around the skyshield and will come to an agreement with my opponent.

Yes saying you cannot be assaulted in a skyshield is silly, but its just as silly to use WMS as the answer when its more reasonable to just agree there are no rules that govern assaulting through a skyshield and you should just talk it over with your opponent.

ive been on the receiving end of WMS abuse, when a 4" sheer cliff (almost vertical) was used as "terrain" a squad of paladins can stand on to assault my troops at the base of the cliff. The paladins literally had to stand on my models to assault them but was justified because the paladins were "on the face of the cliff" using WMS as justification for him to be on that near vertical cliff

Seems fitting to me, if it's counting as difficult terrain than a model may be placed there, if the model will not stay WMS

shock_at wrote:
if the assaulting playet can balance the model on the terrain then WMS applies, but if there is.no possible configuration that the model can stay on the terrain then that model cant claim WMS. allowing a dreadknight to WMS on a 1mm space on the edge of skyshield is silly

Is it really any sillier than allowing the dreadknight to just walk up there despite the only access being tiny ladders on the support struts?

ive been on the receiving end of WMS abuse, when a 4" sheer cliff (almost vertical) was used as "terrain" a squad of paladins can stand on to assault my troops at the base of the cliff. The paladins literally had to stand on my models to assault them but was justified because the paladins were "on the face of the cliff" using WMS as justification for him to be on that near vertical cliff

If the cliff was declared impassable terrain at the game's start, your stance would be fair enough. But if the cliff was not declared impassable then so long as the GK's could charge far enough on their dice roll, they should indeed have made it into combat.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

ive been on the receiving end of WMS abuse, when a 4" sheer cliff (almost vertical) was used as "terrain" a squad of paladins can stand on to assault my troops at the base of the cliff. The paladins literally had to stand on my models to assault them but was justified because the paladins were "on the face of the cliff" using WMS as justification for him to be on that near vertical cliff

If the cliff was declared impassable terrain at the game's start, your stance would be fair enough. But if the cliff was not declared impassable then so long as the GK's could charge far enough on their dice roll, they should indeed have made it into combat.

That really is the way it's intended, i believe, going by the paragraph in the ruin rules. As long as they rolled 3d6, dropped highest, and STILL made the proper distance then the combat should resolve as such, and when models die then the enemy can pile in as normal. Otherwise the game plays like this: "i'm standing at the top of this ladder so you can't climb up and hit me".

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's the big hole in your logic, if wobbly model syndrome (I'm just gonna start calling it magic) allows you to do whatever you want, then why the specific fudging of base to base requirement in the case of ruins and barricades? Why any mention at all if "magic" deals with it so well?

For Ruins, it's because there is a specific rule forbidding them from stopping in between levels.
For barricades, because it's easier to just let models on either side of the barricade whack at each other than to force them to climb over it.

And again, WMS doesn't allow you to do 'whatever you want'...

You also missed the part about both players having to agree...

No, I didn't. I generally work on the assumption that an opponent is a reasonable person until proven otherwise. That's generally worked for me in the past.

Both players need to agree that the place you are trying to position the model is somewhere that they would be able to actually stand. In general, that just relies on looking at the terrain, and going 'Yeah, he could stand there...' And in just about any other situation, that would require something to actually stand on. However, the empty air around the skyshield for some inexplicable reason is counted as difficult terrain rather than as empty air... and so within that context, it is perfectly reasonable for models to be able to stand on it.

I'm a very reasonable person, the reason for the post was that I'm planning on using one of these things in a upcoming league and am trying to figure out all the rules about it so I know what to address with the TO, and what to address with my opponents. I can see why some TO's don't allow these things, they just really complicate things.

That being said, How many models in your unit are you planning on levitating around the skyshield? the whole unit? or just the models claiming to be in b2b?

Because of the height of the skyshield some units would not be able to maintain coherency if some are on top and some are on the bottom. If you think just calling them close enough for coherency is a good idea, keep in mind I could then leave one ork on top of the skyshield, then conga line a unit of orks to an objective claiming a 4+ invuln save for the whole unit. doing that I could conceivable give my entire army a 4+ invuln as long as each unit kept an ork on top. But like I pointed out if some are on top and some are on the ground its >2" and thus out of coherency.

Then if I piled in and ended up winning the combat leaving 1/2 my orks on top, and 1/2 on the bottom, would you still say I'm in coherence or expect me to move the unit til it is actually in coherency?

So being reasonable would agreeing to treat the skyshield as a ruin without a base, would that solve all of these weird issues? Along with potentially giving me the strategic trait conqueror of cities, to also give me a bonus to cover and moving up and down it. I'd also agree not to conga line my entire army, mainly because I don't want to get black balled But that's not being RAW.

But for two new follow up questions
A) If my looted wagon explodes, would I get the invuln save? If I scatter a blast onto the shield, then I wouldn't get the 4++ due to it being friendly fire, but what would the explosions from a vehicle (mine or yours) count as?
B) Is the top is also area terrain, to claim the +2 cover save from going to ground?

My feel is that only models that fit B2B with the ladder/leg portion of the skyshield can count as B2B with the enemy on top.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
My feel is that only models that fit B2B with the ladder/leg portion of the skyshield can count as B2B with the enemy on top.

even though access points are ignored.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
My feel is that only models that fit B2B with the ladder/leg portion of the skyshield can count as B2B with the enemy on top.

even though access points are ignored.

Just a "feel". Not RAW.

 insaniak wrote:
For Ruins, it's because there is a specific rule forbidding them from stopping in between levels.

Gee, I wonder why it would function that way if magic errr wobbly model syndrome gave players the ability to defy physics... Oh, yaah, maybe it's because wms is a suggestion for how to deal with less than ideal terrain and not an entitlement to allow players to place their models literally anywhere they want...

No matter how many times you repeat it, I still won't be claiming that wms allows you to place models wherever you want. You're completely misinterpreting the argument if that's what you're getting from it.

Once again, all that wms does is allow models to stand in places where the trooper could theoretically stand, but where the physical model can't stand securely.

In pretty much every other situation, that means that there would have to actually be something to stand on. The only reason the skyshield is different is that it has a large raised platform sitting on empty space that is treated as difficult terrain. So because that empty space is treated as difficult terrain, models can walk on it...which means, since there is no rule like the one for ruins, that models can finish their movement on it, and since they can't actually stand there, wms applies.

The problem here isn't the application of wms... It's simply that the skyshield has stupid rules.