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.

So wms allows you to place a model that could not fit where you want to place it? I could understand WMS when moving on some uneven terrain or point terrain but not a means to place the model where it could not fit or even sit if it were a flat surface which it is.

 Tomb King wrote:
So wms allows you to place a model that could not fit where you want to place it? I could understand WMS when moving on some uneven terrain or point terrain but not a means to place the model where it could not fit or even sit if it were a flat surface which it is.

it still has to be a legal movement.

Fragile wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The opponent could dissagree because the entire premise of the move is absurd and outside the intent and purpose of the wobbly model syndrome rule. Because the move is proven to not fit the criteria whatsoever (IE a lot of the examples given where physics quite frankly isn't playing ball and the second the owning player removes his hand and lets go of the model it falls, as opposed to say it tenuously balances there until someone nudges the table, as stated in the rules).

Unless the terrain is declared impassable, there is no conflict with physics. A player can place the model anywhere on any terrain regardless of where it can actually stand. If there is an issue with this, you should have declared that area impassable to start with, which may well resolve most of your problems with WMS.

That's really not how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:
So wms allows you to place a model that could not fit where you want to place it? I could understand WMS when moving on some uneven terrain or point terrain but not a means to place the model where it could not fit or even sit if it were a flat surface which it is.

That's the problem, some individuals believe that you can just literally place a model anywhere you want and say wobbly model syndrome to circumvent rules/logic/physics.

There are no rules being circumvented with placing a model on a steep hill and holding it there to agree on WMS.

Physics are, but WMS covers this.

Also Logic has no bearing on the actual RAW.

"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

It'd be great if you'd stop ignoring the rest of the rule that shows the phrase you're quoting is an example and not the only allowed situation.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The opponent could dissagree because the entire premise of the move is absurd and outside the intent and purpose of the wobbly model syndrome rule. Because the move is proven to not fit the criteria whatsoever (IE a lot of the examples given where physics quite frankly isn't playing ball and the second the owning player removes his hand and lets go of the model it falls, as opposed to say it tenuously balances there until someone nudges the table, as stated in the rules).

Unless the terrain is declared impassable, there is no conflict with physics. A player can place the model anywhere on any terrain regardless of where it can actually stand. If there is an issue with this, you should have declared that area impassable to start with, which may well resolve most of your problems with WMS.

That's really not how it works.

Then please, elaborate.

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

You could balance just about any model on just about any terrain piece, in one fashion or another. I should say, any piece of terrain that isn't classed as impassable and isn't some oddly shaped home-created thing.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

You could balance just about any model on just about any terrain piece, in one fashion or another. I should say, any piece of terrain that isn't classed as impassable and isn't some oddly shaped home-created thing.

And yet a dreadknight doesn't seem to fit into that equation now does it?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

You could balance just about any model on just about any terrain piece, in one fashion or another. I should say, any piece of terrain that isn't classed as impassable and isn't some oddly shaped home-created thing.

And yet a dreadknight doesn't seem to fit into that equation now does it?

How does a dreadknight not fit into "just about any model"?

And you can go ahead and continue to ignore my posts - it's cool. I don't mind.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

You could balance just about any model on just about any terrain piece, in one fashion or another. I should say, any piece of terrain that isn't classed as impassable and isn't some oddly shaped home-created thing.

And yet a dreadknight doesn't seem to fit into that equation now does it?

How does it not? if I move my dreadknight onto a defence line, I could balance it there but it would not be stable. I would not want it to fall and would like to place it somewhere stable for the moment but would still like to maintain the full range of my movement, as allowed by the rules. We would agree on placement, I would place it somewhere stable, and would extend the same courtesy if you had the same situation. WMS isn't limited to ruins.

For another example, I'd like my monolith to end it's movement on the top of a terrain piece, lets say a ruin. I can balance it there (as there are some that it could) but it's unstable. Same situation.

Another example, lets say my flyer is velocity locked, I'm forced to end movement over a ruin but it can't balance on it, but it ignores terrain pieces anyway, it would be WMS and placed in a stable position.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table"

If it said as soon as you let go of the model I'd say you had a point, sadly wms does not say that.

It'd be great if you'd stop ignoring the rest of the rule that shows the phrase you're quoting is an example and not the only allowed situation.

Yep, entirely ignoring that the rule contains an example, which isnt the whole of the rule. Or that the rule doesnt require both to agree that WMS can be used, just that the position needs to be agreed on.

Small circles are infantry on an elevated area of terrain (think a hill thats a box), oval is a dreadknight (forgive my lack of paint skills). Are you saying that by WMS, that the position of the assault of the dreadknight is legal?

shock_at wrote:


Small circles are infantry on an elevated area of terrain (think a hill thats a box), oval is a dreadknight (forgive my lack of paint skills). Are you saying that by WMS, that the position of the assault of the dreadknight is legal?

Your missing the argument some... the rules have a bit about if your unable to place a model phsycially on the ledge for example if the entire ledge is full of models then you can just assume he made b2b. The argument is that the dreadknight cant be on a 2nd level of a ruin (period) with or without an assault. This is assuming average sized ruins that are 3 levels(though the only floors he can be on is top floor and the middle of the ruin unless their is an opening where he can actually be placed on a higher level without hitting the next level with the rest of his model.

New picture, 3rd floor of a ruin, WMS ALLOWS for that dreadknight (if it jumped right?) to be there?

shock_at wrote:


New picture, 3rd floor of a ruin, WMS ALLOWS for that dreadknight (if it jumped right?) to be there?

Lets go for broke. Can the Dreadknight be placed on the vertical surface of the ruin wall and then use WMS to say that it's there? It's a ruin and the wall face isn't impassable terrain. If so then I'll do that and effectively reduce the base of my model by 90%. This is what I am going to do if someone argues that WMS allows you to play a model that doesn't fit in the area they are trying to place it.

What about on the ceiling of the ruin? Again, not impassable terrain.

If I roll two inches to move up a level in a ruin and I need three inches to get to the next level, does my model count as hovering two inches in the air? What level do I need to shoot at with a blast weapon to hit it? What if I'm on the roof? Can my model just start flying? I mean, it's not my fault the terrain ended. WMS UP! UP! AND AWAY!



If you can place it there then it's there. If you can't then it's not there. WMS isn't an exception to that.

 Kwosge wrote:

shock_at wrote:
If you can place it there then it's there. If you can't then it's not there. WMS isn't an exception to that.

That.

Traceoftoxin wrote:Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

Crablezworth wrote:

 Kwosge wrote:

shock_at wrote:
http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2012/11/28/435677_sm-.png
If you can place it there then it's there. If you can't then it's not there. WMS isn't an exception to that.

That.

Which is exactly what you disagreed with.
If the base has room, you can WMS it.

So, crablezworth, are you saying models can't move through the wall of a GW ruin piece because they physically can't fit through it?

Are you saying the models cannot end their movement with their base partially in/through the wall, using something to mark where the front of their base would be instead of smashing a hole in the terrain to place the model?

All of this assuming the terrain is not considered impassable, of course.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
So, crablezworth, are you saying models can't move through the wall of a GW ruin piece because they physically can't fit through it?

It’s up to you and your opponent to decide how you want to play ruins in your pre game discussion. That would include a discussion on whether or not models can melt through walls. I personally prefer to play them as impermeable otherwise it’s just stupid, but that’s just me.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Are you saying the models cannot end their movement with their base partially in/through the wall, using something to mark where the front of their base would be instead of smashing a hole in the terrain to place the model?

That’s exactly what I’m saying, nothing lets you break physics and people try and use wobbly model syndrome to justify the exact situation you describe all the time. Whether or not you and your opponent have decided to play terrain feature x as permeable (you can melt through it) the buck stops at hypothetical positions halfway through.


Look, it's really not the complicated. Even if you're playing with a lot of melting through terrain features, nothing lets you levitate or hold positions counter to physics. It's the same reason you can't dig an imaginary hole and claim your model is lower than it actually is or float up several inches and claim to be levitating.

Why is it stupid that a 500kg guy in an armoured suit that can punch through tanks is able to get through, with some difficulty, a ruined hab wall?

Answer: It isnt.

Your position on WMS has been thoroughly debunked, and every time you ignore this and carry on as if it hadnt happened.

Crablezworth wrote:Look, it's really not the complicated. Even if you're playing with a lot of melting through terrain features, nothing lets you levitate or hold positions counter to physics. It's the same reason you can't dig an imaginary hole and claim your model is lower than it actually is or float up several inches and claim to be levitating.

Traceoftoxin wrote:Can the model legally go to that floor?

Jump MC can move to any level they want, if using their jump move.

Can the model physically be placed because it's base will fall off? If the base has room but cannot fit without falling, it's wobbly model syndrom.

So you don't really disagree with his statement - that if the base has room but cannot fit without falling - it's okay? Because that's what started this whole thing.
But you haven't responded to a single one of my posts, so evidently I'm on ignore. That's fine too.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why is it stupid that a 500kg guy in an armoured suit that can punch through tanks is able to get through, with some difficulty, a ruined hab wall?

That would be up to you and your opponent to mull over. I might just counter with, if a demolisher shell can't punch cleanly through said wall, why allow a model to? The bottom line here is do you want a fast game or a slightly slower game that involves things like tactics and strategy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your position on WMS has been thoroughly debunked, and every time you ignore this and carry on as if it hadnt happened.

It really hasn't, even with the last statement of wms which you guys seem to think supports all your nonesense, how would one go about holing a model back in place when the very place it's occupying is physically impossible to hold it in? I'm sorry guys, wms doesn't let you break physics.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sorry guys, wms doesn't let you break physics.

We aren't saying it does. Stop with the strawman. Please.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
So, crablezworth, are you saying models can't move through the wall of a GW ruin piece because they physically can't fit through it?

It’s up to you and your opponent to decide how you want to play ruins in your pre game discussion. That would include a discussion on whether or not models can melt through walls. I personally prefer to play them as impermeable otherwise it’s just stupid, but that’s just me.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
Are you saying the models cannot end their movement with their base partially in/through the wall, using something to mark where the front of their base would be instead of smashing a hole in the terrain to place the model?

That’s exactly what I’m saying, nothing lets you break physics and people try and use wobbly model syndrome to justify the exact situation you describe all the time. Whether or not you and your opponent have decided to play terrain feature x as permeable (you can melt through it) the buck stops at hypothetical positions halfway through.


Look, it's really not the complicated. Even if you're playing with a lot of melting through terrain features, nothing lets you levitate or hold positions counter to physics. It's the same reason you can't dig an imaginary hole and claim your model is lower than it actually is or float up several inches and claim to be levitating.

The rules disagree with you. Pg 90. ""Note that, as part of their move through difficult terrain, models can move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all sirnilarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle is impassable.""

You have to agree that you CANNOT move through obstacles, not vice versa. The WMS rule clearly states you can place a model somewhere it cannot remain.

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why is it stupid that a 500kg guy in an armoured suit that can punch through tanks is able to get through, with some difficulty, a ruined hab wall?

That would be up to you and your opponent to mull over. I might just counter with, if a demolisher shell can't punch cleanly through said wall, why allow a model to? The bottom line here is do you want a fast game or a slightly slower game that involves things like tactics and strategy.

Only if you agree that the walls cannot be passed through, otherwise the default is they can be. And oddly enough my games have plenty of both, so take your high horse elsewhere.

Crablezworth wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your position on WMS has been thoroughly debunked, and every time you ignore this and carry on as if it hadnt happened.

It really hasn't, even with the last statement of wms which you guys seem to think supports all your nonesense, how would one go about holing a model back in place when the very place it's occupying is physically impossible to hold it in? I'm sorry guys, wms doesn't let you break physics.

Then actually prove it, given so far you have utterly failed with the tenets in this forum and backed your position with any actual rules. Every argument has been ignored or just, as now, dismissed with no actual argument, just a statement

My argument as OP wasnt that you cant go through walls but that you cant fit on a platform that the model could not fit. (See OP or any number of my post if you need clarification) I ask that we remain on the core argument and leave the wms/physics argument on topic or out of the thread.

 Tomb King wrote:
My argument as OP wasnt that you cant go through walls but that you cant fit on a platform that the model could not fit. (See OP or any number of my post if you need clarification) I ask that we remain on the core argument and leave the wms/physics argument on topic or out of the thread.

Ruins seem to require a model to physically fit to be placed on/in them. MC's and walkers are able to move on upper floors so long as you and your opponent agree before the game. With that said, the ruin rules also fudge base to base requirements for assault.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
My argument as OP wasnt that you cant go through walls but that you cant fit on a platform that the model could not fit. (See OP or any number of my post if you need clarification) I ask that we remain on the core argument and leave the wms/physics argument on topic or out of the thread.

Ruins seem to require a model to physically fit to be placed on/in them. MC's and walkers are able to move on upper floors so long as you and your opponent agree before the game. With that said, the ruin rules also fudge base to base requirements for assault.

I'll just leave this here to support your argument (Rulebook, p98):

MOVING WITHIN RUINS
Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins. Accordingly, only Beasts, Infantry, Jetbikes,
Skimmers and all types of Jump and Jet Pack units can move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can
physically be placed there. Other units may only move on the ground level of the ruin. You should agree with your opponent
at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels of a ruin (Walkers and Monstrous
Creatures could be allowed to enter sturdy looking ruins).

EDIT: Guys, it says quite clearly:
-only Beasts, Infantry, Jetbikes, Skimmers and all types of Jump and Jet Pack units can move on the upper levels of a ruin
-only if the model can physically be placed there.
-You should agree with your opponent at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels
-Walkers and Monstrous Creatures could be allowed (Note: NOT 'are allowed')

EIDT2: Please read the above rule carefully, people, this really has nothing to do with WMS to start with. It's in the rulebook.

And we are talking about a Jump MC, which per your post are allowed.