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.

 phoenix darkus wrote:

BRB p.74. Wrecked Vehicles
"Wrecked vehicles are left on the table and effectively become a piece of terrain (conferring a 5+ cover save), counting as both difficult and dangerous terrain. Players must clearly mark that a vehicle has been Wrecked in a way they consider suitable."

I don't see how anyone can read that and say RAW, models can hide in a wrecked transport. They are completely misinterpreting the sentence. It is a piece of terrain 5+cover. They become a block of terrain and can only claim to hide if directly on the other side were LOS is blocked. "Crawling inside" still allows enemy units to shoot them they get a 5+ cover save.

Can you imagine if you shot down my Wave Serpent "wrecked it" all the occupants got out on your turn and then in my turn go back in claiming to "hide" in it. Now it has become an untouchable (at least to shooting) and invulnerable unit, Not even a bunker can claim that. No one can claim that.

The simplest answer is next time you play and you discuss terrain suggest wrecks be treated as impassible for entering, difficult and dangerous for going over. It is also permissible to build a wreck for you vehicles and leave room enough inside to allow models to stand inside.

I agree that a model could walk through the wreckage like they'd walk through a wall, or walk through the bottom of the skyshield.

All terrain is negotiable.

and I agree with Peregrine's reading on WMS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
(agree and know) is a perfectly common redundancy in British English.

Again, you can't say that because it doesn't make any sense. Separate the "and" statement and you have "agree its position and know its position" which is not allowed.

Also, a quick google search for "agree and know" comes up with hardly any results. So your "perfectly common redundancy" doesn't seem to be used very often.

To parse it the way you want requires adding additional verbiage that doesnt exist, vs a convention in colloquial english that requires no additional text.

Again, read more carefully. I'm not adding any extra words. The extra words are the ones that you would have to add to make it say what you think it says. The absence of those words means that it doesn't say what you think it says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I don't see anything in the rules that permits you to have models in places you physically can't fit. That makes as much sense as allowing models to be "inside" a tree trunk.

Which, again, makes as much sense as allowing models to walk through that tree trunk, which is explicitly and unarguably allowed by the rules.

The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table. It might be unfortunate that you can't represent every "fluff" location a model should be in, but that's just what happens when you play a game with physical objects. If you can't put the model in a given position then you don't move there. Since this is YMDC and not "what is fluffy" the rules denying it are all that matter.

Peregrine - "Again, you can't say that because it doesn't make any sense. Separate the "and" statement and you have "agree its position and know its position" which is not allowed. "

So it isnt allowed because it is redundant?

Didnt I just state that it was redundant?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So it isnt allowed because it is redundant?

No, it isn't allowed because "agree the model's position" is wrong. You need to say "agree ON the model's position" or "agree ABOUT the model's position" or whatever. The absence of that word means that your interpretation can not be correct.

Ok when a vehicle is wrecked what must you do?

Under wrecked it says must immediately disembark, there are no rules allowing you to re-enter the wreck.

The other thing it says about a wreck is that it confers a 5 up cover only. Your game mate GAMED you there's no other way to look at it.

I'd agree that it seems like he abused the rules pretty hard. Wobbly model says you can agree where it is if it can't stand there. You can put it right on top of the tank so that's out, and unless he could physically fit the model IN the rhino without ripping it apart it would never be inside. You have to be able to place the model where it would go, then if it would fall or damage it you can use wobbly, since he couldn't actually place the model where he wanted it wouldn't apply. And as others have stated it only says 5+ cover save, not LOS Blocking automatically, if he's on the otherside of it, and you can't see the model sure, but not I jump in ze cover I disappear! If that was the case you could wobbly model a 5+ crater and since he can't stand there you pull him off, say he's in the crater and you can't see him because he's in cover. Next time just tell him if he wants the model in the rhino to rip the top off and prove he can put it in there.

 Kubik wrote:
OMG. Things like that made me quit 40k. I just had enough of using rules for cheap tricks. WMS is there only to allow you spread your wings in modelling part of the hobby, without handicaping you on the battlefield. Using the rule to brake the game and win it is just lame and childish. Seriously someone needs to win that bad in a game of toy soldiers?

+100 points to Kubik

And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long. You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge. And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building. If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For some reason this has pissed me off to no end, I am now going to go and rant on a soap box somewhere.

 Peregrine wrote:
The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

Why? Does a breaching charge have a motion sensor that magically re-seals the wall again? So a model has time to walk through the hole, but it re-closes itself if the model tries to stop moving?

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table.

And that's why this argument will keep coming back... because you're not going to get everyone to agree that WMS doesn't apply to this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobaram wrote:
And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long.

Only if you have LOS to the unit you are trying to assault.

You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge.

You might want to have a read of the Building rules... because you can't assault a model in a building.

You also can't assault a model completely hidden from sight behind, say, a large rock, or a single wall piece.

And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building.

Nobody was saying it was a building... although counting it as a building would actually have been a better outcome for the player trying to assault, since in that case they could have at least assaulted the building rather than not being able to attack at all.

If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.

Yes, when an unexpected loophole in the rules comes up in your game, the best response is totally to try to find ways to twist the rules yourself to one-up your opponent. That's guaranteed to get you more games in.

Alternatively, you could just discuss the issue with your opponent, explain why you think that the rule they just made use of is an unintended loophole that kind of breaks the game a little bit, and come to a compromise for how to play it in future games.

But whatever floats your boat.

this is a simple solution ..Blast the rhino ..Because it is now nothing more than a building with Av -11??
So blow it up and the model along with it ..just as if the model had entered a bunker and every glancing/penetrating hit then causes a wound to the unit inside the bunker..if he disagrees then you can see it and you can shoot at the model with a cover save ..its one way or the other since the unit in question does not have move thru over or other hiding type rule

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The issue is that the rules allow you to move through the wall/tree/etc because you can find a way through/around it, not because your model literally walks through solid walls. That's different from trying to declare that a model is ending its move embedded in a solid wall.

Why? Does a breaching charge have a motion sensor that magically re-seals the wall again? So a model has time to walk through the hole, but it re-closes itself if the model tries to stop moving?

And of course rules-wise the difference is that you are given permission to draw a line of movement through solid objects, but you are not given permission (other than by WMS, which doesn't apply) to measure range or draw LOS to models by pretending that they're somewhere other than the model's actual position on the table.

And that's why this argument will keep coming back... because you're not going to get everyone to agree that WMS doesn't apply to this situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobaram wrote:
And in regards to the difficult terrain, there's nothing saying you couldn't assault him, you can charge through terrain all day long.

Only if you have LOS to the unit you are trying to assault.

You can't just declare a model is invisible because of a piece of terrain, otherwise you could put it inside a building all day long and go, well he's in there but you can't see him where he is cuz he's sneaky and now you can't charge.

You might want to have a read of the Building rules... because you can't assault a model in a building.

You also can't assault a model completely hidden from sight behind, say, a large rock, or a single wall piece.

And per the rules as you stated it becomes difficult and dangerous terrain, not a building.

Nobody was saying it was a building... although counting it as a building would actually have been a better outcome for the player trying to assault, since in that case they could have at least assaulted the building rather than not being able to attack at all.

If you play him again and he wants to use that rule start setting up random walls and declaring them difficult dangerous terrain hidey holes where your models disappear from sight. Or, just start dropping barrages on him since you don't need LOS for indirect fire from say a Basilisk or some other rather large weapon.

Yes, when an unexpected loophole in the rules comes up in your game, the best response is totally to try to find ways to twist the rules yourself to one-up your opponent. That's guaranteed to get you more games in.

Alternatively, you could just discuss the issue with your opponent, explain why you think that the rule they just made use of is an unintended loophole that kind of breaks the game a little bit, and come to a compromise for how to play it in future games.

But whatever floats your boat.

Do you have a raw argument? I mean just saying some players commonly misinterpret wms to allow you to do this isn't an argument for allowing it to happen.

The RAW for allowing WMS has already been presented earlier in the thread. There's not really much point in me repeating it. Particularly since the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere different to the last WMS discussion.

The only legal way for this to occur is for there to be an open hatch on the Rhino that will allow a model to enter and exit and be visible from said entry and exit.

Otherwise there is no permission to Embark into wrecks, nor is there permission to burrow through terrain and stop "inside" it.

the trouble is the wreck is essentially just a a collection of solid walls that are not impassable terrain by default. Moving through a wall is completely legal, even if that wall blocks line of sight. so you don't embark into a wreck, or occupy it. You just step inside.


The idioms of agree in the English language allow for this sentence "It is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location." to mean "It is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed to its 'actual' location and know its 'actual' location."

So, while you don't need to agree to use WMS, you do need to agree to where the model should be.

Now, the part I use in my game. "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." We take this to mean if you can't physically hold the model in place, it can not actually be there. This prevents models from going inside solid terrain pieces or being half in a wall.

 DJGietzen wrote:
the trouble is the wreck is essentially just a a collection of solid walls that are not impassable terrain by default.

Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems. And why should we make assumptions that cause problems?

DJ - careful, peregrine will tell you youre wrong, repeatedly, if you dare state that idiomatic English allows that.

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

I do not see how you can compare hills to "closed doors, walls and windows" to justify RAW on that statement.

Fragile wrote:
I do not see how you can compare hills to "closed doors, walls and windows" to justify RAW on that statement.

I don't. I'm looking at the difficult terrain rules, not the Ruin rules, because a wrecked vehicle is not a Ruin.

Are you? Because "walls, closed doors, and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles" is the relevant quote from the difficult terrain section. I challenge the assumption that a hill is similar.

Keep in mind also that this is referring to these as difficult terrain as opposed to impassable. A vehicle is already difficult (and dangerous), and not impassable, terrain.

Pyrian wrote:
A vehicle is already difficult (and dangerous), and not impassable, terrain.

No it isn't.

Or did you mean a wrecked vehicle?


If so, I'm still not sure what your point is.

My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

"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." pg 11, BRB, Wobbly Model Snyndrome

Edit: PS: If it was me in your shoes I would then look my opponent in the eye and tell him to do as the rules say or concede...

Edit 2: Damn, missed that it had been quoted! Well, I take it to mean something slightly different anyway.

 Abandon wrote:
My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Eh - that's assumption, though, isn't it? It could just as easily be considered a difficult and dangerous hill, and then we don't have these problems.

That would make no difference... because as the difficult terrain rules currently stand, it's perfectly acceptable to walk right through hills as well. Nobody would enjoy you doing it, but it's technically RAW.


The requirement for the model to be held in place to determine actual LOS is really the only sticking point here... but that just leaves you arguing over whether that requirement trumps the initial permission to move the model to a place where it can't be held later...

I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

It was a wonky move and I think most here agree with this sentiment. My advice is next time make them replace the wreck with a crater... That solves everything and we don't have to argue it ad nauseum for however many pages.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
My two cents: Per WMS if you consider shooting at his model inside the rhino he will then be required to hold it inside the rhino so you can check for LOS. In other words, you can make him tear open his rhino per RAW.

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

No problem there either, I'll just use Psychic Shriek and declare the game a draw. I know RAW shenanigans to They don't make for fun games though.

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

Being unable to follow a rule is not the same as being unwilling to.

If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I'd say no, your allowed (strictly RAW, I never play this way) but you must then hold the model in there if someone wants to shoot (or perhaps even charge). If you don't(for any reason), you must concede as you are unwilling to following the rules and are now playing something that is not 40k. This should quickly lead to some house rules as I'm sure no one wants their terrain getting torn/cut open.

Being unable to follow a rule is not the same as being unwilling to.

If a rule allows you to place a model in a particular position, and then another rule that kicks in later can not be followed for whatever reason, that's not the fault of the player who carried out the first action. It's a failure of the rules to anticipate that the original rule could lead to an impossible situation.

A very good point. How ever you want to look at it though, enacting the scenario and forcing the point is just the catalyst for a larger conversation with the gaming group and as I don't see any obvious RAW answer I think the 'house' is going to end up making the call for RAI or HYWPI no matter what I say here. As the question was RAW I did not want to lead things off topic with either of those.

Pointing out how you would choose to resolve a situation not covered by the rules is not off-topic in a thread discussing that situation.