Switch Theme:

Can a Triarch Stalker end a move with models underneath it?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




That's because , as has been pointed out more than once, you don't get to pick the model up and place it on top of the other model.

You don't need to do that with a non based walker.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

If you move under a Triach Stalker I’m pretty sure that will but you in Engagement Range (5” vertical), so this is pretty moot except for close combat and your own models.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Can models on the second floor of a ruin move while there are models on the ground floor beneath them or is that moving across because bases and hulls project down to the table?
 alextroy wrote:
If you move under a Triach Stalker I’m pretty sure that will but you in Engagement Range (5” vertical), so this is pretty moot except for close combat and your own models.



Scarab Swarm charges under Rhino (it can move across enemy models when charging because of FLY but cannot end on top of enemy models, under is not on top so perfectly legal charge). Rhino has to move over Scarab while backing away, if you define moving over as moving across then the Rhino cannot fall back.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/27 18:47:24


 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

I am just trowing in the design notes for the Hierophant:

"Designers Note: If this model does not have a base, before deploying this model, both players must agree the footprint of this model’s ‘base’ in the same way they would for an Area Terrain feature. We suggest that an imaginary straight line should be drawn from each point on this model which would touch the battlefield when it is placed on a flat surface. The area within these lines should be considered to be this model’s ‘base’.

If the model has been posed with one or more of its legs raised, agree with your opponent the point where that leg would touch the battlefield, and use this to advise the shape of the model’s ‘base’."

And also the Necron Seraptek Heavy Construct:

"Designers Note: If this model does not have a base, before deploying this model, both players must agree the footprint of this models ‘base’ in the same way they would for an Area Terrain feature. We suggest that an imaginary straight line should be drawn from each point on this model which would touch the battlefield when it is placed on a flat surface. The area within these lines should be considered to be this model’s ‘base’.

If the model has been posed with one or more of its legs raised, agree with your opponent the point where that leg would touch the battlefield, and use this to advise the shape of the models ‘base’."

I do not remember in what document it was, but was this not also mentioned that time peale did 8" and 7" charges from deepstrike? Either from tall buildings, or to models on tall buildings. Or to tanks whose hull was above the ground? I can't find the document now.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/27 19:34:09


   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 vict0988 wrote:
Can models on the second floor of a ruin move while there are models on the ground floor beneath them or is that moving across because bases and hulls project down to the table?


Completely disingenuous nonsense riposte… shame.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Is it irrelevant because it's someone pointing out that your use of language is incorrect, and gives a stupid result if it's applied consistently ?
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




Les Etats Unis

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:
The stalker's hull is (with some concave bits) a radius formed by the tips of its claws, and if something intersects its radius, it's gone too close to the model.
Citation needed, as I cant find this anywhere in the rulebook.


 Niiai wrote:
"Designers Note: If this model does not have a base, before deploying this model, both players must agree the footprint of this model’s ‘base’ in the same way they would for an Area Terrain feature. We suggest that an imaginary straight line should be drawn from each point on this model which would touch the battlefield when it is placed on a flat surface. The area within these lines should be considered to be this model’s ‘base’.

If the model has been posed with one or more of its legs raised, agree with your opponent the point where that leg would touch the battlefield, and use this to advise the shape of the model’s ‘base’."


It's cool when I don't need to do any work.


Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




That applies for two specific models. And is a suggestion

Please find a rule regarding the train h stalker that is, also, a rule and not a suggestion
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Triarch Stalkers are not Seraptek Heavy Constructs or Hierophants. Functional as a house rule.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Now we need model specific rules? Nothing says my Warden can't literally throw your Mortarian off the table, thus removing him from the game and giving me assassinate points.

There doesn't need to be a specific model rule, if the model fits under a general non-specific rule.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is it irrelevant because it's someone pointing out that your use of language is incorrect, and gives a stupid result if it's applied consistently ?


It’s irrelevant because someone changed the specific scenario thereby strawmanning the,self into orbit. Building levels were not the discussion. Thanks for the attempted barb but try harder.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/27 23:51:50


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 JohnnyHell wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Is it irrelevant because it's someone pointing out that your use of language is incorrect, and gives a stupid result if it's applied consistently ?


It’s irrelevant because someone changed the specific scenario thereby strawmanning the,self into orbit. Building levels were not the discussion. Thanks for the attempted barb but try harder.


Well, "above" and "across" are the discussion.
If the claim was that "above" cannot exist, without exception, then it's perfectly valid to bring up a counter-example in which "above" is not automatically equal to "across".
Once that counter-example has been provided, the burden shifts to you to prove that, in THIS case (i.e. the Triarch Stalker), above DOES equal across - i.e. you have to demonstrate why the situation is different than building levels, rather than just saying
"It's different because I wasn't talking about that!"
Sure, you weren't. But, to an onlooker like me, it looks like you just don't have a good retort to an otherwise apparently valid shoot-down of the "above = across always" argument.

I don't even have a stake in this thread, but I was reading it out of curiosity. Reading this just made me wonder if the "above doesn't equal across" side actually had a point.

I mean, if I cared enough, I could even craft the argument for you. Something like "the terrain rules are an exception to normal movement rules on flat ground, so the case of building levels is a special exception; in all other cases above = across." That said, I'm not actually positive that's the case - hence why I'd go looking before writing it, if I had a dog in this race.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/28 00:20:04


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

But again, that wasn’t the discussion. It was a distraction. So I didn’t take their bait, nor yours. Stay on target.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Flipsiders wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:
The stalker's hull is (with some concave bits) a radius formed by the tips of its claws, and if something intersects its radius, it's gone too close to the model.
Citation needed, as I cant find this anywhere in the rulebook.


 Niiai wrote:
"Designers Note: If this model does not have a base, before deploying this model, both players must agree the footprint of this model’s ‘base’ in the same way they would for an Area Terrain feature. We suggest that an imaginary straight line should be drawn from each point on this model which would touch the battlefield when it is placed on a flat surface. The area within these lines should be considered to be this model’s ‘base’.

If the model has been posed with one or more of its legs raised, agree with your opponent the point where that leg would touch the battlefield, and use this to advise the shape of the model’s ‘base’."


It's cool when I don't need to do any work.

"before deploying this model, both players must agree the footprint of this model’s ‘base’ " is not the same as "The stalker's hull is (with some concave bits) a radius formed by the tips of its claws, and if something intersects its radius, it's gone too close to the model"

It can be that way, but both players must agree the footprint...

Its nice when I don't have to explain things that are obvious.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

This is getting rather silly fast.

All models in 40k move across the surface of the board. You can't move "over" a model unless you are on a multi-level terrain piece. In that case, you are free to move over the model but must still respect the rules for Engagement Range. So you need to be more than 5" above a model to move "over" it without moving into Engagement Range.

Fly and other similar rules allow you to move across other models bases or hulls. They don't move you "over" the model.

As for moving beneath, if you are allowed to move within Engagement Range of a model and don't move onto or across the model's base or hull, knock yourself out.
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

Yeah I would rather not play with DeathReaper, or more acuratly, players with that sentiment, if I had the opertunaty. It would cost more then it would taste.

   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran





We haven't had a solid rules-fethery thread in a while, so this is much appreciated.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JohnnyHell wrote:
But again, that wasn’t the discussion. It was a distraction. So I didn’t take their bait, nor yours. Stay on target.

The target is your claim that abive and across are equivalent
It's been proven they're not
Back to you now.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BertBert wrote:
We haven't had a solid rules-fethery thread in a while, so this is much appreciated.


I think YMDC would benefit greatly if certain people (alright, mainly 2 people) recognised that it is possible for a couple of different outcomes from certain rules questions:

1. The rules say X. However, the rule is stupid if applied literally so don't be surprised if nobody you meet plays it that way.
2. It's legitimately unclear what the rules say so stop arguing endlessly over it.

This discussion is a great example of point 1. Technically it looks like you can slide models under a Stalker, assuming you remain out of Engagement range. Good luck persuading anyone of that. I'd argue this is a more useful answer to most people than endlessly arguing over minutiae that will likely never be important in the real world. I've pretty much stopped interacting on this forum because I think it usually fails to fulfil its purpose of providing insight into how to play unclear rules thanks to the endless bickering and "well ackshually" approach to the debates.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran







True, not everyone is able or willing to infer RAI, while others will abuse these situations to their advantage. I just find it funny, when it actually happens and people bend over backwards trying to justify it. Might as well get some enjoyment out of it.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Some rules need a bit more discussion to thrash out all the rules involved - see damage step queries and Orks. This one doesn't


You're free not to keep reading once you're happy, but complaining that others are still posting is hilarious as a double standard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 11:59:13


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
But again, that wasn’t the discussion. It was a distraction. So I didn’t take their bait, nor yours. Stay on target.

The target is your claim that abive and across are equivalent
It's been proven they're not
Back to you now.

I have to agree with this.

Back on the 4th post Johnny said "So if any part of your model (100% hull as we've discovered) is above another model then you have demonstrably moved across it to end up there, which is not allowed."

I'll confess to having a brief skim of the thread, but if model A moves over model B due to vertical positioning of the models, then does that count as "across"? Because with the rules presented so far, a Triarch Stalker moving over a Warrior on ground level is no different to an Immortal being on a second level of a ruin moving over a Warrior on the ground level.

@OP, my mate has a Triarch Stalker and we have always played it as being able to place models (that fit) under it.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I've also seen that played, including at many tournaments. Thus bizarre claim that two different words with two different meanings are actually the same is the problem here e
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Locally, I play with 2 Necron players. At least one of them puts models under the stalker's legs when trying to fit massive warrior blobs in his DZ and it didn't even seem like an issue to me.

If this thread didn't exist, I would probably continue to allow them to do so, as for me, the intuitive answer is "of course they can walk under it, it seems narratively incongruous that they can't"
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yep, completely so.
It's no different to having models under an aircrafts wings.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






While it does sit in a grey area, it certainly is a TFG move. You can potentially make a character immune to "closest visible target" exception of look out sir rule by surrounding the character within stalker's legs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, completely so.
It's no different to having models under an aircrafts wings.
It is different because 1. aircrafts have bases 2. aircrafts have specific additional rules where this wouldn't be an issue.

This is like saying "you can't shoot at my commissar standing in front of a Vanquisher LR because its cannon puts it closer to the firing unit than the commissar".

Way we play is that models can be under the stalker but only partially (stalker cannot fully enclose a model with its legs).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/28 16:06:26


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




How is it any different to just sticking a character in the middle of a squad? They would also be "immune" to being shot then...

1) and? I'm not talking about the base, just the fact that there is a LOT if model that extends past the base.
2) and? None of those rules interact at all with this comical idea that "across" and "above" have the exact same meaning
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Can you have a model under the barrel of a tank, under the wing of a flyer, how about under the sword of a blade guard model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 18:22:37


 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





Ok, bigger question I’m thinking of here; is there anything stopping you from placing base=hull models in other orientations, like if the model is the base can I put my rhinos sideways?

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

There is nothing in the rules which says a tank must be on the battlefield in the correct orientation, with its chains or wheels on the ground. Tanks can even climb walls of ruins, perfectly legal. Some say, 40k has nothing to do with real world logic, its an abstract system to play a game.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: