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.

Should and could you use movement trays in a standard battle like instead of making them alligned you could put them in random spots. Do you think you would use them? Putting them on there would be awesome so you dont move every individual model.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, just when melee came you would need to abandon the tray. You could, but depending on what your opponent has (say, lots of large blast markers and such) you might not want to.

Causes too much confusion when assault and templates come in. No real need for it.

Unless you both agree on how to use them.

I see it done somewhat regularly, and have only seen people compliment it.

When it comes to moving models off the tray (for assault or whatnot) it is rediculously simple, and occationally needed. Replacing those models is as simple as measuring and doing simple math.

I've got my praetorians in trays.
It's visually fitting for them.

They tend to die to shooting (not-so stiff breezes usually) before they get assaulted anyway.

It just makes it a lot faster to move the platoons when you have to though.

Khorne Flakes wrote:Should and could you use movement trays in a standard battle like instead of making them alligned you could put them in random spots. Do you think you would use them? Putting them on there would be awesome so you dont move every individual model.

i use the LOTR ones for my horde guard army. they make setting up and moving easier although the models are packed pretty close together there so it makes them more vulnerable to templates than if i had just deployed them myself. any effects like templates and ranges would still go to the actual models' bases and the tray would be ignored. i'd say the best solution would be to make random ones spread out a bit like you said as it would give you the best of both worlds.

It just sounds like you'd be better off using magnetized bases and and a spare sheet of whatever, instead of using an actual movement tray.

As someone who doesn't play stand-and-shoot armies, the major downside of a movement tray would be the horrible waiting each and every time that a trayed up unit was about to get assaulted, and the occasional argument over where precisely the trayed up models were while they're being unloaded.

If you could actually move the models around on the sheet, then that would be just great. Then the enemy units can assault without having to wait, and defenders react moves can be done just fine, and you could even adjust the formations while you moved.

There's no rule saying that you can't have your models all nicely lined up, and as long as you're following the coherency rules, I see no problem.

As others have said, you'll have to work something out for assault, but that's the only grey area I see.

solkan wrote:It just sounds like you'd be better off using magnetized bases and and a spare sheet of whatever, instead of using an actual movement tray.

As someone who doesn't play stand-and-shoot armies, the major downside of a movement tray would be the horrible waiting each and every time that a trayed up unit was about to get assaulted, and the occasional argument over where precisely the trayed up models were while they're being unloaded.

If you could actually move the models around on the sheet, then that would be just great. Then the enemy units can assault without having to wait, and defenders react moves can be done just fine, and you could even adjust the formations while you moved.

Sounds like the magnetised base idea stated above will sovle all these issues. You mak the tray a thing sheet of, lets say tin. The models are easy to move en masse but can still be jiggled around for assaulting.

I think I've seen "randomized" cutout bases for 40K. So they aren't ranked up like in Fantasy, but they are in a somewhat random spacing on an oval base. I have no problem with either this or a magnetic style base to move things around more quickly.

As for assault, just follow the rules and if they charge, remove them from the base. As they react in assault, remove them from the base.

Homer

It might actually help when playing against Orcs....

"Tell you what, I'll go have dinner and come back and hopefully you'll be finished moving your bazillion green models around."

Litko Aero systems makes some trays they call Horde Trays that come in blocks for 5 or 10 models in staggered formations.

Ever since I saw the Fantasy style of bases with multiple models on a base I've thought that could work for 40k. 5 orks on a big base? So much easier.

I can't help but think that it'd look GREAT for armies like Mordian Iron Guard and other such things....

Nice company from Australia that I've bought from before makes great, custom movement trays for a reasonable price...

http://www.back2base-ix.com/

I think ill gets some but if the enemy tries to assualt he might have to get on it to assault all of them. My LFGS plans on making and all metal table so you can put a maget inder each base and theyll stick. Look foward to it

I have some trouble seeing how this would work on most of the tables I play on. Anytime you're moving your guys through some sort of reasonable terrain, the tray wouldn't work. My marines are routinely all over the place on different hill levels, around rocks, etc., let alone basic variations and debris on the ground that would make the tray not sit flat. The trays only make sense if you're doing a ton of moving in a big block on flat areas/the tabletop, rather than through terrain. They could be applicable in some cases, particularly in rapidly deploying big blobs of Guardsmen or Orks, but I think if it's useful enough to be worth the hassles in the remainder of the game then I personally probably would feel there's not enough terrain on the table.

Not a fan.

This allows too many inconsistencies, including moving through cover, being assaulted, and model placement.

Remember that, if you cannot place your model in a particular spot without it falling over, it's not supposed to be placed there. A movement tray would allow you to supercede that rule with relative ease.

Eric

Eric: there is a rule about not being able to place your model in specific places, but it does the opposite of what you think.

The rule is called "Wobbly model syndrome" and can be found on page 13 of the BRB. I would suggest giving it a read.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Eric: there is a rule about not being able to place your model in specific places, but it does the opposite of what you think.

The rule is called "Wobbly model syndrome" and can be found on page 13 of the BRB. I would suggest giving it a read.

I have. I know it quite well.
The terrain in my group is not made strictly "for gaming." A huge part of it is for appearance and aesthetics. As such, there are a lot of rocky outcroppings, clutter-filled floors and the like.
The rule states that, if the model can't stand in a particular spot, it cannot go there (not exact wording, obviously). If you think it's saying something otherwise, you should re-read it.
That said, if you're moving your models through difficult terrain on our tables, there are going to be many places where a model (itself) won't stand. If you straddle those areas with a movement tray, however, then there will be models in places where, per the rules, they should not be.

Eric

Eric,

Wobbly model syndrome. (not worded exactly, but right) keep the model in a safe position while both players are in agreement to it's actual location. Remember when drawing LOS to the model place it in it's "actual" spot

Try reading and knowing it a bit better


Automatically Appended Next Post:
like Kel said bottom right side of page 13 btw ...

PS
its a dark gray box

MagickalMemories wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Eric: there is a rule about not being able to place your model in specific places, but it does the opposite of what you think.

The rule is called "Wobbly model syndrome" and can be found on page 13 of the BRB. I would suggest giving it a read.

I have. I know it quite well.
The terrain in my group is not made strictly "for gaming." A huge part of it is for appearance and aesthetics. As such, there are a lot of rocky outcroppings, clutter-filled floors and the like.
The rule states that, if the model can't stand in a particular spot, it cannot go there (not exact wording, obviously). If you think it's saying something otherwise, you should re-read it.
That said, if you're moving your models through difficult terrain on our tables, there are going to be many places where a model (itself) won't stand. If you straddle those areas with a movement tray, however, then there will be models in places where, per the rules, they should not be.

Eric

This, as others have stated, is completely incorrect, and the BRB in no way says this.

Ironically it is the exact opposite of what the BRB is actually saying....

If I recall, in the rules for jetbikes and other skimmers, they can land anywhere they are physically capable of being placed, provided they take a difficult terrain check. That is the only part of the rulebook that says a units placement in an area is dependent on its physical capability to be in that area.

However, thanks to the WMS rule in the BRB, if an infantry model wants to go somewhere, and can't thanks to terrain, the model can be placed elsewhere, provided the 'actual' position is remembered. Really, the only time you can't place a model somewhere is on impassable terrain.

So, unless you've got some kind of lava pond, and the movement tray straddles both sides of it, allowing the unit to 'stand' in impassabel terrain? That is shenanigans, and I wouldn't allow it. But moving through terrain? That's perfectly allowable

You are still not understanding what I'm saying.

Wobbly model syndrome is if the model will stand there, but is wobbly.
The model has to be able to stand there in the first place for WMS to kick in.
You can't just arbitratily declare that your model is standing atop some spot. You have to be able to place it there. If you can place it, but it is wobbly, then you're good. If the thing just won't stand there, then it can't go there.

Seriously, folks.

Eric

Except that isnt what the rule says, at all.

Seriously, reread it.

MagickalMemories wrote:You are still not understanding what I'm saying.

I think everyone is understanding exactly what you're saying.

MagickalMemories wrote:Wobbly model syndrome is if the model will stand there, but is wobbly.
The model has to be able to stand there in the first place for WMS to kick in.

That's not acurate. The model doesn't have to be able to stand there, it just has to be allowed to be there. So, as long as the terrain isn't impassible, you can be there, even if the model can't stand up.

MagickalMemories wrote:You can't just arbitratily declare that your model is standing atop some spot.

You absolutely can.

MagickalMemories wrote:You have to be able to place it there. If you can place it, but it is wobbly, then you're good. If the thing just won't stand there, then it can't go there.

Seriously, folks.

Eric

Seriously, you're mistaken. If your playgroup wants to count little rocks and stuff that disrupt the models as being impassible terrain, that's totally legit. But, if it's difficult terrain, you have every right to be on that spot, even if your model can't stand up on it.

The only problem I see about trays is when trying to move between terrian. You may not be able to move the troops through it without removing them from the tray.

Not much of a big deal but something to consider though. I got my LotR tray out, and thinking of trying to use them. I can't see how people say it's a big deal to take them in and out when going into CC or what not.

The same can be said moving one at a time during the movement phase. It takes just as long or longer moving them. So taking them out of the tray is not that big of a deal.

Do people actually try it before posting?

MagickalMemories wrote:
Wobbly model syndrome is if the model will stand there, but is wobbly.
The model has to be able to stand there in the first place for WMS to kick in.

One of the things I have seen a lot in the groups I have played with, particularly with those who played in isolated small groups or people who were new-ish (like been playing regularly for two years or less) is that with a rules system as byzantine as 40K (though certainly much easier than many other RPG systems I've seen), some confusion could arise (with supposed implications or confusing verbiage). I'll do everyone a favor now and write this down:

The WH40K Rulebook Says:

*Wobbly Model Syndrome*,
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain make 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 chipped 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' position. 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.

Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!

I'm not sure if the argument going on here states that the WMS rule does or doesn't allow you to place a model where it will not balance, or if it's about if anywhere in the rulebook it states that. But regardless, neither in the above rule or anywhere else in the rulebook does it say that you cannot place a model on your table where it cannot balance. The only thing it ever really says you cannot place a model on is impassable terrain, on top of any models, within 1" of enemy models, or off the board.

The only thing that would really make sense for unbalanced models to not be able to occupy an area is to declare with your opponent that all 1/2" tall terrain differences are impassable terrain, or to make a house rule with your opponent that if your model can't balance, it can't stay there. But no where in the rulebook does it state that if a model cannot balance on a piece of clear, or difficult terrain, it cannot stand there.

If it's any consolation, I played with horrendously jacked up concepts of assault for my first 20+ games. I forgot all about sweeping advances or No Retreat.

MagickalMemories wrote:Not a fan.

This allows too many inconsistencies, including moving through cover, being assaulted, and model placement.

Remember that, if you cannot place your model in a particular spot without it falling over, it's not supposed to be placed there. A movement tray would allow you to supercede that rule with relative ease.

Eric

I thought the "wobbly model" rule/thing let you put it there.