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.

The following situation occurred in a game of 40k recently and I was wanting to get some clarification on the rules.

Essentially, the situation is that there was a unit that as up against a wall piece of terrain of reasonable thickness (we'll call this the defending unit), and another unit that wanted to charge them (the attacking unit). The attacking unit was at the very limit of its charge range and could only manage to get one unit into base-to-base contact with the defenders, however, this required it to end its move on top of the wall. Due to the geometry, it was unable to reach any other point except this one point.

The following points were raised about this situation at the time:

1) The assaulting unit is unable to fit on the other side of the wall as there are no positions large enough for their base to occupy
2) The assaulting unit cannot end its move on top of the wall, as that would be an illegal position
3) The attacking unit would not be in base to base contact with the defending unit if it was forced to remain on the other side of the wall
4) The attacking unit cannot move through the defenders if there is not sufficient gap to do so - although they did not have sufficient movement to end on a legal position on the other side anyway
5) The attacking unit cannot force the defending units to move in order to allow him to occupy a legal position

The defending player claimed that as the attacking player could not find a legal position for his models to occupy at the end of the charge, his charge could not take place.
The attacking player claimed that in this scenario the defender should either move his unit to make room, or the attack should be allowed to occur over the wall

After a short argument and a fruitless flip of the rulebook, a roll-off decided in the attacker's favour (i.e. that point 3 was incorrect) and the attack went over the fence - but we'd still like to know an answer to the question.

I've included a pictorial representation of the situation for clarity.

What are the thoughts of those out there?

2) Why is it an illegal position?

Was the wall ever defined (before the game started) as IMPASSABLE terrain?

Wobbly Model syndrome covers this. If the wall was not considered impassable terrain, then making base contact is all that is required.

Isn't there a pic in the brb that shows two models with a wall between for assaults, stating that this still counted?

They still need to have been able to reach the enemy models with their die roll. Once they can, just scoot them up to the wall (or get risky and balance them on top).

If I remember correctly, I beleive in the BrB under "Terrain and Buildings" models are allowed to move through walls, even obstacles, normally as they claw, punch, chainsword, blow up, etc the wall in the way. Unless the wall was defined as impassible terrain, the only thing required is that the model makes BtB contact with the unit on the other side, which means it can even end on the wall.

Elevation is a problem because the only ruleset that lets you fudge that is for assaulting in ruins. See "ruins and assaults" on pg85.

Your opponent was probably a douche but it's important to discuss terrain in detail. I will point out that wobbly model syndrome doesn't help here because both players have to agree and obviously his opponent won't in this instance.

IMO whem it comes to lower cover like sandbags or defense line I generally play that as long as you can get flush with the wall/line and the enemy models are also flush you can fight combat even though the models are not technically in base to base.

The Wobbly Model Syndrome says that if a model can legally be placed somewhere but physically cannot be, then both players must treat the model as though it was there for purposes of game play. The only thing the opposing players have to agree on is the game relevant location that the model should be, not whether or not the model can benefit from this rule. The distinction of whether a model can benefit from this rule is decided before the game when both players are deciding on terrain effects.

On a Planetstrike tangent, I do know that units assaulting across Aegis Defense Walls (which it would be very difficult to place a model on indeed) only have to be in base contact with the wall to be able to assault models on the opposite side.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:The Wobbly Model Syndrome says that if a model can legally be placed somewhere but physically cannot be, then both players must treat the model as though it was there for purposes of game play. The only thing the opposing players have to agree on is the game relevant location that the model should be, not whether or not the model can benefit from this rule. The distinction of whether a model can benefit from this rule is decided before the game when both players are deciding on terrain effects.

On a Planetstrike tangent, I do know that units assaulting across Aegis Defense Walls (which it would be very difficult to place a model on indeed) only have to be in base contact with the wall to be able to assault models on the opposite side.

pg 13
"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 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" 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. Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!"

I really doubt that japheth's opponent would have agreed in this instance because from all indications he sounds pretty anal. And I just want to point out that wobbly model syndrome is exactly that, a model that can't balance well and keeps falling over. People try and use wobbly model syndrome to get away with all sorts of stuff that it's not intended to fix.

Even if they didn't define the wall as impassable his opponent could just say something like "well he's too high up and thus they're not in base to base" and by the rules he'd be correct because the only time you get to fudge base to base is when fighting in ruins. Which again brings us back to our old friend mr. pre game terrain discussion. We all have our preferrences when it comes to terrain and the rulebook tells you that both you and your opponents assumptions are generally equal and that's why it's important to be on the same page prior to the game because avoiding the pre game discussion then mid game when the first issue pops up saying "this is how we play it where I'm from" doesn't mean anything.

I thought for low walls and barricades, being BtB with the wall puts you in BtB with models on the other side of the wall.

You don't need wobble model for low walls.

nkelsch wrote:I thought for low walls and barricades, being BtB with the wall puts you in BtB with models on the other side of the wall.

You don't need wobble model for low walls.

That's definitely the best way to play it. As gehnghis jon pointed out, it's in the planetstrike book in refference to defense line.

Actually in this case I was neither of the players but was playing at the table next to them - we're all just fairly new to 40k at least (having recently made the jump from WHFB) and were unsure on the exact rules, and I took the initiative to get the question resolved.

At the time I was in favour of the Defender's position, but I must also point out that the Defending player was my wife, and so I may have been biased. Actually at the time she had argued that the model couldn't end up on the wall because a couple of weeks earlier, the player she was playing against had made her roll a deep strike mishap for landing a vehicle on the same piece of terrain (like an elephant, women never forget - or back down when they think they are right), but as I once again point out, we're all still kinda learning so things like this slip through once in a while.

I shared this the other day with the guys and gals and they all now agree that the assault could proceed. We had forgotten about the wobbly model rule.

Thanks once again for all of your help.

Crablezworth wrote:pg 13
"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 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" 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. Of course if you prefer things to be completely clear and exact, then stick to simple, flat terrain!"

I really doubt that japheth's opponent would have agreed in this instance because from all indications he sounds pretty anal. And I just want to point out that wobbly model syndrome is exactly that, a model that can't balance well and keeps falling over. People try and use wobbly model syndrome to get away with all sorts of stuff that it's not intended to fix.

Even if they didn't define the wall as impassable his opponent could just say something like "well he's too high up and thus they're not in base to base" and by the rules he'd be correct because the only time you get to fudge base to base is when fighting in ruins. Which again brings us back to our old friend mr. pre game terrain discussion. We all have our preferrences when it comes to terrain and the rulebook tells you that both you and your opponents assumptions are generally equal and that's why it's important to be on the same page prior to the game because avoiding the pre game discussion then mid game when the first issue pops up saying "this is how we play it where I'm from" doesn't mean anything.

WMS would only apply if "As long as both players have agreed" if they don't, you have to leave the model on the wall.

But given the OP's situation the model could not physically be placed into B2B, which is fine since models can move through walls (the default for difficult terrain), and should be counted as B2B even though the attacker could not physically be placed there.

Moving through a wall and becoming one with a wall are two different things.

Crablezworth wrote:Moving through a wall and becoming one with a wall are two different things.

Yea, it is an abstraction, you are allowed to move through the wall as if it were not there.

once the combat is over, you consolidate and you have successfully moved through the wall.

I'm simply point out that path of least resistance (in base with the low wall) is preferable to many models holding theoretical posiitions. In the pre game discussion you can agree to something like that and make everyones lives easier.

@ Japeth: In regards to the vehicle Deep Strike scenario, if the terrain is not impassable or a building, then the vehicle can Deep Strike or even end it's movement on top of it. It just has to roll a Dangerous Terrain test for having landed somewhere other than flat tabletop, which is immobilization on a 1.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:@ Japeth: In regards to the vehicle Deep Strike scenario, if the terrain is not impassable or a building, then the vehicle can Deep Strike or even end it's movement on top of it. It just has to roll a Dangerous Terrain test for having landed somewhere other than flat tabletop, which is immobilization on a 1.

Yeah, we know that now - it was a misunderstanding at the time caused by us all having been quite new to 40k. But it certainly -was- used as a precedent by the missus for her line of reasoning when the "We didn't agree before the game on what this terrain did" argument came up.

Crablezworth wrote:I'm simply point out that path of least resistance (in base with the low wall) is preferable to many models holding theoretical posiitions. In the pre game discussion you can agree to something like that and make everyones lives easier.

That's not a good solution, because the defender could just place their models about 0.75" back from the wall and an assault could never happen. You'd then have to define how close a defender can be to a wall to be assaulted from the far side of it. I think you will see if you extrapolate this situation further that it just becomes easier to treat the models as if they are on the wall and move them to the side until the combat is completed.

I would allow them to act as if they were in b2b. Similar to how models in b2b with barracades don't give away cover saves. These models are going to be like this scenario.

Ork boyz assault Sphess Mehreens hiding behind the wall.

Ork boyz stopp at the wall.

Sphess mehreen 1 says-" Nah, nah, nah, nah!"

Sphess mehreen 2 says-" Take off your helmet, they can't touch us and they can't shoot their own backsides!"

Ork boyz turn to Nob. Grot says-"Wha' we do boss?"

Nob-*hits grot wioth bossploe, "Shut up Pinky!!!"

Nob reaches across wall and uses Power Klaw to dice up Sphess mehreen 3.

Boyz follow. Ork boy reaches across, smashes SM 1 and 2's now bare heads together, then brains them on the wall!"

"Don't laugh at us! We're the FETHING ANGRY ORKS!"

So, to sum up, the orks can simply reach across, shouting greenskin versions of ANGRY MEHREEN cries.