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.

Imagine you're looking to assault a skyshield (pg 115), and on top of it is wall to wall orks, there is no free space anywhere on the top of it.

We know the skyshield is not a building, its not a ruin (so pg 101 does not apply), and its not a battlement.

Page 115 – Fortifications, Skyshield Landing Pad.
Ignore the reference to Access Points & Fire Points.

So If you can not move a model into b2b with a model on top of the shield does the assault always fail?

Also because its not a ruin if you were able to get a model into b2b wouldn't he be the only model able to attack? From the top of an ork boys head its >2" to any model standing on the skyshield, so any models that couldn't get up would end up outside of coherency. And if any model remained on the ground wouldn't the assault fail also because the unit couldn't stay in coherency? (assuming short models, taller models might be able to stay in coherency)

if there is space available though, do you have to assault up the rim of the shield or can you go through the center? I'll be sure to ask my opponents, but if it was you, would you agree at the start of the game that the floor of the skyshield is impassible? would you agree to treat the sky shield as a ruin without a base, just for further rules on how to interact with it?

Can anyone kind enough to reply, separate there replies into two parts. RAW, and How I would play it.

To move on or off the Landing Pad counts as moving through difficult terrain.

So i'd say so long as your models begin able to see an enemy unit and roll far enough to come into base contact, including the 'up' inches required, they will count as in base contact by the wobbly model rule (exactly as for ruins even though the pad is not a ruin. Similar in fact top assaulting from one building to another or assaulting a battlement. Granted this is not strict RAW but it seems to me to fit and is how I've found everyone plays it (in three different local groups, myself being the sole 'crossover' between groups).

I'd argue that prohibiting assaults, even if it can be argued by strict RAW (and I think perhaps the ill-definition of how a Skypad interacts in assault means RAW would prohibit)), would be very contrary to the spirit of the game given that, unlike buildings and forts, they can't be destroyed.

that is assuming you dind loose any ork by any weapon before you get assaulted, long live the whirlwind

Just move up it as difficult terrain

Yup, so long as the attacking unit has sufficient movement to make it up there, moving the models as close as possible and counting them in assault is fine.

 insaniak wrote:
Yup, so long as the attacking unit has sufficient movement to make it up there, moving the models as close as possible and counting them in assault is fine.

um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.




http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480586.page#4847538

I would be willing to let someone get a base up there providing A) The base fits B) They rolled enough on the charge move. But I agree, if you are not 2 inches from a model in base, the other models cannot attack. Basically, the model that does make it up needs to be a badass to clear off room for the rest of his unit. I would even allow an oppenent to fudge the 3 inch pile in move as long as the bases fit on top of the platform. An oppenent will have to be really close since he will be rolling 3 D6 and taking the two lowest to assault the platform. The real question would then be, would their units on top also benefit from the 4+ invol save...?

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
The real question would then be, would their units on top also benefit from the 4+ invol save...?

Sure, from shooting.

In principle, according to RAW, blocking off such an assault is possible. However, it's stupid for 3 reasons.

1) 4+ invuln or not, that pad is just crying out for some blasts and templates.
2) Your opponent has an entire shooting phase to whittle down enough room for his troops. That includes from the assaulting unit itself.
3) ...you're playing ORKS. What on earth are you doing with that many Boyz stuck on pad NOT getting stuck into combat anyway?! CHAAAAAAARGE!!

It's the perfect platform for Lootas... 2 mobs of 15 Lootas will fit on it... and with D3 str7 ap4 overwatch shots, they will wittle down a charging force fairly easily. As long as you can take out a couple charging models, the odds of them making it up would be decreased substantially. But yes, I do agree, why would anyone assualt a unit on top when it would probably be easier to shoot them. That landing pad pumping out (potentially) up to 90 str 7 ap4 shots per round would be a huge threat...

 Crablezworth wrote:
um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.

WMS lets you pretend a model is standing where you want it to be if it can't physically stand there. Moving onto the skyshield counts as difficult terrain... so a model can move as close as possible to it, and so long as it has sufficient movement distance remaining to reach the top, can be considered to be standing just off the top and actually positioned wherever it can actually stand, as close as possible to where it is supposed to be.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.

WMS lets you pretend a model is standing where you want it to be if it can't physically stand there. Moving onto the skyshield counts as difficult terrain... so a model can move as close as possible to it, and so long as it has sufficient movement distance remaining to reach the top, can be considered to be standing just off the top and actually positioned wherever it can actually stand, as close as possible to where it is supposed to be.

So would you allow someone to assault you with 30 ork boyz and just place 30 small dice on top to make them into base? Or better yet, a unit of SW cavalry? There has to be a line somewhere on where that could be used. I would allow a couple at a time approach...

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.

WMS lets you pretend a model is standing where you want it to be if it can't physically stand there. Moving onto the skyshield counts as difficult terrain... so a model can move as close as possible to it, and so long as it has sufficient movement distance remaining to reach the top, can be considered to be standing just off the top and actually positioned wherever it can actually stand, as close as possible to where it is supposed to be.

So would you allow someone to assault you with 30 ork boyz and just place 30 small dice on top to make them into base? Or better yet, a unit of SW cavalry? There has to be a line somewhere on where that could be used. I would allow a couple at a time approach...

Kinda sorta, if there is room even a fraction of a MM on the side of a couple bases you can claim WMS and pound an opponent for trying to cheese a loophole.

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
So would you allow someone to assault you with 30 ork boyz and just place 30 small dice on top to make them into base? Or better yet, a unit of SW cavalry? There has to be a line somewhere on where that could be used. I would allow a couple at a time approach...

I would allow someone to assault with whatever would fit if there was room for them to stand. WMS is not a blanket allowance to assume that everything is in base contact. It just allows you to pretend that models are standing in a place that the terrain doesn't (but should) allow them to stand.

Agreed. The assault should work fine under Wobbly Model Syndrome. The rules for multi-level ruins are a useful comparison as a situation-specific parallel case.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.

WMS lets you pretend a model is standing where you want it to be if it can't physically stand there. Moving onto the skyshield counts as difficult terrain... so a model can move as close as possible to it, and so long as it has sufficient movement distance remaining to reach the top, can be considered to be standing just off the top and actually positioned wherever it can actually stand, as close as possible to where it is supposed to be.

Actually, I'm afraid that's not accurate. Wobbly model syndrome exists to prevent damaging models. It's often used by players so models can hold "hypothetical" positions, which I would argue is simply not the intention. It talks about delicately balancing a model, which assumes that provided no one touches the table or terrain piece it can still remain there with careful placement (it may simply be impractical due to constanly falling over or risking damage to itself or other models). I've seen people try an extrapolate that to explain why their rhino can exist half way through a solid wall or other physically impossible positions, to which I would reply "I do not agree". I tend to build terrain with gaming in mind over aesthetic, so there's very few places a model can be placed in which they may fall or have difficulty balancing (IE piles of rubble or incline surfaces).

Wobbly model syndrome is not an entitlement nor is it designed to let models float in mid air, as both players have to agree to the models actual position. I would also say that the majority of the time it's applied in a perfectly reasonable way, but letting models float in mid air so they can assault isn't one of them. We've all had top heavy jump infantry or pesky metal models that always seem to be falling over and that's what wms is all about.

pg 11
"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 DAMAGED 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."

No doubt how terrain is played changes from game to game, and really, the pre-game discussion is crucially important, it ensures both players are on the same page in terms of defining each terrain piece and how it will work, and so on. I'm not advocating that people be super divisive but if you're running a skyshield in your list, you're better off having a detailed conversation pre-game as to how models will be interacting with it and if you'll be using any abstractions for the purposes of climbing/assaulting. Look, it's perfectly fine to play it as a ruin/barricade in terms of fudging the base to base requirement for close combat, but that's something you want to be on the same page as your opponent with before dice start rolling. Wobbly model syndrome will not help you.

WMS is often used also in cases where the nature of the terrain and model in question make it literally impossible to balance the model in the position it should be occupying.

A player should not expect their fortification to create an un-assaultable situation for their unit.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Actually, I'm afraid that's not accurate. Wobbly model syndrome exists to prevent damaging models. It's often used by players so models can hold "hypothetical" positions, which I would argue is simply not the intention. It talks about delicately balancing a model, which assumes that provided no one touches the table or terrain piece it can still remain there with careful placement (it may simply be impractical due to constanly falling over or risking damage to itself or other models). I've seen people try an extrapolate that to explain why their rhino can exist half way through a solid wall or other physically impossible positions, to which I would reply "I do not agree". I tend to build terrain with gaming in mind over aesthetic, so there's very few places a model can be placed in which they may fall or have difficulty balancing (IE piles of rubble or incline surfaces).

So a model, that keeps falling down a hill can not ever move onto that hill?

Clearly that is not the case, and the WMS rules come into play.

Similar situation with the skyshield, I could balance a model on the wall, if it was level and still, so WMS comes into play.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
um is it me or are the only things that fudge base to base requirements barricades and ruins? It's neither barricade nor ruin.

WMS lets you pretend a model is standing where you want it to be if it can't physically stand there. Moving onto the skyshield counts as difficult terrain... so a model can move as close as possible to it, and so long as it has sufficient movement distance remaining to reach the top, can be considered to be standing just off the top and actually positioned wherever it can actually stand, as close as possible to where it is supposed to be.

Actually, I'm afraid that's not accurate. Wobbly model syndrome exists to prevent damaging models. It's often used by players so models can hold "hypothetical" positions, which I would argue is simply not the intention. It talks about delicately balancing a model, which assumes that provided no one touches the table or terrain piece it can still remain there with careful placement (it may simply be impractical due to constanly falling over or risking damage to itself or other models). I've seen people try an extrapolate that to explain why their rhino can exist half way through a solid wall or other physically impossible positions, to which I would reply "I do not agree". I tend to build terrain with gaming in mind over aesthetic, so there's very few places a model can be placed in which they may fall or have difficulty balancing (IE piles of rubble or incline surfaces).

Wobbly model syndrome is not an entitlement nor is it designed to let models float in mid air, as both players have to agree to the models actual position. I would also say that the majority of the time it's applied in a perfectly reasonable way, but letting models float in mid air so they can assault isn't one of them. We've all had top heavy jump infantry or pesky metal models that always seem to be falling over and that's what wms is all about.

pg 11
"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 DAMAGED 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."

No doubt how terrain is played changes from game to game, and really, the pre-game discussion is crucially important, it ensures both players are on the same page in terms of defining each terrain piece and how it will work, and so on. I'm not advocating that people be super divisive but if you're running a skyshield in your list, you're better off having a detailed conversation pre-game as to how models will be interacting with it and if you'll be using any abstractions for the purposes of climbing/assaulting. Look, it's perfectly fine to play it as a ruin/barricade in terms of fudging the base to base requirement for close combat, but that's something you want to be on the same page as your opponent with before dice start rolling.
Wobbly model syndrome will not help you.

So if you can't place a model because of a fenceline, however it's large enough for the base. WMS is shot down by your opponent, I'd laugh really heartily, and call over a TO. If someones trying to cheese out this kinda nonsense they are without a doubt going to be a terrible player, so it shouldn't be much of a problem.

 Mannahnin wrote:
WMS is often used also in cases where the nature of the terrain and model in question make it literally impossible to balance the model in the position it should be occupying.

A player should not expect their fortification to create an un-assaultable situation for their unit.

And yet it wouldn't be wobbly model syndrome allowing them to do that, it would be a constructive per-game discussion in which more rules are added to allow for assaulting without being in base contact.

WMS makes clear to both players beforehand that these kind of situations are normal and expected and not to be exploited to pretend the unit is un-assaultable.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
WMS is often used also in cases where the nature of the terrain and model in question make it literally impossible to balance the model in the position it should be occupying.

A player should not expect their fortification to create an un-assaultable situation for their unit.

And yet it wouldn't be wobbly model syndrome allowing them to do that, it would be a constructive per-game discussion in which more rules are added to allow for assaulting without being in base contact.

Sure it is, as the only thing stopping it is Dun dun dun, WMS

Without introducing a mechanic in the pre game discussion to circumvent the base to base requirement, they sadly are very much un-assaultable.

In ruins, you don't have to get into base to base to fight close combat to account for situations where you're assaulting a unit above you but there's not enough room to get even one of your models in base to base on the floor above.


Consider the following, lets say for example you have a mob of 30 ork boys encircled entirely around the edges of the pad, By the rules GW gives you for the pad (again, good to expand on those BEFORE the game) you can't assault them. The top counts as open and moving on to or off of counts as difficult terrain, however enemy units are impassable, you'd have to move through the orks to be on the pad, and thus in base, however you can't do that (the rules don't allow you to move through enemy units) and as such you can't assault. Short of models levitating there's no way for it to work. And sadly that seems to be what you're advocating.

Note: I'm not advocating being a rules lawyer or that guy or just divisive to win at all costs, but it's an issue. GW has never been good with climbing mechanics or rules that fit well with tables with built in topography (think cliffs, steep surfaces). Hell, only recently (6th ed) did they fudge the base to base requirement when fighting close combat across a barricade. I'm sure plenty of people in 5th had no problem overlooking the base to base requirements when fighting across barricades (low cover) but it underlines how important it is to discuss beforehand rather than fall back on terrain rules that are at best a guide on how to define any number of terrain pieces, gw or other.

The model could make base contact, just couldnt be left in place as it would fall. Perfect WMS situation

So wobbly model syndrome lets you levitate, in mid air?

To even be considered, you have to show the model can balance there but teniously, please show me how to balance a model in mid air and I'll be a real good sport and agree its wms.

Extrapolating here a bit, I've got a ruin level that can only hold 5 space marines, but I want to put ten up there, now, there's an extra mm on all sides and gosh darnet don't ya know my marines just don't seem to be able to balance, so now I can simply say the magic words, being "wobbly model syndrome" and voila, in a puff a of magic I've completely banished that bastard physics to the land of wind and ghosts. Never mind my opponent taking issue, because apparently I can just skip the part about my opponent having to be in agreement...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The model could make base contact, just couldnt be left in place as it would fall. Perfect WMS situation

A good example would be FMC's, Jump infantry, or anyone that can roll good enough to get up there.

WMS covered this kind of situation (and barricades) in 5th, too.

 Mannahnin wrote:
WMS covered this kind of situation (and barricades) in 5th, too.

It really didn't, civility and communication covered it.

WMS tells you how you're supposed to handle it. Civility and communication are how you make sure the game (and its many rules) work smoothly and without argument.

The rules also provide example of how this is supposed to work:

"In some cases, the ruin might genuinely be unstable or uneven or the space could be very limited on a particular level, making it impossible to move charging models into base contact with the unit they wish to charge. When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to place models as close to their foe as possible, including the level below or above, providing that you make clear to your opponent which of your models are in base contact with his models. We find that directly below or above works well, representing them charging up or down a flight of stairs."

Albeit for ruins only, there's no reason, combined with WMS, this doesn't work as a perfectly reasonable answer to the question at hand.