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 us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




As always, FAFO. Try this at a major and see where the TO stands. As others have said, it's a very TFG move, and I would not allow a player to make this sort of move. The model does not have fly, or any keyword that would make this permissible.
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




Les Etats Unis

Apologies for the late response, but...


nosferatu1001 wrote:
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


No, it's not. In what world is the phrase "both players must agree" a suggestion? Let me put the original quote here again as a reminder:

 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’.


This is pretty much the opposite of what any reasonable person would consider a "suggestion." It's an explicit rule about how to use the model. The method in which the players find the base is given as a recommendation, but the rules do state that the model should be considered to have a base which other models cannot cross.

 vict0988 wrote:
Triarch Stalkers are not Seraptek Heavy Constructs or Hierophants. Functional as a house rule.


What does this mean? 90% of YMDC rulings on Dakka are solved using precedent, and the precedent set by the Hierophant and the Heavy Construct say that you can't put other models under them, because they have an imaginary "base" that's the same size and dimensions as a circle or oval which has its sides touch all the furthest points of the model's legs or equivalent features. People have even brought up examples such as the Defiler, which was given a base presumably to deal with this very issue!

Now, I'm not stupid. I can see what's going on here. People want to put their models under the spider robot because it's cool, and they're using the fact that all the rules against it are a little vague and a little implies to defend that position. I'm in the same boat as JohnnyHell here: If we were in a game, and you wanted to put your dudes under the Stalker, I would tell you to go ahead.

The fact is, though, it's extremely clear that GW does not want people doing this. There's a reason that models like the Defiler keep getting bases, and why they say that the Hierophant must have a base that can't be crossed, no matter how large or small that base is. I know it's boring, and I know it's a fun-killer, but that's the way things are sometimes. Sorry.

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




There aren't any actual rules against it. None.

You managed to completely miss the context of the original quote, where you claimed the oval was the rule for a Triarch. It isn't. It never has the status of a rule even for the two models it is SUGGESTED for, which, again, was the clue as to what I meant by "it's a suggestion"


What I see happening here is a general conflation of two words to try to make a rule sound like it is against this, but given that's made it then doesn't work. Then there is a weak ass attempt to take two FW models that are absolutely ENORMOUS and decide they must apply to a completely unrelated model, so it is t in any way shape or. Form "precedent" - for a start, the difference in scale certainly doesn't make me think "sure, that stalker is definitely area terrain..."

It's not TFG
It's entirely "cool" looking to do so
And As a TO I'd allow it, because it's within the rules and as a general rule making up a rule prohibiting an allowed action is a BAD IDEA(TM) when you're TO'ing,

Until / unless it gets an actual base, it's permissible. Changing the rules to disallow it is TFG move...
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






blaktoof wrote:
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.
You can, but it would be disingenuous to claim nearness is affected by such placement.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Why would it? You measur to the hull of the tank, and that includes the gun barrel.
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As always, FAFO. Try this at a major and see where the TO stands. As others have said, it's a very TFG move, and I would not allow a player to make this sort of move. The model does not have fly, or any keyword that would make this permissible.


Citation please, where it says that a vehicle without fly cant move over a ruin following the rules for area terrain.

Area Terrain
Area Terrain can include Ruins, Woods, Craters and other terrain features that models can move into and through. Each time an Area Terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature — that is, the boundary of the terrain feature at ground level. This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not. For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundary, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is. Models can move up, over and down Area Terrain following the normal rules for movement.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






You cannot end on top of a ruin unless you have one of the right keywords. The ability to drive up over and down a wall is meant to represent driving through when I'm forging the narrative. Taller walls are more of a hassle to drive through. It pretty much only works for smallish walls and bikes, it's not really a huge issue since large infantry models like Custodes can kool-aid man through walls.
 Flipsiders wrote:
Now, I'm not stupid. I can see what's going on here. People want to put their models under the spider robot because it's cool, and they're using the fact that all the rules against it are a little vague and a little implies to defend that position. I'm in the same boat as JohnnyHell here: If we were in a game, and you wanted to put your dudes under the Stalker, I would tell you to go ahead.

Not really, I've never used it to hide a model from what I remember, I have a bad memory but I've also played dozens of games using Triarch Stalkers. As I said your suggestion of using the Seraptek rules is one that I like, I'll probably use a round base when possible. But it is a house rule, the difference between that and what is usually done here is that we take an errata that is applied to one specific ability and then we extrapolate to apply the errata to all identical and maybe all similar abilities as well. That's a lot different from an ability, you cannot extrapolate an Eradicator's ability to shoot twice to a Devastator.

You also cannot get around the fact that the solution to the Seraptek not having a base is a suggestion, GW acknowledges it's a problem and forces you to find a solution, but do not say that you cannot agree between yourselves to allow models to hide under the Seraptek like some people do today with a Triarch Stalker.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Because I'm a visual person, I find images to help somewhat in these discussions. As you can see below, there is a Soul Grinder. Underneath is a Brimstone Horror. Directly above the Brimstone and the Soul Grinder is a Blue Horror. If I had Necrons, I would have used them, but this is an identical rules situation.

Consider the situation where the Soul Grinder was already in position. The Brimstone moves up behind it so that it is under the soul grinders hull. The Blue Horror is on the top level of the ruins, and moves to be precisely above the Brimstone, which is coincidentally above the Soul Grinder as well.

It seems some people in this thread want to use a strange definition of "across" which prevents the Brimstone from being under the Soul Grinder, but still allowing the Blue Horror to be above it. The simple reality is that in this context, when we are talking about not being able to move a model across another models base or hull, we are talking about not being able to have a model touch the physical surface of the base or hull in order to move over or through another model. If you don't touch the hull or base, then you are OK to complete the move (pending other rule restrictions).
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

Both cant move to where they are, because they are in engagement range with the soul grinder. Its no longer only 1" horizontal, its now 1" horizontal and 5" vertical.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





 p5freak wrote:
Both cant move to where they are, because they are in engagement range with the soul grinder. Its no longer only 1" horizontal, its now 1" horizontal and 5" vertical.


What if they're the same army as the Soulgrinder? Or they charged?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Presumably they are in the same army as the Soul Grinder, given that they are all Chaos Daemons units.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Given no one was told otherwise, I can going with "same army"
   
Made in de
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity






Germany

Well, i assumed they arent from the same army. If they are, its not clear whether the brimstone can move beneath the soul grinder, or not.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 p5freak wrote:
Well, i assumed they arent from the same army. If they are, its not clear whether the brimstone can move beneath the soul grinder, or not.
The Soul Grinder, Blue Horror, and Brimstone Horrors are from the same army, just as the Stalker / Character are from the same army in the OP's example.

I think it's clear that it's a legal move. What specific rule do you think makes it unclear? I would also like to confirm if we both agree that the positioning of the Blue Horror in my example is a legal move (regardless of whether or not we agree that the Brimstone's move is)
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
Well, i assumed they arent from the same army. If they are, its not clear whether the brimstone can move beneath the soul grinder, or not.

It's entirely clear that they can move beneath. It's not prohibited and the general movement rules allow it.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Again, your game may vary. I would not allow that, and I can say from personal experience, I have never seen that type of move in a tournament recording. But I'll recant everything if you can provide proof of that working in a professional 40k environment.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




"Professional 49k environment" ? no such thing

You'd rule against it? Where's your rules citation for that? "I don't like it" is a poor move from a TO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/30 00:28:39


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Again, your game may vary. I would not allow that, and I can say from personal experience, I have never seen that type of move in a tournament recording. But I'll recant everything if you can provide proof of that working in a professional 40k environment.
I haven't seen anyone run Soul Grinders in a highly competitive 40k tournament.

Simply put, the rules as presented allow it, regardless of if you like it or not. If you are able to present a rule that prevents it then provide the evidence. If you don't have such a rule, then it just comes across as you being a poor sport
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Professional 49k environment" ? no such thing

You'd rule against it? Where's your rules citation for that? "I don't like it" is a poor move from a TO.


If a person recieved compensation for their chosen form of competition, it is professional.

I would rule against it as it clearly violates unsportsmanlike play. And again, please show me proof of this or anything like this, being allowed in high competition. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Professional 49k environment" ? no such thing

You'd rule against it? Where's your rules citation for that? "I don't like it" is a poor move from a TO.


If a person recieved compensation for their chosen form of competition, it is professional.

I would rule against it as it clearly violates unsportsmanlike play. And again, please show me proof of this or anything like this, being allowed in high competition. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
So no rules justification for you stance then. Just an arbitrary "unsporting" decision. Got it.

On the other side of the coin, I consider it cheating if my opponent turned up to an event and insisted on not playing by the games rules because they felt something was "cheesy" or "unsporting".
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Professional 49k environment" ? no such thing

You'd rule against it? Where's your rules citation for that? "I don't like it" is a poor move from a TO.


If a person recieved compensation for their chosen form of competition, it is professional.

I would rule against it as it clearly violates unsportsmanlike play. And again, please show me proof of this or anything like this, being allowed in high competition. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

Wrong. See the definition of amateur in actual sports.

You'd rule against it, not because it breaches any rules - because as we know, it doesn't breach and entirely follows all rules - but because you dislike it. As I've said, it's ok for a TO to do so, but it doesn't make it a smart move. It's akin to deciding you don't like green marines so you rule against them.

You seem to be unaware of the burden of proof. I'm not going to trawl event streams becaus you don't like how a rule works
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







For my part, I put my Soul Grinders on bases because it makes it easier to play the game. That said, I don't see anything wrong with moving under them if you don't use bases.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I know exactly how the Burden of proof works.

Person 1 makes a claim. "I believe pixies exist"
Person 2 states their belief of that claim. "No, that is not right I don't think that's correct show me proof of your claim"
THEN person 1 has the burden of proof.

Person 1 doesn't get to say SHOW ME PROOF THEY DON'T EXIST. I have stated your claim is wrong, and shown that unsportsmanlike conduct is the rule I would invoke, which is a real and literal thing called out in tournaments for cheating.

Now you have the burden of proof to show me proof that you are able to and legally allowed to do this. I have asked you to provide proof. And all you've done is attack me. Good luck losing matches with your "Totally legal playstyle".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/30 15:29:22


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







The difference in your example is that "unsportsmanlike conduct" is subjective, so the only refutation it requires is another subjective one: "I don't think it is unsportsmanlike"

Subjective arguments can't shift the burden of proof because they aren't proofs themselves.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/30 16:24:14


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

While there is a case for calling this unsportsmanlike conduct, just saying it is isn't an adequate argument. Why do you consider it unsportsmanlike conduct needs to be articulated so that your opponent can understand and have an opportunity to agree or disagree.

Saying "I think taking advantage of the Triach Stalker's lack of a base to place a model underneath another model allowing the Triach Stalker to shield that model from multiple directions is unsportsmanlike conduct" articulates why and allows for a meaningful discussion.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






"Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield."

This is what allows it.

I agree with Bullgryn on the burden of proof, although it is more complicated since Bullgryn could find evidence of someone being carded at an event. Unfortunately GW event streams are private so we'd need a definition of high comp since you've already disregarded or missed a previous poster's claim of having seen it done in a tournament.

It looks like models are under the hull of Richard Siegler's Ghost Ark several times in his recent game against Nanavati, at 20 minutes after the GA moves for example.

The PBC's gun hangs over the Plague Bearer's base in this streamed GT game during deployment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccr9Es53IWo

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/30 17:10:29


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know exactly how the Burden of proof works.

Person 1 makes a claim. "I believe pixies exist"
Person 2 states their belief of that claim. "No, that is not right I don't think that's correct show me proof of your claim"
THEN person 1 has the burden of proof.

Person 1 doesn't get to say SHOW ME PROOF THEY DON'T EXIST. I have stated your claim is wrong, and shown that unsportsmanlike conduct is the rule I would invoke, which is a real and literal thing called out in tournaments for cheating.

Now you have the burden of proof to show me proof that you are able to and legally allowed to do this. I have asked you to provide proof. And all you've done is attack me. Good luck losing matches with your "Totally legal playstyle".

No, my burden is exhausted, because I've proven it is allowed in rules. I've seen it done in tournaments, and just because YOU want someone to go find you "proof", to an ill defined standard of "professional" (no one in 40K is a professional, by the literal definition of the term), doesn't mean we have to play that game. Yiu have to prove it is not allowed. You cannot do this, so you made up another standard and expect us to follow it.

You are calling something permitted in the rules "cheating", which means playing against the rules. Given that this isn't against the rules, you are yourself cheating if you disallow it.

You also presume I have a bone in this. I don't have necrons. I can never benefit from this, apart from in the general sense that I benefit when someone is playing by the sportsmanlike and thematic rules, as opposed to a bizarre made up piece of nonsense.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







For the record, this argument was a lot more entertaining when occurred the previous time and involved walking nurglings underneath Defilers and Soul Grinders.

"Whenever you move a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along any path, but no part of the model’s base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its base) cross the edge of the battlefield."

Let's look at that:
- Crossing the edge of the battlefield and the edges of deployment zones results in an "OMG, of course you look at that from the top down perspective, and can't have model pieces sticking out past the line."
- Some of the people posting in this thread don't think "no part of the model's base (or hull) can be moved across the bases (or hulls) of other models" isn't done using a top down view.

Now, I assume that the second part is caused by the various vehicles on flying bases which have just stupendous amounts of model pieces hanging over their bases, and would be pretty much impractical to deal with that way. Especially for those vehicles on flying bases that don't have the flying rules. Like those nice long weapons on Knight models that extend out over their bases, and that you see pictured with models below them.

Or, for that matter, every single bit of model that hangs out over the typical 25 to 32mm model's base, that get routinely ignored as far as sticking out over the tops of other model's bases.

The world would still be a better place if all of the Triarch Stalkers, Soul Grinders, and Defilers had bases.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






The difference is that one says cross and was clarified in an FAQ/Errata for a different thing to include the definition overhang and the other says moved across and there are no references to models being unable to overhang one another. We come back to the issue of there being nothing that says your theoretically infinitely tall and deep base/hull stops being infinitely tall or deep once it meets the roof of a ruin, which would then mean that no other bases or hulls can stand directly over or under a model even if it's on a different floor of a ruin. The game functions perfectly fine when you interpret it my way, but if you interpret things the other way the game stops working the way that everyone currently plays it. Most models with bases do not have hulls, things like Knights are a non-issue when it comes to this discussion, except they'd be affected by the ruin thing as well.

"If a unit makes a Normal Move, Advances or Falls Back, and any of its models wish to move over any part of this terrain feature, subtract 2" from the Move characteristic of every model in that unit (to a minimum of 0), even if every part of this terrain feature is 1" or less in height."

Emphasis mine. See how GW uses "over" when they want you to subtract Movement for moving your gun turret over a forest because otherwise, you'd be able to sneak into the forest without getting the -2 to your Movement.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/31 06:32:08


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Indeed, doing it by the rules results in situstions that work, and has worked that way for all editions I can think of, back to 4th.

If they had bases the models would also look better, to my eyes at least!
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: