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.

How are charges and movement handled in 8th with regards to multi-level buildings? E.g. if a unit of Devastators are on the third floor of a building (6" off the ground) and the charging unit is 3.1" from the building, how is charge distance measured? How is movement within buildings handled as well? If I want to move a unit onto the third floor (6" off the ground), do I use 6" of my movement?

E.g. is it any different from 7th?

I may have missed something in the BRB or FAQs, but I don't think so. I couldn't find it mentioned at all.

I think you mean Ruins.

There are a number of differences between Core rules and advanced rules Battlefield terrain.

You are going to have to ask more specific questions than this but the base-line answer to your question is: mostly just like normal movement, and you have to get base-to-base measurement within 1".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I think you mean Ruins.

There are a number of differences between Core rules and advanced rules Battlefield terrain.

You are going to have to ask more specific questions than this but the base-line answer to your question is: mostly just like normal movement, and you have to get base-to-base measurement within 1".

Aye, ruins, but there are often several floors in ruins. E.g. take the below.



If you are charging a model that's on top, how would you do that?

Fairly straightforward...

Normal model: Measure along the ground, then measure vertically. They move along then climb.

Model with FLY: Measure diagonally. They take the straight line there.

Reiver marine: Measure along the ground only. They ignore vertical distance.

---

My big and unresolved question is what happens if there's no room on the top level for the charging model to stand? Are the target invulnerable to charges? Wobbly model? Only models that fit can attack? Everyone can attack? Units directly below can attack?

Who knows!?

Silentz has most of it right.
Fly is a general consensus HIWPI, but by RAW they habe to climb the building like normal models. So; not wrong in how it is generally played, but wrong in what the rules actually say(which in turn, make no sense)

For the Lack of room on top FAQ states we use wobbly model syndrome, same goes for units climbing up but not able to make the distance between levels: they get to abstract-hover in mid-air.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Silentz has most of it right.
Fly is a general consensus HIWPI, but by RAW they habe to climb the building like normal models. So; not wrong in how it is generally played, but wrong in what the rules actually say(which in turn, make no sense)

For the Lack of room on top FAQ states we use wobbly model syndrome, same goes for units climbing up but not able to make the distance between levels: they get to abstract-hover in mid-air.

...and wobbly model syndrome says your opponent has to agree to your placement. If your opponent disagrees, you can't place the models in 'mid air' and you can't make the charge. Stupid, but that's what the rules say. GW really need to fix their rules for moving in multi-level ruins. There are multiple scenarios where a model can make itself immune to charges from certain opponents. As an example, a 25mm based model in a 100mm wide 'alleyway' between two buildings can't be charged by an Onager Dunecrawler (120mm base). The Dunecrawler simply won't fit down the alleyway.

I have, and use, an Onager; I am OK with a "Meet the Robinsons" scenario with it. Can't fit down an alley is a good tactic for charge denial.

As far as the WMS thing goes: the player attempting the mid-air placement does have recourse; page 1 of "Stepping into a new edition". Also, I think you missunderstand the opponents agreement; it isnt that they agree that the model can ne there, it is agreeing exactly where the model is. Mid-air can be done in scaling walls, you are both agreeing to where in mid-air the model "is", and within 1" base-to-base is a pretty big area in 3 dimensions.

What if the only 'final placement' your Opponent will consent to is in physical contact with the Tabletop?
Aside from refusing to play such a person to begin with, of course, what else can you do in such a situation?

Try to explain to him he now has units immune to close combat, and that was not intended to be played this way. show them the WMS FAQ stuff. if they still refuse. pack up your models and head down the pub.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I have, and use, an Onager; I am OK with a "Meet the Robinsons" scenario with it. Can't fit down an alley is a good tactic for charge denial.

As far as the WMS thing goes: the player attempting the mid-air placement does have recourse; page 1 of "Stepping into a new edition". Also, I think you missunderstand the opponents agreement; it isnt that they agree that the model can ne there, it is agreeing exactly where the model is. Mid-air can be done in scaling walls, you are both agreeing to where in mid-air the model "is", and within 1" base-to-base is a pretty big area in 3 dimensions.

I don't misunderstand the agreement at all. The core issue with the rule is that it requires an agreement. Your opponent can simply say "I don't agree with your proposed location as the final position of the model". If you have an opponent who refuses to agree to the final position, per the rules, you can't use WMS. It's a bad rule because it allows an opponent to sidestep the rule by refusing to agree.

Agreed, which is why I hated seeing it being pushed by the Authors as 'the solution' instead of actual Rules that grants permission to climb walls as obviously intended!
If the Authors answer boils down to "don't play opponents unless they will already give you the consent you need..." then we might have a little bit of a problem within the Rules themselves.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I have, and use, an Onager; I am OK with a "Meet the Robinsons" scenario with it. Can't fit down an alley is a good tactic for charge denial.

As far as the WMS thing goes: the player attempting the mid-air placement does have recourse; page 1 of "Stepping into a new edition". Also, I think you missunderstand the opponents agreement; it isnt that they agree that the model can ne there, it is agreeing exactly where the model is. Mid-air can be done in scaling walls, you are both agreeing to where in mid-air the model "is", and within 1" base-to-base is a pretty big area in 3 dimensions.

Unless I've missed something base to base is a 7th ed construct. You now measure from model to model which makes it easier to be within 1" when on the level below / above the enemy.

Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in
inches (") between the closest points of the bases
of the models you’re measuring to and from. If
a model does not have a base, such is the case with
many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point
of that model’s hull instead. You can measure distances
whenever you wish.
- Tools of War, page 176

It is my belief that Bases exist within the Rules is to turn the three dimensional Model into a two dimensional representation on paper, I do not like this.

 Kriswall wrote:

I don't misunderstand the agreement at all. The core issue with the rule is that it requires an agreement. Your opponent can simply say "I don't agree with your proposed location as the final position of the model". If you have an opponent who refuses to agree to the final position, per the rules, you can't use WMS. It's a bad rule because it allows an opponent to sidestep the rule by refusing to agree.

The basic rule book has the perfect solution for when two players can not agree: Roll the dice, highest roll wins.

From an outside perspective as a player looking in: this prevents people from trying to take advantage of the situation by constantly contesting every move.

From an inside the game world perspective looking up at the tower your squad is about to assault: maybe the guys on top of the ruins start throwing rocks or the terrain itself is a bit dangerous to try to climb. The assault either gallantly succeeds despite the odds, or it fails for what ever dangers of the battlefield reason.

Psyjer_9er,
Being a devil in this argument, I decide to roll off when you hover up the walls and you win.
Then I want to hover a land-raider straight upwards and what happens?

The problem for the people on this side of the table is not the fact Models can 'climb' walls by using Wobbly Model Syndrome, it is the fact we should have something more solid for something so very common. Having to use a Rule designed for odd bits of terrain making a large Model top-heavy in order to scale up a piece of Terrain might be the simplest answer but it is open to abuse. Not even just players that might not like the idea of hovering Models up a wall, there are a few that really do not believe it should be possible, but those that might use it to get an extra inch of moving if an opponent doesn't get anal about measuring. Having Models in a vague 'some-where at this point along that 16 inch wall' is a very sloppy way to do this.

Maybe I am taking it a bit personally as Terrain Rules where the first things that got me into dissecting Warhammer 40k, TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS!, but to see them dissolving as they have saddens me.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Psyjer_9er,
Being a devil in this argument, I decide to roll off when you hover up the walls and you win.
Then I want to hover a land-raider straight upwards and what happens?
...

Spoiler:

The problem for the people on this side of the table is not the fact Models can 'climb' walls by using Wobbly Model Syndrome, it is the fact we should have something more solid for something so very common. Having to use a Rule designed for odd bits of terrain making a large Model top-heavy in order to scale up a piece of Terrain might be the simplest answer but it is open to abuse. Not even just players that might not like the idea of hovering Models up a wall, there are a few that really do not believe it should be possible, but those that might use it to get an extra inch of moving if an opponent doesn't get anal about measuring. Having Models in a vague 'some-where at this point along that 16 inch wall' is a very sloppy way to do this.

...
Maybe I am taking it a bit personally as Terrain Rules where the first things that got me into dissecting Warhammer 40k, TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS!, but to see them dissolving as they have saddens me.

I totally agree the rules are very vague, and do leave room for misuse even with roll off contests, but being a devil myself, I will play along

So, I presume your Land-Raider movement straight upwards involves some tall terrain to climb and lean against to get at my squad already up on top as the original post is questioning, correct? Standing the tank up on it's rear end to then add that height to the total assault distance as the squad inside the LR leaps from the forward hull to strike yes? Hovering in mid air with nimbly bimbly gravity defying ease as a ruined building supports the massive weight of a massive tank plus a squad of massive space marines encased inside? Or not even mid-air, but 3 inches forward and 3 inches up the side of the wall, thus the land raider has wobbly model syndromed it's self into a funny "L" shape, sound fair?

Or do you mean: The Land-Raider is in the middle of nowhere dead man's land with nothing around but an empty open field and is now suddenly hovering 6 inches above the ground? Then hoping on the next turn to move a full 12 inches above the table top as we enter a realm where there is no spoon and every one can Matrix fly? We could measure out bits of strings and rig a pulley system from one end of the room to the other as our troopers Tarzan swing from rope to rope in assault formation.

Strict RAW life with these rules as they are written does lead down a rabbit hole of some horrible scenarios.

However RAI life with wobbly model syndrome is intended for the few one off scenarios when the squad has completed a valid move, but say one or two poor little fellows are at a slight incline due to a pebble perhaps, and coupled with the way these guys are sculpted their weight and balance are off causing them to be wobbly.

Even RAI life, if the squad fails to make it within the required base to base 1 inch for an assault, the charge fails, I would require some intense measurements and double measurements before I would agree any wobbly model hovers in mid air for an assault. If it fails, your invisible models are going to die during my next shooting phase, if it succeeds, then my removed dead will be replaced by your recently invisible models now revealed during consolidation.

RAI Thug Life would have me say that a vehicle can not 90 degree climb up a vertical wall/ladder since they do not have infantry status nor flight status. Monstrously intimidating as a Land-Raider is, it is still not even a creature.

 Silentz wrote:
Fairly straightforward...

Normal model: Measure along the ground, then measure vertically. They move along then climb.

Model with FLY: Measure diagonally. They take the straight line there.

Reiver marine: Measure along the ground only. They ignore vertical distance.

---

My big and unresolved question is what happens if there's no room on the top level for the charging model to stand? Are the target invulnerable to charges? Wobbly model? Only models that fit can attack? Everyone can attack? Units directly below can attack?

Who knows!?

Is it in the rulebook or a FAQ? I know that's how it worked in 7th, but the negative part of 8th's ruleset is the omission of certain rules.

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Fairly straightforward...

Normal model: Measure along the ground, then measure vertically. They move along then climb.

Model with FLY: Measure diagonally. They take the straight line there.

Reiver marine: Measure along the ground only. They ignore vertical distance.

---

My big and unresolved question is what happens if there's no room on the top level for the charging model to stand? Are the target invulnerable to charges? Wobbly model? Only models that fit can attack? Everyone can attack? Units directly below can attack?

Who knows!?

Is it in the rulebook or a FAQ? I know that's how it worked in 7th, but the negative part of 8th's ruleset is the omission of certain rules.

It's in this: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Fairly straightforward...

Normal model: Measure along the ground, then measure vertically. They move along then climb.

Model with FLY: Measure diagonally. They take the straight line there.

Reiver marine: Measure along the ground only. They ignore vertical distance.

---

My big and unresolved question is what happens if there's no room on the top level for the charging model to stand? Are the target invulnerable to charges? Wobbly model? Only models that fit can attack? Everyone can attack? Units directly below can attack?

Who knows!?

Is it in the rulebook or a FAQ? I know that's how it worked in 7th, but the negative part of 8th's ruleset is the omission of certain rules.

It's in this: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

Thank you! Much appreciated!

 JinxDragon wrote:
Psyjer_9er,
Being a devil in this argument, I decide to roll off when you hover up the walls and you win.
Then I want to hover a land-raider straight upwards and what happens?

The problem for the people on this side of the table is not the fact Models can 'climb' walls by using Wobbly Model Syndrome, it is the fact we should have something more solid for something so very common. Having to use a Rule designed for odd bits of terrain making a large Model top-heavy in order to scale up a piece of Terrain might be the simplest answer but it is open to abuse. Not even just players that might not like the idea of hovering Models up a wall, there are a few that really do not believe it should be possible, but those that might use it to get an extra inch of moving if an opponent doesn't get anal about measuring. Having Models in a vague 'some-where at this point along that 16 inch wall' is a very sloppy way to do this.

Maybe I am taking it a bit personally as Terrain Rules where the first things that got me into dissecting Warhammer 40k, TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS!, but to see them dissolving as they have saddens me.

All depends on the level of rules we are playing quoteIf Core rules: then yes, your tank can scale walls. If advanced with battlefield terrain; depends on the walls.

As far as open-field levitation; there is only a particularly loose reading of the movement rules "any direction" which has to completely ignore the context given in the next sentence on verticle movement over obstacles to even really be attempted(or having a really really fun 100% RAW game specifically to exploit the nonsense that arises; and yes, they are far more fun than 2 ultra-tourney lists). WMS has no backing for not scaling a wall(effectively the model is meant to be "standing" perpendicular to the wall).

Jakesiren: as said earlier, you measure from the nearest point of base to nearest point of base; nearest points on models are only for when the model does not have a base or has an ability to ignore the base(many skimmer-tanks).

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Silentz has most of it right.
Fly is a general consensus HIWPI, but by RAW they habe to climb the building like normal models. So; not wrong in how it is generally played, but wrong in what the rules actually say(which in turn, make no sense)

For the Lack of room on top FAQ states we use wobbly model syndrome, same goes for units climbing up but not able to make the distance between levels: they get to abstract-hover in mid-air.

...and wobbly model syndrome says your opponent has to agree to your placement. If your opponent disagrees, you can't place the models in 'mid air' and you can't make the charge. Stupid, but that's what the rules say. GW really need to fix their rules for moving in multi-level ruins. There are multiple scenarios where a model can make itself immune to charges from certain opponents. As an example, a 25mm based model in a 100mm wide 'alleyway' between two buildings can't be charged by an Onager Dunecrawler (120mm base). The Dunecrawler simply won't fit down the alleyway.

I would say your alleyway scenario is a feature, not a bug. That's smart use of terrain. I once forced a riptide to charge a BBQ Chimera by angling it such that it had to declare the Chimera a charge target in order to assault the plasma gunners next to it because it couldn't make a charge 1" away from the Chimera while still being in contact with the plasma gunners due to the size of its base.

Indeed Kel,
All of this should never have to came down to a 'Roll-off' simply because one encountered a Player that doesn't believe Wobbly Model Syndrome should allow tanks to levitate up walls. That is the sole problem for me, the Terrain Rules are now so bare-bone they either allows for insane actions to become common place or disallows common sense actions from happen at all. This bare-bone nature also heavily relies on Players to make agreements before the game even begins to how X or Y terrain will function as the Authors refuse to do so. This is very sloppy and will always lead to conflicts as Players might not imagine all situations that could play out. Thus they could find themselves being forced to 'roll off' because that is the only way to solve the disagreement that follows a very specific situation that is only seen once in a hundred games.

Regardless of whom wins the roll-off, someone is going to walk away from that game thinking a little less of their opponent, all because the Authors decided Terrain was too difficult....

Psyker__9er,
Nope - Straight up into the air using the fact we can move Any Direction.... Devil will be a **** after all.
Do we Roll off now?

RogueApiary,
Lot of people believe covering the top floor of a Ruin should be a tactical use of Terrain, while others believe the Charge Distance is all that matters when it comes to 'successfully charging' any target.
Without something specific from the Author telling us how to handle both situations differently, how do we apply Wobbly Model Syndrome consistently to both situations?

Yup, best to accept 8ths terrain rules and interactions are poor at best, [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] at worst and agree with an opponent openly and evenly before hand whats what.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Psyker__9er,
Nope - Straight up into the air using the fact we can move Any Direction.... Devil will be a **** after all.
Do we Roll off now?

If you and I are ever in a game and this is the way you want to play, and if the roll is in your favor, then by all means take the time to hold your land raider 6 inches off the table at all times during the game, or rig some string to the ceiling to hold it there... now that the rule has been established, my Carnifex can start levitate walking after you too. If movement can be in any direction, then it goes without saying that shooting can be in any direction as well, so there is no real tactical advantage to hovering in mid air. Even if we wobbly model all the armies invisibly off the board in a battle of wits, there is still no tactical advantage. Who would hold the objective points? Whose shaking hands really adds or removes half an inch as we measure from one floating dust moat to the next? Turn about is fair play, so if you aim to cheat, don't be surprised if you get cheated.

I'm still sticking to ruling as it is intended. There is a distinction between regular troops vs troops with jet/jump packs for a reason, just like there is a reason for vehicles vs vehicles tagged as flying. Looking deeper into ruling intentions: I know Infantry in real life can climb walls, but Vehicles in real life do not climb walls. Why else would there be this distinction for those keywords on a datasheet? I know some vehicles intentionally destroy walls as opposed to climb over them, but there are no rules whatsoever as to the destruction of terrain. (That would be fun though, a nice purposed rule for terrain destruction)

There is also a basic ruling in the Battle Primer for minimum and maximum flying movement distance: if the model moves off the battlefield, they are considered destroyed. This implies the battlefield board has boundaries, and anything "Not On" the board is out of bounds. Being "On" top of a Building that is "On" the battlefield board still counts as in bounds, and even wobbly model syndrome implies the base of the model is still considered in contact with the battlefield, but safely sidelined to prevent falling off and being damaged. So if the theory of move any direction can include directly upwards into mid empty air, this would mean the unit has lost contact with the battlefield and is no longer in bounds, thus destroyed.

Psyker__9er,
I like you, do you know how many people are hypocritical when faced with a Devil Opponent?
Instead of accepting that the Pandora's box has been opened at this point, and they have to adapt to Crazy, so many continue to bang the table and argue that it shouldn't be possible....

As for Intended, - Wobbly Model Syndrome is the intended answer, they have told us outright!
Refusing to allow an Opponent a reasonable 'final position' while climbing a wall is, and I will say it, That ******* Guy behavior. One does not need to be the worlds most greatest detective to see where that line of thought leads to either; Units that are invulnerable to Charge. Once it has been established that the tops of particular Buildings and pieces of Ruin now have places that are difficult to Move onto, but are still extremely nice firing lane for Shooting Armies, it is only logical that key Units will be placed in those locations. They may have been placed there anyway, firing lanes and all, but with the added protection it would be a foolish thing not to.

When faced with situations like that, the Authors informed us that Models use Wobbly Model Syndrome to 'Climb' the sides of the piece of Terrain... so that is what they do!

As for Proposed - Do it! It isn't difficult either - you give the Ruins Datasheet a profile like any other Model, permission to be shot at from both sides and a 'Total Collapse' Rule on Destruction. A simple 'One dice per Model, one Mortal Wound on 6+' formula, with a modifier of '+1 for each additional floor between ground level and roof' to account for larger Ruins doing more damage when they fall, and voila... done. Do have a 'pile o rubble' Hill that you can place where the Ruin or Building for even better aesthetics, and any surviving Models can be placed on that new Scenery Piece or the footprint of where it once was. Something similar could be done to the vast majority of Terrain out there, if you truly want an interactive tabletop (and I do too!). It also gives you a chance to cement which Keywords should be able to 'climb' the Building or Ruin, already required as there are ZERO Rules for Buildings past 'Basic Terrain' anyway....

Honestly, while still talking on Proposed... the real problem comes when you try and create a realistic "Climb" Rule as opposed to using Wobbly Model Syndrome. Such a Rule would have to be written with the size of the Terrain Piece in question, and while that is not a bad thing it does mean such a Rule will never be consistent. Smaller Ruins wouldn't be so bad, a Rule that allows the Model to be picked up and then deployed on top of the Building/Ruin would eliminate the need to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and effectively bring back the old 'Embarking into Battlements' Rules I first teethed on. Taller Ruins would need to out-right forbid movement over them, or have complicated Rules that I even do not want to begin trying to balance out.

It really cements in just why the Authors used the easy answer of Wobbly Model Syndrome!

However, the largest problem with Wobbly Model Syndrome from Common Sense and Narrative viewpoints is the fact it does not prevent the Model from doing anything else. That Model which finished it's move half-way up a 24 inch tall Building has no problem projecting bolts of force, Aiming and Firing a Plasma Cannon, or suddenly sprinting 12 inches to begin swinging a sword into someone's face. With the right Army, Gray Knights, it is entirely possible that a single Model could do all three in a single turn... not bad for someone who is meant to be dedicating themselves to climbing a bloody wall. One can not even make the 'an unlisted war-gear ability allows for it' argument, as there are abilities designed to interact with Terrain to explain sudden Vertical Charges or the likes... Authors list these things, so no mag-lift boots for Space Marines.

It isn't difficult to see why some players are concerned about using Wobbly Model Syndrome like this, and I highly recommend your Datasheets have a 'can not do anything else while climbing' Rule.

PS:
I was part of the 'any direction' discussion, it was very nice and that fundamental solution is one I also support.

 Psyker_9er wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
Psyker__9er,
Nope - Straight up into the air using the fact we can move Any Direction.... Devil will be a **** after all.
Do we Roll off now?

If you and I are ever in a game and this is the way you want to play, and if the roll is in your favor, then by all means take the time to hold your land raider 6 inches off the table at all times during the game, or rig some string to the ceiling to hold it there... now that the rule has been established, my Carnifex can start levitate walking after you too. If movement can be in any direction, then it goes without saying that shooting can be in any direction as well, so there is no real tactical advantage to hovering in mid air. Even if we wobbly model all the armies invisibly off the board in a battle of wits, there is still no tactical advantage. Who would hold the objective points? Whose shaking hands really adds or removes half an inch as we measure from one floating dust moat to the next? Turn about is fair play, so if you aim to cheat, don't be surprised if you get cheated.

Of course, if you want to take the "move in any direction" to an extreme, instead of going above the board, you can claim you're pulling a submarine type maneuver with a vehicle and are moving down into the ground. Lurk about 2" beneath an objective, and "surface" if you really want to come up to shoot some pesky unit getting close (of course, while you're underground, something can't draw line of sight to you, but you can't draw line of sight to something else....though I'm sure this would bring newfound importance to any ranged weapons which didn't require line of sight...). Of course, if you pursue underground and charge whatever goes underground first, it wouldn't be able to fire overwatch (unless the weapons don't require line of sight). This just exposes the madness of trying to take that "move in any direction" phrase literally while ignoring that there's an additional clause limiting at least moving vertically above the board.

(All of a sudden I want to see Termites and Moles back in the game....though undoubtedly they would not be with the Squats, er, Demiurg as they should be.

See guys, there are still plenty of rules that talk about models being "on the battlefield"... Not above the battlefield, not below the battlefield, not beside the battlefield, nor adjacent to the battlefield... and anything that does not stay "on the battlefield" for what ever reason, gets counted as slain or destroyed...

Reinforcements eventually get moved "on to the battlefield", if they don't, they count as slain.

If a vehicle's minimum flight path is no longer "on the battlefield", it counts as destroyed.

If you disembark 3 inches "on the battlefield", but cannot be positioned more than 1 inch away from an enemy who would also be "on the battlefield", you are slain.

Even a Mawloc, who is in fact a burrowing tunnel digger, appears "on the battlefield". And any reinforcements that emerge from the tunnel there after, emerge "on the battlefield".

Wobbly Model Syndrome is for when you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. Whether this is after a climbing assault, after disembarking, or just regular movement, as with everything else that has been demonstrated, the model still counts as being "on the battlefield".

So get some sticky tack or chewing gum to hold the model in place or at least mark it's actual location with a sticker of some kind, if later on, your enemy is considering shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so they can check if it is visible. Same would be true for assaulting, if your troops only make it half way up the wall I can then assault downwards in some glorified grappling hook cliff hanger battle if I want to. Either way, both armies still count as being "on the battlefield" and I will use different color chewing gum to mark my position if I have to. We can measure from blob to blob of bubble gum, but everything is still "on the battlefield".

Except only the disembark in that long post is actually true.

There has been posted, in this thread, the FAQ allowing a climbing model to use WMS(of course, that still falls in your fabricated "on the battlefield" definition as it is on the terrain; unless you think a model on a hill that is not a permanent part of the table should be destroyed?)

Now, I never advocated vertical movement into empty space with WMS(that is just playing silly), I did point out that the next sentence of the movement rules(a specific allowance to move vertically in order to cross terrain) puts the "any direction" into context as assumed horizontal; jinx an psyker are really just having a fun slightly-side conversation about the sub-topic of both WMS disagreement and the roll-off on disagreements rules.

I don't think anyone in this thread is seriously advocating the more ridiculous aspects.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Except only the disembark in that long post is actually true.

There has been posted, in this thread, the FAQ allowing a climbing model to use WMS(of course, that still falls in your fabricated "on the battlefield" definition as it is on the terrain; unless you think a model on a hill that is not a permanent part of the table should be destroyed?)

Now, I never advocated vertical movement into empty space with WMS(that is just playing silly), I did point out that the next sentence of the movement rules(a specific allowance to move vertically in order to cross terrain) puts the "any direction" into context as assumed horizontal; jinx an psyker are really just having a fun slightly-side conversation about the sub-topic of both WMS disagreement and the roll-off on disagreements rules.

I don't think anyone in this thread is seriously advocating the more ridiculous aspects.

Basic Primer Rules Page: 3
Minimum Move
"If a model cannot make its minimum move, or is forced to move off the battlefield because of its minimum speed, it is destroyed and removed from the battlefield"

Basic Primer Rules Page 3
Reinforcements
"Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using, teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means...
Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed"

Basic Primer Rules Page 9
Disembark
"When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield...
any disembarking model that cannot be set up in this way is slain."

All of these implies boundaries "On the battlefield"... If a hill is "on the battlefield", and your models are "on the hill", they are still "on the battlefield"... Not sure what you mean by a hill that is a permanent part of the table, as I am not super gluing anything to my dinning room table, but if it is "On the Battlefield" before we start to deploy then I would agree it is a valid place to stand on top of.

I agree with your statement pointing out the context of vertical movement up an obstacle is then followed by horizontal movement to traverse across an obstacle, then logically it follows vertically back down the obstacle again... I don't want to open a can of worms about whether or not this means every tiny pebble or bump in the carpet if you are playing down on the floor will count against your total movement, so we will stick with hills and other line of sight blocking obstacles such as ruins...

So if movement leaves a model with a wobbly syndrome, it still counts as on the hill/ruins and therefore counts as "on the battlefield", so it is not destroyed... As it would be destroyed if some one where to hover in mid air empty space because they think they are clever and rules as written are "any direction" lol troll herr dee derr... So we are actually in agreement Sir Kommissar Kel

if a unit of Devastators are on the third floor of a building (6" off the ground) and the charging unit is 3.1" from the building, the is charge distance is measured as 3.1" horizontal and then 6" vertical. So in total of 9.1" inches, which means technically I only need 8.1" inches to make it within 1"inch of the enemy successfully, even if my squad is now WMS marked with bubble gum and stickers stuck to the side of the building.

Indeed,
Never take what I post on these sites as 'How I would Play It,' I actually prefer my opponents get away with murder if the result makes me chuckle and choose Narrative Play for the more relaxing atmosphere. Nah, I get my jollies trying to find out how Game Workshop screwed up this time and the ingenious ways people fix Game Workshop's mistakes. It real is quite amazing as there are so many very obvious and broken things within Game Workshop Rules, not only those seen and corrected by players doing what was obviously intended. There are some breaks with so oblivious a correction that people scratch their head and say your wrong when you point it out the error still exists. This occurs because Warhammer 40k has been more 'oral tradition' then 'written on paper,' with new players listening to seasoned players and gaining experience by playing the game... not arguing the finer points of the Rules like a lawyer would.

Means we have a lot of breaks in this game then Players even realize, and the fact Game Workshop hasn't clearly defined if the air above the table counts as 'out-of-play' is the least of the worries....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Added, because I can't let a Rule quote go unsaid if I get a chance:
Hills are
always considered to be part of
the battlefield rather than a terrain
feature, and so models on top of
them do not receive the benefits
of cover.
- Hills, Advanced Rules


Please leave Hills out of it, they are the worse example to use.