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.

Just to state ahead of time, I have no intention of doing this. I just wanted to get inside the head of a WAAC player for the moment and see if it is possible to work around this FAQ without houserules (As everyone in my gaming group agrees this one is total BS and ignores it and none of us are tournament players).

So the FAQ I'm poking at is this one:

"Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is
entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin,
Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end
its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either
because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or
because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper
levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain
rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes."

So say my opponent has a unit of something on the second floor. He's set up to where I can't put any model unaided on this floor, but there is several small gaps that a part of a base would fit on, just not enough for it to hold the model up. If I were to do something like throw some Blue Tac on the bottom of my base, then stick the model on that part and it stays standing without me needing to touch the model during a charge, does it become a legal charge, as I happen to have enough space to place the model? I have yet to see a rule stating that I'm not allowed to have Blue Tac on the bottom of all of my bases. In fact, to the best of my knowledge many players put weights of some sort on the bottom of their bases to keep top heavy models standing properly, so I see no reason why Blue Tac wouldn't be allowed (Other than chance of damaging the battlefield/terrain).

Feel free to tear this apart. This was just a thought I had at the FAQ and was curious as to how people who care would take it.

Yes, this was pointed out day 0 of 8th edition and is a perfectly legitimate tactic. I'm surprised GW actually went and reinforced the RaW rather than making stuff up.

demonwalker wrote:
Just to state ahead of time, I have no intention of doing this. I just wanted to get inside the head of a WAAC player for the moment and see if it is possible to work around this FAQ without houserules (As everyone in my gaming group agrees this one is total BS and ignores it and none of us are tournament players).

So the FAQ I'm poking at is this one:

"Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is
entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin,
Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end
its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either
because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or
because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper
levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain
rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes."

So say my opponent has a unit of something on the second floor. He's set up to where I can't put any model unaided on this floor, but there is several small gaps that a part of a base would fit on, just not enough for it to hold the model up. If I were to do something like throw some Blue Tac on the bottom of my base, then stick the model on that part and it stays standing without me needing to touch the model during a charge, does it become a legal charge, as I happen to have enough space to place the model? I have yet to see a rule stating that I'm not allowed to have Blue Tac on the bottom of all of my bases. In fact, to the best of my knowledge many players put weights of some sort on the bottom of their bases to keep top heavy models standing properly, so I see no reason why Blue Tac wouldn't be allowed (Other than chance of damaging the battlefield/terrain).

Feel free to tear this apart. This was just a thought I had at the FAQ and was curious as to how people who care would take it.

I use this reasoning alot. Try and imagine from an immersive point of view.

The enemy has spread themselves out in a way that you can't fit. When your guys try charging up the stairs they get kicked back down and get pinned and can;t make it in.

I agree with this as to myself at least it is clear difference between not enough room for models and WMS. WMS is where there is room but the uneven terrain makes the model fall so it is to protect the models from breaking that you have paid money and worked hard on, in an immersive setting your guy just moves that bit of bush out the way.

The FAQ answer is, my opponent has carefully placed his models tactically, can I declare WMS even if my models base can;t fit not just it can fit and will fall over.

IMHO I agree with the FAQ it's just good tactics on the opponents part, I don't run a gunline I play very assaulty so I come up against this abit, it would benefit me the other way that you cna just declare WMS, but I do agree with the FAQ.

Guess I should state this: From a fluff perspective, I completely agree with you Sean. Spread out like that there should be no way for a combat army to get up there and fight. And in a tournament setting I'm not 100% sure how often it will really matter due to the missions.

For casual play I saw where that FAQ would have completely gimped a non-shooting Ork army playing against Imperium. Open War deck was used and Imperium ended up getting center deployment vs the Ork's 4 corner deployment. In the center was a catwalk that the Imperium player managed to fit his entire army onto. And the mission ended up being one in which Imperium had no reason to ever leave that catwalk. Orks would have had no chance of winning that game without our houserule.

demonwalker wrote:
Guess I should state this: From a fluff perspective, I completely agree with you Sean. Spread out like that there should be no way for a combat army to get up there and fight. And in a tournament setting I'm not 100% sure how often it will really matter due to the missions.

For casual play I saw where that FAQ would have completely gimped a non-shooting Ork army playing against Imperium. Open War deck was used and Imperium ended up getting center deployment vs the Ork's 4 corner deployment. In the center was a catwalk that the Imperium player managed to fit his entire army onto. And the mission ended up being one in which Imperium had no reason to ever leave that catwalk. Orks would have had no chance of winning that game without our houserule.

I get the point with that, but did that Ork army not have any shooting at all? If so I would have to argue it's not a very balanced list. Kind of like running a Yu-Gi-Oh deck when you were younger (or maybe still do) without any trap cards.

This is interesting. If you go with the blue tac, is there any rules suggesting you must place models on horisontal surfaces? Or could you now place them on vertical walls, going all out spider man and avoiding melee unless the opponent also has blue tac?

One guys WAAC move i heard about was someone did this to get away from a knight, since his base could not fit. The guy who had the knight just leaved it over the so the base was sticking up and was less then an inch away from his opponents. Nothing says your model needs to be standing.

To me, this is a bad change in the FAQ. According to this, I can MOVE models to places they can't stand up and claim wobbly model syndrome, but I can't CHARGE models to places they can't stand up, because of this FAQ. Is that correct?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One guys WAAC move i heard about was someone did this to get away from a knight, since his base could not fit. The guy who had the knight just leaved it over the so the base was sticking up and was less then an inch away from his opponents. Nothing says your model needs to be standing.

And people like that are why we can’t have nice streamlined ruleset things. :-/

 Yarium wrote:
To me, this is a bad change in the FAQ. According to this, I can MOVE models to places they can't stand up and claim wobbly model syndrome, but I can't CHARGE models to places they can't stand up, because of this FAQ. Is that correct?

It makes things like the fortress of redemption really strong as well, place an objective on top of the tower and move units into the tower on top, nothing can get them

 Yarium wrote:
To me, this is a bad change in the FAQ. According to this, I can MOVE models to places they can't stand up and claim wobbly model syndrome, but I can't CHARGE models to places they can't stand up, because of this FAQ. Is that correct?

Not exactly. The FAQ doesn’t address WMS. The question for you, your opponent, and any TO are can you reasonably claim WMS and therefore complete the charge.

GW really needs to amend the terrain rules for levels to be more like barricades.

 alextroy wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
To me, this is a bad change in the FAQ. According to this, I can MOVE models to places they can't stand up and claim wobbly model syndrome, but I can't CHARGE models to places they can't stand up, because of this FAQ. Is that correct?

Not exactly. The FAQ doesn’t address WMS. The question for you, your opponent, and any TO are can you reasonably claim WMS and therefore complete the charge.

GW really needs to amend the terrain rules for levels to be more like barricades.

I think we need a new line of 40K terrain.

Models are on average getting larger, I think it might be time to bring out new buildings etc, add some new flavour to the hobby in terms of the buildings you play in.

WMS requires opponents permission, regardless.

They can always say no.

"But it's a casual game!" - not in tournaments it isn't.

fe40k wrote:
WMS requires opponents permission, regardless.

They can always say no.

No they really cant. the only thing they can say no to is: "as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

They can disagree on knowing the actual location. You can not say no to WMS.

 DeathReaper wrote:

fe40k wrote:
WMS requires opponents permission, regardless.

They can always say no.

No they really cant. the only thing they can say no to is: "as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

They can disagree on knowing the actual location. You can not say no to WMS.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The rule you quoted states, "as long as both players have agreed AND [emphasis mine] know its 'actual' location." This requires two conditions:

1.) Both players to agree
2.) Both players to know its 'actual' location

If one player disagrees, the whole thing falls apart. It's stupid, mean-spirited, and not HIWPI, but it's the rules.

demonwalker wrote:
Guess I should state this: From a fluff perspective, I completely agree with you Sean. Spread out like that there should be no way for a combat army to get up there and fight. And in a tournament setting I'm not 100% sure how often it will really matter due to the missions.

For casual play I saw where that FAQ would have completely gimped a non-shooting Ork army playing against Imperium. Open War deck was used and Imperium ended up getting center deployment vs the Ork's 4 corner deployment. In the center was a catwalk that the Imperium player managed to fit his entire army onto. And the mission ended up being one in which Imperium had no reason to ever leave that catwalk. Orks would have had no chance of winning that game without our houserule.

From fluff sense no the guys would not just sit back "bohoo we can't go there". No they would force their way there. You know? Fighting. That's what the swords and guns are for!

If you can get there you can fight there. GW is just lazy(well politely. Incompetent would be more accurate) for not providing rules for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
One guys WAAC move i heard about was someone did this to get away from a knight, since his base could not fit. The guy who had the knight just leaved it over the so the base was sticking up and was less then an inch away from his opponents. Nothing says your model needs to be standing.

And people like that are why we can’t have nice streamlined ruleset things. :-/

Naah the reason is people GW hires to development team. That or their superiors who explictly tells to create lousy rules.

Octopoid - that's not how the sentence parses

It is
Both players have agreed...it's "actual" location
AND
Both players know it's "actual" location.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Octopoid - that's not how the sentence parses

It is
Both players have agreed...it's "actual" location
AND
Both players know it's "actual" location.

Unless there's more to the sentence than was quoted, that's not how it parses. If it said, "...both players agree [TO] and know its 'actual' location..." then I'd agree with you. As it stands, however, it requires both players to agree (to what, it remains vague - presumably the use of WMS in the first place).

Also, even if it DID parse the way you said, all one player would have to do is not agree to its 'actual' location, and the whole thing falls apart at that level.

tneva82 wrote:

demonwalker wrote:
Guess I should state this: From a fluff perspective, I completely agree with you Sean. Spread out like that there should be no way for a combat army to get up there and fight. And in a tournament setting I'm not 100% sure how often it will really matter due to the missions.

For casual play I saw where that FAQ would have completely gimped a non-shooting Ork army playing against Imperium. Open War deck was used and Imperium ended up getting center deployment vs the Ork's 4 corner deployment. In the center was a catwalk that the Imperium player managed to fit his entire army onto. And the mission ended up being one in which Imperium had no reason to ever leave that catwalk. Orks would have had no chance of winning that game without our houserule.

From fluff sense no the guys would not just sit back "bohoo we can't go there". No they would force their way there. You know? Fighting. That's what the swords and guns are for!

If you can get there you can fight there. GW is just lazy(well politely. Incompetent would be more accurate) for not providing rules for it.

I agree. If my your space marine is able to kick my khorne berserker down the steps so as to prevent him from successfully making a charge, he has already successfully made a charge. The rules are basically implying that medieval siege tactics aren't impractical. Your assaulters make room. They forcibly push back their foe either by killing them or by aggressively charging.

 Octopoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Octopoid - that's not how the sentence parses

It is
Both players have agreed...it's "actual" location
AND
Both players know it's "actual" location.

Unless there's more to the sentence than was quoted, that's not how it parses. If it said, "...both players agree [TO] and know its 'actual' location..." then I'd agree with you. As it stands, however, it requires both players to agree (to what, it remains vague - presumably the use of WMS in the first place).

Also, even if it DID parse the way you said, all one player would have to do is not agree to its 'actual' location, and the whole thing falls apart at that level.

Nos is correct.

"as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

Breaking this down it reads in two parts:

as long as both players have agreed [to} its ‘actual’ location.

as long as both players know its ‘actual’ location.

Bottom line is you can not say no to WMS, you can just disagree on the actual location of the model.

Also, any opponent that continually disagrees with the person holding a model in a location saying "This is where this model is" is not anyone most would want to play anyway.

 Kharneth wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


From fluff sense no the guys would not just sit back "bohoo we can't go there". No they would force their way there. You know? Fighting. That's what the swords and guns are for!

If you can get there you can fight there. GW is just lazy(well politely. Incompetent would be more accurate) for not providing rules for it.

I agree. If my your space marine is able to kick my khorne berserker down the steps so as to prevent him from successfully making a charge, he has already successfully made a charge. The rules are basically implying that medieval siege tactics aren't impractical. Your assaulters make room. They forcibly push back their foe either by killing them or by aggressively charging.

Don't bring fluff into it. It never ends well.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Octopoid - that's not how the sentence parses

It is
Both players have agreed...it's "actual" location
AND
Both players know it's "actual" location.

Unless there's more to the sentence than was quoted, that's not how it parses. If it said, "...both players agree [TO] and know its 'actual' location..." then I'd agree with you. As it stands, however, it requires both players to agree (to what, it remains vague - presumably the use of WMS in the first place).

Also, even if it DID parse the way you said, all one player would have to do is not agree to its 'actual' location, and the whole thing falls apart at that level.

Nos is correct.

"as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

Breaking this down it reads in two parts:

as long as both players have agreed [to} its ‘actual’ location.

as long as both players know its ‘actual’ location.

Unsurprisingly, adding a word to a sentence changes its meaning.

 Octopoid wrote:

Unsurprisingly, adding a word to a sentence changes its meaning.

Not in this case it does not.

The sentence says "as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

The ""as long as both players have agreed" is referring to "its ‘actual’ location."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Octopoid - that's not how the sentence parses

It is
Both players have agreed...it's "actual" location
AND
Both players know it's "actual" location.

Unless there's more to the sentence than was quoted, that's not how it parses. If it said, "...both players agree [TO] and know its 'actual' location..." then I'd agree with you. As it stands, however, it requires both players to agree (to what, it remains vague - presumably the use of WMS in the first place).

Also, even if it DID parse the way you said, all one player would have to do is not agree to its 'actual' location, and the whole thing falls apart at that level.

Nos is correct.

"as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location."

Breaking this down it reads in two parts:

as long as both players have agreed [to} its ‘actual’ location.

as long as both players know its ‘actual’ location.

Bottom line is you can not say no to WMS, you can just disagree on the actual location of the model.

Also, any opponent that continually disagrees with the person holding a model in a location saying "This is where this model is" is not anyone most would want to play anyway.

 Kharneth wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


From fluff sense no the guys would not just sit back "bohoo we can't go there". No they would force their way there. You know? Fighting. That's what the swords and guns are for!

If you can get there you can fight there. GW is just lazy(well politely. Incompetent would be more accurate) for not providing rules for it.

I agree. If my your space marine is able to kick my khorne berserker down the steps so as to prevent him from successfully making a charge, he has already successfully made a charge. The rules are basically implying that medieval siege tactics aren't impractical. Your assaulters make room. They forcibly push back their foe either by killing them or by aggressively charging.

Don't bring fluff into it. It never ends well.

This whole conversation is irrelevant. The rules are not unclear.

Possible solution:

"If an objective is placed in or on a terrain feature, that entire terrain feature is treated as the objective"

i.e. stick an objective on the top of a ruin, and any model in the ruin or within 3" of the ruin stakes a claim on it

Not quite. You measure to the centre of an objective.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Not quite. You measure to the centre of an objective.

which of course isn't hard to change when you make a ruin or terrain count as the objective.

Essentially stops someone sticking objectives on the top floor of a ruin and adopting a smug look - you can make a ruin itself the objective though - and of course you can now get a lot of models "within 3 inches" of it (from both sides)