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.

So I was playing a match with a Necron Tesseract Vault not to long ago. For those of you who don't know, the Vault is a pretty big model.

On the table we were playing, there were a fair amount of buildings. While the base of the Vault easily fit between these buildings, the actual model itself sometimes didn't.

My question is: is it legal to place the model there? The base fits, but the whole model itself doesn't.

Doctoralex wrote:
So I was playing a match with a Necron Tesseract Vault not to long ago. For those of you who don't know, the Vault is a pretty big model.

On the table we were playing, there were a fair amount of buildings. While the base of the Vault easily fit between these buildings, the actual model itself sometimes didn't.

My question is: is it legal to place the model there? The base fits, but the whole model itself doesn't.

Use the Wobbly Model Syndrome rule, or come to agreement with your opponent. The rules themselves do not state either way whether it's legal or not.

Doctoralex wrote:
So I was playing a match with a Necron Tesseract Vault not to long ago. For those of you who don't know, the Vault is a pretty big model.

On the table we were playing, there were a fair amount of buildings. While the base of the Vault easily fit between these buildings, the actual model itself sometimes didn't.

My question is: is it legal to place the model there? The base fits, but the whole model itself doesn't.

Generally speaking, the model itself needs to fit in the space.

Wobbly model is for if the model won't stay put. If it's on an incline or irregular surface and taking your hand off would result in it tipping or falling.

If it's pretty close to fitting though, I'd be ok with it. I don't want you to risk you breaking your model or the terrain by trying to force it! But as BCB says, check first with your opponent if you think it could be an issue. It's really not ideal to ever have a model not really where it's supposed to be, even though in the instance of Wobbly Model it is explicitly legal. It makes drawing line of sight extremely difficult!

Hrm. This is something I've been thinking about.

Traditionally, a flyer on a base represents where the model's 2 dimensional position, not 3 dimensional. For all intents and purposes, the flyer could be hovering over a building that would otherwise interfere with it being positioned on the table.

At least, this is the way I've always played it. I've never tried to take a cover save for a Heldrake because there's a building in the way. That wouldn't make sense, since a flying unit would never level with an obstacle but instead fly way above it. Someone correct me if I've been playing that wrong.

With the new FAQ, distance for charge is being measured diagonally instead of 2 dimensionally. This means range is determined based on the diagonal distance between the models, not the 2D distance between bases.

This creates an inconsistency. If charges are now 3 Dimensional, shouldn't shooting be as well? If a flyer is soaring above a building, shouldn't the distance for ranged weapons reflect the actual diagonal distance? If not, shouldn't the flyer benefit from intervening terrain the same as any other model? If shooting suddenly becomes 3 Dimensional, how does one measure that?

The only way I've ever measured distance to a flyer is 2D distance to the base. I'm not sure that's always fair, given that the diagonal distance would be longer. It's just that there's no way to represent how high a flyer actually is, so 2D measurements have been a decent compromise.

With the change in the charge rules, I don't know if that's true anymore. Would love to hear other people's thoughts.

Shorting distance is 3D, but is generally measured Base to Base. Based are generally on the same level, which makes the measurement effectively 2D.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Hrm. This is something I've been thinking about.

Traditionally, a flyer on a base represents where the model's 2 dimensional position, not 3 dimensional. For all intents and purposes, the flyer could be hovering over a building that would otherwise interfere with it being positioned on the table.

At least, this is the way I've always played it. I've never tried to take a cover save for a Heldrake because there's a building in the way. That wouldn't make sense, since a flying unit would never level with an obstacle but instead fly way above it. Someone correct me if I've been playing that wrong.

With the new FAQ, distance for charge is being measured diagonally instead of 2 dimensionally. This means range is determined based on the diagonal distance between the models, not the 2D distance between bases.

This creates an inconsistency. If charges are now 3 Dimensional, shouldn't shooting be as well? If a flyer is soaring above a building, shouldn't the distance for ranged weapons reflect the actual diagonal distance? If not, shouldn't the flyer benefit from intervening terrain the same as any other model? If shooting suddenly becomes 3 Dimensional, how does one measure that?

The only way I've ever measured distance to a flyer is 2D distance to the base. I'm not sure that's always fair, given that the diagonal distance would be longer. It's just that there's no way to represent how high a flyer actually is, so 2D measurements have been a decent compromise.

With the change in the charge rules, I don't know if that's true anymore. Would love to hear other people's thoughts.

I believe distances have always been measured from base to base - in the case of flyers, LOS is determined from the model itself and distances from the base, regardless if the model is on a standard GW flying stand or some wacky 3rd party one that is 24 inches tall - I hear what you're saying (typing) its a bit of an abstract for sure: a storm raven is probably not flying at the same level of a 3 story building, but we play a game where flame throwers are able to shoot flyers.

To be honest, I like the "new" charge rules, forces you to position your troops better


To the OP: Is the Vault considered a Hover vehicle?

No, despite its enormous size and being on a flying base, the Vault is not considered a ‘hovering’ model. Everything is meassured from its base.

If it fits, it sits. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't sit. Wobbly Model Syndrome seems intended for models where the model can be placed, but keeps falling over. In other words, the model is too wobbly to stay where you want it. WMS seems to come into play on pieces of uneven terrain or on angled hills. I know lots of people like to use it so that models can "float" in space you can't physically place them. I disagree.

You want your Vault to be on the side of a hill, but it keeps sliding down? Fine. WMS invoked. Model is halfway up the hill. You want your Vault to hunker down in 6" wide alley between two ruined buildings? Negative. It won't fit.

In any case, WMS requires that both players agree on the final position. One player could simply not agree that a Vault can sit in an alley. This prevents WMS from being applied.

 Kriswall wrote:
If it fits, it sits. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't sit. Wobbly Model Syndrome seems intended for models where the model can be placed, but keeps falling over. In other words, the model is too wobbly to stay where you want it. WMS seems to come into play on pieces of uneven terrain or on angled hills. I know lots of people like to use it so that models can "float" in space you can't physically place them. I disagree.

You want your Vault to be on the side of a hill, but it keeps sliding down? Fine. WMS invoked. Model is halfway up the hill. You want your Vault to hunker down in 6" wide alley between two ruined buildings? Negative. It won't fit.

In any case, WMS requires that both players agree on the final position. One player could simply not agree that a Vault can sit in an alley. This prevents WMS from being applied.

this makes sense.. and could be fixed if they word a vault to be a hover vehicle, i.e measurements taken from the hull as opposed to the base

Malfurious wrote:
this makes sense.. and could be fixed if they word a vault to be a hover vehicle, i.e measurements taken from the hull as opposed to the base

Problem with that: Say hello to tesserract vault that's immune to...Well lots of things in h2h. It stands over 1" high so say any infantry can't get into h2h with it if you can't measure to the base. Nor would dreadnought. Though as it is not sure can dreadnought even attack as it might not fit close enough to the base!

tneva82 wrote:

Malfurious wrote:
this makes sense.. and could be fixed if they word a vault to be a hover vehicle, i.e measurements taken from the hull as opposed to the base

Problem with that: Say hello to tesserract vault that's immune to...Well lots of things in h2h. It stands over 1" high so say any infantry can't get into h2h with it if you can't measure to the base. Nor would dreadnought. Though as it is not sure can dreadnought even attack as it might not fit close enough to the base!

I mean, can you even get to the base right now to charge it? Even if you measured from the hull, it stands over 1" high so it has the same issue as Wave Serpents (see my sig).

The only things I know of that get a "measure to hull instead of base" are things where it's hard to get into base contact because the model is in the way, and things without a base.

Also of note: walls are considered impassible for most units. So if you cannot fit between 2 walls, or Fly over, it's a no-go

How about Tomb Blades (or other Bikes for that matter)? I'm fairly certain that it's possible to set them up in such a way parts of the model jut out further than 1" from the base? Can I engage a unit of Orks, have just one model within 1" of a model and have the rest use their excessively large thrusters and what have you to be the closest model but more than 1" away, thereby preventing the amount of pile-ins and the number of attacks my opponent can do.

I've been playing my Tomb Blades as being Ethereal, removing the model whenever it's been a problem and just using a base. It's also a question of how closely together I can fit my Tomb Blades.

I think the Tesseract Vault isn't as big a problem as you might think since it has holes in its frame that units can move through to get within 1" of the base.

Tomb Blades have a base. All distances are measured to and from the base. Period. The only thing the model is used for is determining line of sight.

But can I block my opponent from engaging, RAW is yes right? Doesn't say you can, so no space is no space.

 vict0988 wrote:
But can I block my opponent from engaging, RAW is yes right? Doesn't say you can, so no space is no space.

If by engaging you mean "be within 1" of enemy model'" yes, you can. You measure from the base, to the base, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Flying base is a base. Period. You never have permission to ignore the fact that a base is a base. There is a clause dealing with models without a base just as there are specific rules that tell you to measure to the hull (whatever that means). Still, at the end of the day, base is a base, small flying base is a base, large flying base if a base, flyer base is a base. The game tells you to measure to/from the base.

 skchsan wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
But can I block my opponent from engaging, RAW is yes right? Doesn't say you can, so no space is no space.

If by engaging you mean "be within 1" of enemy model'" yes, you can. You measure from the base, to the base, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Flying base is a base. Period. You never have permission to ignore the fact that a base is a base. There is a clause dealing with models without a base just as there are specific rules that tell you to measure to the hull (whatever that means). Still, at the end of the day, base is a base, small flying base is a base, large flying base if a base, flyer base is a base. The game tells you to measure to/from the base.

You're clearly not getting what I'm saying. I wasn't talking about ignoring a base, I was talking about ignoring things sticking so far out the base that it's hard or in some cases impossible to move your models into base contact with the enemy model. Let's take the case of a unit of Novokh Warriors charging a unit of Mephrit Tomb Blades. Can they move into base contact or do they have to respect the enemy model's guns that are sticking 0,5" out of the base.

If the player with the tomb blades isn't granting you base to base because of the gun, he's pulling a TFG move. He can easily turn his models to fulfill the base-to-base (not that you need to be base to base in order to fight) condition.

Technically not illegal, but generally a distasteful maneuver using MFA.

If a model won't fit it won't fit. Not much more complex than that.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model won't fit it won't fit. Not much more complex than that.

Wait for the "BUT IT FITS IF I PUT MY BANEBLADE ON IT'S SIDE! THERE'S NO RULE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE SINCE IT DOESNT HAVE A BASE" shenanigans.

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model won't fit it won't fit. Not much more complex than that.

Wait for the "BUT IT FITS IF I PUT MY BANEBLADE ON IT'S SIDE! THERE'S NO RULE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE SINCE IT DOESNT HAVE A BASE" shenanigans.

Followed quickly by "RULE OF COOL SAYS THAT IF MY BANEBLADE IS DOING A WICKED MOVE LIKE MAGNUM PI TO FIT DOWN AN ALLEY AND I'VE MODELLED IT WELL IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED".

 Kriswall wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model won't fit it won't fit. Not much more complex than that.

Wait for the "BUT IT FITS IF I PUT MY BANEBLADE ON IT'S SIDE! THERE'S NO RULE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE SINCE IT DOESNT HAVE A BASE" shenanigans.

Followed quickly by "RULE OF COOL SAYS THAT IF MY BANEBLADE IS DOING A WICKED MOVE LIKE MAGNUM PI TO FIT DOWN AN ALLEY AND I'VE MODELLED IT WELL IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED".

Followed by "[Citation needed] It doesn't say I can't isn't a rule."

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If a model won't fit it won't fit. Not much more complex than that.

Wait for the "BUT IT FITS IF I PUT MY BANEBLADE ON IT'S SIDE! THERE'S NO RULE TELLING ME I CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE SINCE IT DOESNT HAVE A BASE" shenanigans.

Followed quickly by "RULE OF COOL SAYS THAT IF MY BANEBLADE IS DOING A WICKED MOVE LIKE MAGNUM PI TO FIT DOWN AN ALLEY AND I'VE MODELLED IT WELL IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED".

Followed by "[Citation needed] It doesn't say I can't isn't a rule."

Followed by "It doesn't say I need to roll a d6 numbered 1 through 6, so I can roll a d6 with 6 on all sides."

Oh, YMDC. Never change.

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Followed by "Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW."

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Not sure what a "special snowflake FAQ." is, but the FAQ's certainly can change RAW. (GW has proven this time and time again).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Oh, YMDC. Never change.

Certainly not without a special snowflake FAQ.

Special Snowflake FAQ is not an errata. It doesn't change the RAW.

Not sure what a "special snowflake FAQ." is, but the FAQ's certainly can change RAW. (GW has proven this time and time again).

FAQs can change the result of a rule, but they can never change the RaW. You need an errata to change the RaW. That's why FAQs that ignore the RaW are Special Snowflakes.

 skchsan wrote:
If the player with the tomb blades isn't granting you base to base because of the gun, he's pulling a TFG move. He can easily turn his models to fulfill the base-to-base (not that you need to be base to base in order to fight) condition.

Technically not illegal, but generally a distasteful maneuver using MFA.

What allows him to turn his models? Not being able to go base to base could mean fewer models get to fight. But am I right that it is essentially just a houserule that carried over from 7th that you ignore the model except when figuring out line of sight? Is there anyone who doesn't play it this way? Has anyone ever tried pulling a "you can't charge my Wave Serpent because it's too far off the ground" in your community?

It's not modelling for advantage when it's the official model, built per the instruction manual.