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.

Looking for any rule indicating a base must be flat on the table and/or any piece of terrain you move a model onto (perpendicular to the table/terrain). This was something I ran into playing against a larger model such as an imperial knight / GUO / dread. I understand (Or don't perhaps...) wobbly model entails the model must be able to sit unassisted prior to just shouting wobbly model and thus allowing your models to sit pretty much anywhere they wouldn't normally fit. This is what prevents models from saying they stop on a 1cm wide wall (Any model would simply fall over instantly) to make a charge on a full floor when they can't legally fit. My question however is about a less extreme scenario where a larger based model could end it's movement angled across several levels of a hill or similar object. It all seems fine until more competitive players start rules confrontation.

The solid lines below depict a hillside and it's top. Imagine a solid line through the 4 dots and that's the larger models base. It's able to sit there unassisted but it's angled. (Ignore the '+' symbols, the site doesn't like whitespace).
++++++++++.
++++++++.___________
++++.___/
. __/

My scenario causes some headache as the top of the hill was 'full' of models and the larger model was able to make the charge as the base was within 1" of the unit on top BUT the knight clearly couldn't fit on that top 'level'. Of course, the hill wasn't ruled to have levels like a ruin but I hope you get the picture I'm painting. Sure it's a hill but you could be in the same scenario with a ruin as people put rocks and debris around the bottom so now you could technically make the same move to charge people on upper levels of ruins by stating you're not on the ruin and still being within 1" of the enemy unit.

Can a larger model land angled on terrain and get around a "can't charge me the floor's full" scenario?

There is no rule saying bases be flat to the table, nor any rule saying you can't flip your Land Raider on it's side, etc. The only rule regarding model placement is the Wobbly Model Syndrome sidebar, which implicitly suggests that you can place models in any orientation you want.

This is because GW don't have any technical writers on their staff and think it's acceptable for everything to be resolved by TMIR when their shoddy work causes issues like these.

I’d say that’s not even a contentious scenario. Not really sure what the issue is here, but I’m sure we’ll get plenty of hot takes.

The scenario implies nothing needs to be flat according to the current rule set thus WAAC players may argue it's legal to place models in rather awkward positions to make them get into spots their bases wouldn't normally allow them to get into the first place. This should be a non-issue but again, I ran into an awkward scenario with a competitive person and I couldn't argue either side of the story when I went to the rulebook for guidance.

If someone needs a rule to say that ‘tanks drive on their tracks not their roofs’ then I don’t know what to say.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If someone needs a rule to say that ‘tanks drive on their tracks not their roofs’ then I don’t know what to say.

Some would say (or not know what to say, in this case) the same about needing a rule to say that a model can go up a hill.

I worry then.

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If someone needs a rule to say that ‘tanks drive on their tracks not their roofs’ then I don’t know what to say.

Some would say (or not know what to say, in this case) the same about needing a rule to say that a model can go up a hill.

And he who would say that, using BCB's famous comparison, would most definitely also argue that the rulebook does not specify that a dice needs be numbered 1 thru 6.