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.

There is nothing that prevents airplanes to stand upon very tall buildings, even with mobbling model syndrome? We just marked where it was aproxemently.

The BRB on page 261 defines 'buildings' as units (usually with the fortification battlefield role), so by the official rules you cannot usually place any unit on top of a building

Otherwise, it depends on what terrain traits are assigned to the terrain piece in question. If it is a ruined building-like-erection then it will likely be 'scalable', which specifically says that flying models can end their move on top of it. However, if the building-like-erection has the 'unstable position' trait then no units can end their move on top of it. If it has neither of those traits (maybe a skyscraper represented by a box?) then I don't think there is anything stopping aircraft from moving onto it by default.

Buildings, that is, units with the BUILDING keyword and a datasheet, can't have other units placed on top of it.

Terrain features with the Scalable trait can have aircraft stop on top of them.

:-p You knew what I meant.

So if an aria terain does not have scalabel you can not be on it? This was a multi story ruin form kill team. We used wobly model syndrom on an edge along the erected ruiened wall.

Can your movement stop halfway up or down a cliff for istance, or wall?

The rules for any piece of terrain are determined by what keywords you assign to it. Only terrain classified as hills can have models on top without a keyword

And a ruin is scalable so a airplane can land on like a small erected girdle with wobbly model syndrom?

Terrain pieces have the keywords you choose to assign them and agree with your opponent you are free to assign whatever keywords you like. The rulebook itself provides examples of common features (but these are not mandatory) and draws distinction between "ruins "ruin walls" and "industrial structures"

But can the damn plane balance on the hair of a pin if it is scalable?

No. Wobbly Model does not allow you to place a model somewhere it cannot actually sit by itself. It allows you to place it there and then move it somewhere else so that it doesn't fall over when someone bumps the table.

Hints and Tips – Wobbly Models
Sometimes you may find that a particular terrain feature makes it hard for you to place a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken. In cases like this, provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location, you may find it helps to leave a model in a safer position, so long as both players agree and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, an enemy model is shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in place so they can check visibility.

Yes, thank you for the quote. However it does not adress weather an airplane can stand there or not as far as I can see.

It can physically stand on the pin. There is room. There just is not balance. It seems suported by the rules. It came up in the game today, is why I am asking. Also, with enough terain there is very few places for a plane to land if it can not land on terain.

If it fits, and it can remain in that position without anyone touching it then it is allowed to go there. You can then claim wobly model to prevent it from being knocked. If it cannot balance without outside help then it is not allowed to go there. If there is some edge case in between then you just have to work it out with your opponent.

Well the airplane would fit. It just would not balance. (Or I suppose in theory it is possible, but you get what I mean.)

How does the game (or you) define the word fit? If it is space for it, it certanly shurly fits? No? Yes?

This is a practical test. If you place the model there without holding it up, you may then use Wobbly Model. If not, you cannot claim it is there.

You can of course spent three hours channelling your inner Thanos to get the Flyer to balance just-so. Then it would be legal to wobbly model syndrome.

This is the word fit is what the rules uses is it not?

Either it fits, or it does not fit. That is a true dicotemy. Weather it can balanse there seems irelewant, unless that is somehow incorperated into the meaning of word fit.

The rules allows things to be palced on building if they are scalable. *Check.* The airplane does pysicaly fit on the pin girder standing up. *check* Wobly model syndrome alows us to remove the model so it does not get damaged. *check* No need to channel your inner thanos to get the balance right. Further from a narative perspective the airplaine is somewhere far above the battlefield. So the only thing that would prevent it, and the only thing that matters since it is a game, are the rules. And the rules as far as I can see alows it.

So we place the airplane on top of the building. It fits. Then we remove it because of wobly model syndrome. We mark where it is on the game with some dice. And the game moves on.

Is this not a good interpretation of the rules? The way I read them it is abigius and a bit of a RAW or RAI. I am not trying to be contratian, but the rules you have refered me to thus far has not helped settle the issue for me, if anything I am not seeing anything preventing it.

It is not. Again you can refer to the actual rules.

Hints and Tips – Wobbly Models
Sometimes you may find that a particular terrain feature makes it hard for you to place a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken. In cases like this, provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location, you may find it helps to leave a model in a safer position, so long as both players agree and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, an enemy model is shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in place so they can check visibility.

Notice how those rules speak of moving the model to a "safer position" because it is "likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table". If you can't take your hands away from the model without it falling over due to simple gravity, it isn't "physically possible to place the model in the desired location".

 alextroy wrote:
It is not. Again you can refer to the actual rules.

Hints and Tips – Wobbly Models
Sometimes you may find that a particular terrain feature makes it hard for you to place a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken. In cases like this, provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location, you may find it helps to leave a model in a safer position, so long as both players agree and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, an enemy model is shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in place so they can check visibility.

Notice how those rules speak of moving the model to a "safer position" because it is "likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table". If you can't take your hands away from the model without it falling over due to simple gravity, it isn't "physically possible to place the model in the desired location".

How does that rule not apply to a Flyer balancing on a pin?
You can, theoretically, balance a Flyer on a pin. It was a centre of gravity that you can place directly over the fulcrum of the pin. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to do so (indeed minor air currents may make it practically impossible) but it is possible. Especially if we walk it back slightly from such an extreme case, and balance in on a small but still flat surface. Like stacking a tower of cards, it'll hold until someone breathes too heavily.
How stable does a model have to be before it turns from "too unstable to count" to "it fits but it wobbles".

You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving. The way to prove it? Do it! If you can, then you can invoke Wobbly Model and take the model away.

But that's hardly fair as a concept though is it? We're getting back to "guess the range to fire barrage weapons" territory.
A player with very steady hands is going to be able to place models in a lot more locations than a player with very shaky hands from an injury. ~

I believe rules should be relatively objective. Either you can place the model there (with Wobbly) or you can't. Subjective stuff like "you need to actually place it there" falls apart when you get to situations like this.
The argument regarding a pin point is obviously quite extreme. But balancing it on the top of a ruin or an oil barrel shouldn't be particularly out-there as a situation.
Player physical ability should have nothing to do with it.

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving. The way to prove it? Do it! If you can, then you can invoke Wobbly Model and take the model away.

I am not sure that you do. The word used in these quoted passages of rules is the word 'fit'. Meaning it can not be physically placed inside an other object. It says nothing about balanced.

The rules of scalable terain allows you to place it on top of the terain. It fits on topp if the hair pin girder. We see of it is breaking any other rule in the game, we both agree that is where it is an mark it with dice or some other way and remove it with wobbly model syndrome.

Mind you during the game it meant I was out of range when it exploded so it was good for me. But the rules seem to support this. Making airplanes excelent assassins.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the op:

If you're looking for a clear line of RAW explicitly allowing you to say a Flyer is on a pinhead you won't find it. Equally you won't find a line explicitly disallowing it. Common sense concensus is generally that you need to be able to leave it in place to invoke wobbly model, but if you mostly play with rules lawyers then listen to the RAW fanatics and make your case.

You can fit a plane model on a pinhead? In what reality?

Just not even worth discussing that as a premise. They’d be welcome to demonstrate this wizardry to me and then, when enough of their model has broken off from the repeated drops and they get tired of trying to balance it, we could move on with reality.

It's going to come down to tabletop discussion.

If you're arguing for WMS when you're resorting to balancing the flyer on a surface you know it's obviously not big enough for it, then informally, you cannot place the aircraft on top of the scalable terrain.

If you're arguing for WMS when the space is big enough for the flyer oval base to stand on, but because of where the aircraft's center of gravity is, there is a small terrain piece that's causing the floor to be not level, etc, so there's a chance the model would tip over and break, then I'd informally agree that you can put the aircraft there.

TLDR: hashing out the details of interaction with terrain on board falls on you/your opponent prior to game. In 9th ed, you need specific permission to place models on top of non-hill type terrain; as per the ruleset, any non-hill type terrain is not occupiable unless otherwise allowed. Aircraft is a unit with FLY keyword, so any terrain keyword that allows units with FLY to occupy it will allow the said unit to be placed on top of it.

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the op:

If you're looking for a clear line of RAW explicitly allowing you to say a Flyer is on a pinhead you won't find it. Equally you won't find a line explicitly disallowing it. Common sense concensus is generally that you need to be able to leave it in place to invoke wobbly model, but if you mostly play with rules lawyers then listen to the RAW fanatics and make your case.

Well as far as I can I see it is allowed within the rules as it is scalable from the terain rules. And it is not disaloved within the rules. I guess we will have to wait for an FAQ. I really wish GW was more like MTG in the way that there is one right awnser, and we have acces to that awnser.

 Niiai wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the op:

If you're looking for a clear line of RAW explicitly allowing you to say a Flyer is on a pinhead you won't find it. Equally you won't find a line explicitly disallowing it. Common sense concensus is generally that you need to be able to leave it in place to invoke wobbly model, but if you mostly play with rules lawyers then listen to the RAW fanatics and make your case.

Well as far as I can I see it is allowed within the rules as it is scalable from the terain rules. And it is not disaloved within the rules. I guess we will have to wait for an FAQ. I really wish GW was more like MTG in the way that there is one right awnser, and we have acces to that awnser.

If you're waiting for GW to be more like WotC then you'll be waiting a very long time. Part of the issue here, though, is down to the difference between card games and tabletop games. It's impossible to know with certainty what every piece of terrain looks like so we end up with rules like this that require some interpretation and agreement between players.

A practical example of balancing on a pinhead is trying to place the flyer on top of a ruin.
The old GW Sector Imperialis Terrain at those spiky caps on top of the posts in the railings. Can I balance a flyer on top of those ruins? Those spiky caps are in the way so I would have to balance on a pin head.
Or what about placing it on the roof of a bunker or other building with an aerial? I'd be balancing it on a pinhead with that aerial in the way.

 Niiai wrote:

Well as far as I can I see it is allowed within the rules as it is scalable from the terain rules. And it is not disaloved within the rules. I guess we will have to wait for an FAQ. I really wish GW was more like MTG in the way that there is one right awnser, and we have acces to that awnser.

You and your opponent are supposed to go over the terrain pieces before the game and agree what rules apply to each piece. If you two agree it is scalable before the game then it's scalable.

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.

No, it is not "frankly childish" it is asking you for a rules citation to back up your statement.

If you can't produce said rules citation, then your statement can not be correct.

Remember the tenets of YMDC. (Specifically #1 "1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.") https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.

Citation needed.

Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.

No, it is not "frankly childish" it is asking you for a rules citation to back up your statement.

If you can't produce said rules citation, then your statement can not be correct.

Remember the tenets of YMDC. (Specifically #1 "1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.") https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Well "If you delicatley bablance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken." does seem to indicate that it's the nudging of the table that causes the model to fall, and that the model should be able to stand by itself pre-table nudging.
,