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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.

Actually it does...

Wobbly Model Syndrome:
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall I as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location" P. 11

Clearly the underlined permits a model to be in a location that is not able to be placed within, as DT rolls let models melt through walls of runs and as such the models can move through solid walls, but the model can not be placed "exactly where you want" at the end of its move as it would physically be within a ruins, but solid, wall.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
WMS just allows you to pretend a model is somewhere that it can legally move to but won't actually stand.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted the rules demonstrating why this is wrong. WMS does not let you just declare that you're moving a model somewhere, you have to successfully place it in that location and then get your opponent to agree to let you use WMS.

Actually it does...

Wobbly Model Syndrome:
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall I as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken In cases like this, we find i t is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a s afer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location" P. 11

Clearly the underlined permits a model to be in a location that is not able to be placed within, as DT rolls let models melt through walls of runs and as such the models can move through solid walls, but the model can not be placed "exactly where you want" at the end of its move as it would physically be within a ruins, but solid, wall.

LMAO!! you're really reaching reaper, even for you :p

Do you have a rules argument or are you just stating things with no rules backing, which is not allowed as per the tenets of the forum?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually it does...

No it doesn't. It says that it might be HARD to put a model exactly where you want, not IMPOSSIBLE. Hard is balancing on an uneven bit of rubble on the top of a tall ruin where the model could fall to inevitable damage. Impossible is having a model floating in midair.

And then in the next sentence it refers to delicately balancing it in place. This is very clearly talking about a situation where you can place the model but would prefer to have it somewhere safer, not a situation where the model can't be placed at all because no terrain exists to hold it.

Hard is also putting it within a space that does not allow the model to stay, like within the confines of a wall in a ruin or other DT.

It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall.

After all, the DT rules allow models to move through walls, so it is within the scope of the WMS rules to actually stop there.

sirlynchmob wrote:
But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.

It's not a matter of me accepting it. You asked what the difference was. I gave you a difference.

But if I were to insist that the assault on the unit on top of the skyshield should be allowed, it would be because it is allowed, as I read the rules, and because in the only directly comparable situation, GW last edition ruled that it should be allowed, and this edition built that allowance into the ruins rules.

And yes, once again, the skyshield isn't a ruin... But it's not a huge leap of faith to expect it to be ruled the same way if they ever do FAQ it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall.

No, that is impossible, not hard. No amount of careful balancing will ever allow you to place the model inside the wall.

After all, the DT rules allow models to move through walls, so it is within the scope of the WMS rules to actually stop there.

No it is not. WMS very clearly requires you to place the model, not just point at a spot and declare that it will count as being there.

Additionally, peregrine, you are parsing the "agreement" incorrectly

The agreement is NOT to use WMS at all, but that you both "agree AND KNOW" the location. As in, both of you agree where the model is, and both know where the model is. Without agreement on the location you could both "know" it is in a different location.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The agreement is NOT to use WMS at all, but that you both "agree AND KNOW" the location. As in, both of you agree where the model is, and both know where the model is. Without agreement on the location you could both "know" it is in a different location.

Let's look at the quote again:

In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

Note that it says "agreed", not "agreed on its location". And the "agreed on its location" interpretation would make it a redundant statement, if both players know its actual location then they've agreed on it. The sentence makes a lot more sense if the agreement is to use WMS at all. Then you have two non-redundant requirements. IOW:

Player A: Hey, that model looks like it's about to fall off, can I WMS it?
Player B: Sure, just put a die there to mark the spot.

Not true, it isnt redundant

I can "know" it is in position A. You can "know" it is in position A+1. Without Agreement "knowing" is insufficient.

Your parsing is incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can "know" it is in position A. You can "know" it is in position A+1.

No you can't. If we both "know" that it is in a different position then one of us doesn't know where it is, since a model can only be in one place. You can only have both players know where the model is if they agree on its location.

Your parsing is incorrect.

No. Even if you believe that yours is a legitimate interpretation that doesn't mean that mine isn't. At best the sentence is ambiguous enough that yours could be a second possible interpretation.

No, your parsing IS incorrect, as you are inserting a comma that doesnt exist in order to come to the conclusion you have done -that you can separate the agreement from the "and know" part it is actually joined to.

"...have agreed, and know..." is the way to write what you are parsing the sentence as, however that isnt how the sentence is written.

You do not need to agree that WMS can be used - it is part of the rules. You only have to agree on the location of the model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"...have agreed, and know..." is the way to write what you are parsing the sentence as

No it isn't. The version with no comma works just fine. For example, I can say "you need to bring your paint and glue to work on that model", I don't have to put a comma between them.

In fact, you're the one who is reading it wrong. To mean what you think it means the correct statement would be:

In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed ON and know its 'actual' location.

The "on" is what tells you that the agreement is about the location. Without it the agreement is not necessarily about the location, it's just a requirement of "have agreed" and "know its actual location" before you can move the model.

You do not need to agree that WMS can be used - it is part of the rules.

It is part of the rules, but it requires agreement to use them. Just like how in the terrain setup rules you're given permission to adjust the random terrain as long as both players agree to do so.

My take on this;

>if models in a skyshield cannot be assaulted then it's broken as feth
>ergo they can be assaulted in the skyshield, and boot shall be applied to the asses of any who disagree

 Dakkamite wrote:
My take on this;

>if models in a skyshield cannot be assaulted then it's broken as feth
>ergo they can be assaulted in the skyshield, and boot shall be applied to the asses of any who disagree

No one is saying it can never be assaulted. What they are saying is you can't have a model floating in midair so the charge fails for that turn. So shoot the squad that is occupying the Skyshield the next turn then try the assault again the next turn.

I'm referring to the original question, which is "can I stop you assaulting the sky shield with various shenanigans"

Why customizing a model can be considered TFG, but gak like this isn't, is well and truly beyond me.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
But I want to assault the tank, not the troops. If you can accept the tank can not be assaulted this turn, so I should do something else, then why can't you accept the same conclusion for the sky shield? you can't assault it this turn, do something else.

It's not a matter of me accepting it. You asked what the difference was. I gave you a difference.

But if I were to insist that the assault on the unit on top of the skyshield should be allowed, it would be because it is allowed, as I read the rules, and because in the only directly comparable situation, GW last edition ruled that it should be allowed, and this edition built that allowance into the ruins rules.

And yes, once again, the skyshield isn't a ruin... But it's not a huge leap of faith to expect it to be ruled the same way if they ever do FAQ it.

And calling it a ruin is a horrid idea. Most seem to think delaying an assault by a turn or two is so horrendous, wait til they see my entire ork army with a 4++ as they conga line around the field to claim objectives Invuln saves for near 200 models, not bad for 75 points. Because the unit gets the 4++, so any one model on the sky shield is enough for the unit to claim the save. Ergo we stick with the coherency RAW and terrain type RAW and that solves that issue.

oh and speaking of this WMS levitation stuff, couldn't I ring the wall of the skyshield with models? This would deny you any possible space for your models to levitate off from. Or would you claim you can levitate in mid air?

Peregrine - no, it requires both players to agree and know the position of the models you are replacing with tokens. Not agreement on using hte rule at all - either player may always use that rule, no matter what their opponent thinks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is clearly hard to put the model exactly where you want, as exactly where you want is within said wall.

No, that is impossible, not hard. No amount of careful balancing will ever allow you to place the model inside the wall.

No that is not impossible, it is hard to put it in a solid wall, as you would have to modify the terrain to get it to fit in a location where the model is clearly allowed to move. It can be done, it is not impossible, but it sure is hard to do as you would need a cutting instrument to get the model to stay in that location.

No it is not. WMS very clearly requires you to place the model...

Actually WMS requires no such thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
speaking of this WMS levitation stuff, couldn't I ring the wall of the skyshield with models? This would deny you any possible space for your models to levitate off from. Or would you claim you can levitate in mid air?

Well the Skyshield rules do say to take a DT test to move on or off. Models in the center of the skyshield can move directly downward and through the Skyshield with a DT test, as per the rules. so they can float in midair as long as they are under the Skyshield as per the rules for the Skyshield.

I'm firmly with Peregrine on this. The rules do not tell you to "levitate" onto the skyshield at all. Furthermore, I strongly agree with him on his interpretation of WMS. That is how it has always been played around my area too. Also, with regards to DeathReapers comment about using cutting tools, and therefore it is not impossible: smashing up my opponents tank with a hammer is not impossible, but am I allowed to do that RAW? I somehow doubt it. Therefore claiming that you can use WMS to place a model in a wall because you "could" cut it with some tools is absurd. As is levitating.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
The rules do not tell you to "levitate" onto the skyshield at all.

Actually they do by saying you can move onto and off of the Skyshield with a Difficult Terrain test.

For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys (nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.

 Crablezworth wrote:
For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys (nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.

Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys (nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.

Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.

sure there is, permissive rule set remember?

you have to move onto the shield, stopping 1/2 way is not moving onto the shield. Maybe you can show me where models float or levitate in the rules and how to handle it?

Even before fortifications rules, me and my brother have always played it the same way: In order to move onto the platform, you must use one of the 4 access points on the model.

RAW: "Access Points & Fire Points: AS PER MODEL"

This is the same rule for imperial bastions (which has a door on the front) and FOR.

For ye who are still thick headed:
1: Take melts bombs
2: "Hey, this is the same material as a Bastion," *charge a leg.
3: Hope for Detonation or Total Collapse

Congratulations, it is now a ruin. Assault away on the person who refuses to accept a quasi ruin assault adaptation.

If you still don't like this interpretation. Don't allow a sky shield without an agreement on which rule to use. I would check out page 95 about battlements if you still dislike the access points that are on the model.

You would be better off assaulting from underneath where you can't get hit by enemy fire before you can get in charge range.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sopoko wrote:


You would be better off assaulting from underneath where you can't get hit by enemy fire before you can get in charge range.

You need line of sight to charge.

 Crablezworth wrote:

You need line of sight to charge.

Well, I mean move up from underneath, then launch assault.
Common sense still works best unless GW has a rule saying it doesn't.

Just use the access points if your opponents say you can't levi-charge them like ruins. They are in the RAW at least. I'm not even sure I would allow a floating move up to the top since it has access points. Only jet packs or skimmers could get off the edge or else I'd make you take a Leaping Down (p95) test.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
For once I don't even feel the need to debate this because you guys (nos, reaper) aren't even trying anymore. Well done peregrine, well done.

Don't have to try when the rules are clear that models may float to the Skyshield with a DT test... There is no real room to say otherwise.

Citation needed... Where do the rules say "float"?

Sopoko wrote:
RAW: "Access Points & Fire Points: AS PER MODEL"

That was changed in the Rulebook errata about 3 and a half minutes after the Rulebook was released. The skyshield has no access or firepoints. You just move onto it from anywhere you want with a difficult terrain test.

For ye who are still thick headed:
1: Take melts bombs
2: "Hey, this is the same material as a Bastion," *charge a leg.
3: Hope for Detonation or Total Collapse

The skyshield is not a building. There are no rules for attacking any terrain that is not a building.

 insaniak wrote:
There are no rules for attacking any terrain that is not a building.

And Weapon Emplacements.