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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

How do you know exactly where point A is when it is inside a solid object?

 solkan wrote:
So you'd make the situation worse by saying that a situation where someone sculpted the hill into the table works differently than a situation where someone has hills that are physically separate? Because if you're close enough to a college with an architecture department, you'll get plenty of examples of hills being integrated components of the table.

Sigh. Read the context. I said "model" as part of "one model inside the other", describing the situation where two objects (which are usually 'models' in a non-rules sense) attempt to occupy the same space, not to divide objects into models and non-models for rule purposes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look down from above points A and B, that is how you normally do it anyway. Problem solved.

How do you know exactly where point A is when it is inside a solid object?

Because it is directly below the end of your tape measure, just like when you are moving in open ground...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it is directly below the end of your tape measure, just like when you are moving in open ground...

I mean how do you know the model's exact position inside the tank (you know, since it isn't actually there) so you know where to start measuring from?

Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top. I think movement rules were on page 11. No part of the wrecked vehicle rule makes it a piece of area terrain that can be move to allow easier measuring either.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS. As per pg 91 couldn't we skip that for players since it would damage models or cause considerable more modeling work to be done?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

 Rismonite wrote:
I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

According to what rules? Even the suggestions in the book that go beyond "put a 'wrecked' icon on top of the model" only involve turning it upside down or putting some smoke on top of it. There is nothing that even comes close to suggest modifying the model with mandatory LOS-allowing holes.

or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save

There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

 Rismonite wrote:
Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

That would be the WMS rules, which have been referenced throughout this thread.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top.

If you're just putting the model on the roof above the position it would be in if it was inside the wreck, there is no need to measure to the inside of the vehicle. A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

Based on what?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

Not really, no. You're just told to put a marker on it to show that it is a wreck, not alter the model.

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

Simply discussing before the game which difficult terrain models can move through and which they have to go over seems like an easier option...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

If you allow models to be inside the wreck, it's a reasonable house rule, though, as I suggested way back towards the start of the thread...

Peregrine wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

According to what rules? Even the suggestions in the book that go beyond "put a 'wrecked' icon on top of the model" only involve turning it upside down or putting some smoke on top of it. There is nothing that even comes close to suggest modifying the model with mandatory LOS-allowing holes.

or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save

There is no support at all for this in the rules. You always use TLOS, so if you decide to use a house rule that you can point at a spot inside another object and say "my model is there" then a model inside another object that is big enough to hide it completely (and many vehicles are big enough) is out of LOS entirely. There is nothing at all suggesting that you should just give a 5+ cover save to a model that is out of LOS.

Sorry I'm at work so I don't have my book. There was something I was looking at last night when I had my book out except that I think I was trying to say the the vehicle wreck would also be area terrain but I think I gave up on that thinking when I realized it said specifically at the end of the area terrain section the little blurp about moving and replacing models to get measurements. I'll go back and look at pg 74 tommorow and see what I was thinking maybe I'll post it. My apologies.

insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Appropriate position? Put the model directly above where it is? What page are the rules for these types of exceptions located? Honestly curious.

That would be the WMS rules, which have been referenced throughout this thread.

Players can't get a measurement to the end of a measuring tape anywhere inside the wrecked vehicle I still fail to see how players get to move in there or what rule allows you to assume it's location by simply placing it on top.

If you're just putting the model on the roof above the position it would be in if it was inside the wreck, there is no need to measure to the inside of the vehicle. A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below.

I'm also starting to think that part of 'marking the vehicle as wrecked' in the wrecked vehicle section should include giant holes that have been blown in said wrecked vehicle that would compromise LOS.

Based on what?

In fact, a wrecked vehicle that hasn't been marked with swiss cheese style bullet hole damage is probably a modeling for advantage problem right?

Not really, no. You're just told to put a marker on it to show that it is a wreck, not alter the model.

I'm feeling like there is plenty of rules to look to argue models can't move into the wrecked vehicle because of the measuring tape problem or you can move into it but you are only getting a 5+ cover save due to wrecked vehicles specific wording on marking the vehicle clearly wrecked. I think either arguement could work or at least force a roll-off situation.

Simply discussing before the game which difficult terrain models can move through and which they have to go over seems like an easier option...

"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it.

Apologies about the swiss cheese model thing I'll go look at my book when I get home.

EDIT and the WMS thing bothers me yes I did read the thread.

 insaniak wrote:
If you allow models to be inside the wreck, it's a reasonable house rule, though, as I suggested way back towards the start of the thread...

I agree that it would be a reasonable house rule, but the quoted post presented it as something supported by the standard rules that could be used to invoke the 4+ it rule.

 Rismonite wrote:
"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it..

Sorry, you might need to explain that one, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

 insaniak wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
"A point directly above is going to be the same distance horizontally as the point below." I feel if you wanted to prevent someone from moving into a wrecked vehicle reversing your stance on this statement would be all you need to argue against it..

Sorry, you might need to explain that one, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here...

I think you are letting them do geometry to determine model location, instead of measuring to the location as described on pg (11?) movement phase.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in definace of physics.

Seriously, the rules allow a model to walk through solid objects. Why is it such a stretch of imagination then to accept the model being able to stop and stand in the middle of that solid object?

Well a rhino isn't a solid object per say, but it's still sketchy to claim to be hiding in one.

And walking through solid walls makes can make sense. The 5th ed Rulebook had a part in the move through difficult terrain rule on page 14 saying...

"Note as part of. Their move through difficult terrain, models may move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all sorts of similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle in impassable. This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows, using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on"

But we don't know if they removed that from the 6th ed Rulebook for a reason of forgot to put it in.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Let's skip the delusional perceptions of sentance structure and jump right to the part where wobbly model syndrome says a model can be placed in a hypothetical position in definace of physics.

Seriously, the rules allow a model to walk through solid objects. Why is it such a stretch of imagination then to accept the model being able to stop and stand in the middle of that solid object?

Well a rhino isn't a solid object per say, but it's still sketchy to claim to be hiding in one.

And walking through solid walls makes can make sense. The 5th ed Rulebook had a part in the move through difficult terrain rule on page 14 saying...

"Note as part of. Their move through difficult terrain, models may move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all sorts of similarly solid obstacles, unless the players have agreed that a certain wall or obstacle in impassable. This represents the warriors bashing their way past locked doors and windows, using explosives or their weapons to create breaches in light walls, climbing over low obstacles and so on"

But we don't know if they removed that from the 6th ed Rulebook for a reason of forgot to put it in.

IXLoiero95XI, It is on Page 90 and it says something similar to what it did in 5th ed.

It doesn't have the part on bold

The part in bold is fluff, and has no bearing on how the rules work.

If you can walk through parts of a difficult terrain feature, then it ultimately shouldn't matter what that difficult terrain feature is, unless the rules make a distinction for different types of difficult terrain.


So the problem isn't the difficult terrain rules... it's the fact that wrecks, hills, and other things that probably shouldn't be moved through are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through.

first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable. That ends the discussion right there. If you opponents says yes, and you say no that ends the discussion, it should have been decided at the start of the game before the first dice roll.

Personally I would have said that sure you can occupy it, but it would have only conferred a 5+ or 4+ cover save, and treat it just like difficult terrain for assault purposes and shooting. It's not a vehicle any more. Its the ruins of a vehicle. Some treads, a few fused hunks of metal and electronics scattered around.

 insaniak wrote:
The part in bold is fluff, and has no bearing on how the rules work.

If you can walk through parts of a difficult terrain feature, then it ultimately shouldn't matter what that difficult terrain feature is, unless the rules make a distinction for different types of difficult terrain.


So the problem isn't the difficult terrain rules... it's the fact that wrecks, hills, and other things that probably shouldn't be moved through are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through.

I'm not sure that wrecks and hills are classed as a type of terrain that models can move through are they? The BRB only tells us that models can move through walls, closed doors and windows, and all similarly solid obstacles..

Is a hill or a wrecked vehicle similar to a closed door or a wall or a window?

But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

Somewhat tangential to the main argument of the thread, but this is totally wrong.

A metal Zoanthrope cannot be placed on a flat ramp with a 45 degree slope. It's not merely "difficult" to place the model there, it's completely impossible -- it will fall over every time. A Finecast Zoanthrope would be able to stand there. The slightest bump would topple it, but the original placement would be attainable. Are you suggesting that the metal model would be prohibited from moving to the same position as the Finecast model?

Note that 45 degrees is an arbitrary measurement, since I obviously don't know *exactly* what the cutoff point would be in this example. But there is one, and that's what matters.

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Altruizine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You've lost me. If you put the model beside the wreck, and say 'He's in the wreck' then the model is 'physically somewhere'...

But you cannot do that. WMS (and embarking) is the only way model's physical location is allowed to be different than it's actual location. You do not have the situation described in WMS, you cannot use WMS. WMS is for situations where the model is difficult to to place, not for situations where it is impossible to place.

Somewhat tangential to the main argument of the thread, but this is totally wrong.

A metal Zoanthrope cannot be placed on a flat ramp with a 45 degree slope. It's not merely "difficult" to place the model there, it's completely impossible -- it will fall over every time. A Finecast Zoanthrope would be able to stand there. The slightest bump would topple it, but the original placement would be attainable. Are you suggesting that the metal model would be prohibited from moving to the same position as the Finecast model?

Note that 45 degrees is an arbitrary measurement, since I obviously don't know *exactly* what the cutoff point would be in this example. But there is one, and that's what matters.

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

But you can physically place your metal Zoanthrope on that 45 degree slope if you hold it in place can't you? Yes. Therefore it is not impossible to place it there. The fact that it topples over when you let it go is specifically what WMS is for. Can you physically place your model inside of say, a hill or wall? No. Then WMS does not apply.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

That would only be a simple solution if your opponent agrees to let you use WMS.

We can't embark into the transport so I'd be okay with my opponent physically placing his model inside the wrecked vehicle. If he doesn't fit then he must quit. (Trying to be tfg).

This is another rules debate that can be ended by simply telling your opponent "no".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

The rules say you both must agree to use WMS. So stuff that model into a Rhino if you desire, and make sure he's standing tall and proud. I might be able to fit a gribble in one !

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

So what are the other definitions of through? Dictionary definitions that is? How does the fact that the 'move through cover' SR is (arguably) poorly worded, change the standard definition of 'through'?

They were already given on this thread

When you swim through water, do you have to completely clear the water in one "action"?

 insaniak wrote:

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
But aside from that the only thing we are given permission to do is move through difficult terrain. I've already posted on the other thread and sombody else has already posted in this thread, but I think it's worth repeating. The definition of through is 'in one side and out the other'.

And as has also been pointed out earlier in this thread, that's only one definition of 'through', and not the one GW are using. See 'Move Through Cover'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

disdamn wrote:
first the rules say you both have to agree that the wrecked vehicle would be passable.

No they don't. Wrecks are difficult terrain.

And your definition is just as faulty

Altruizine wrote:

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Nope, that's basically a community house rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

This discussion made me wonder if there's even any rule requiring a model to be placed upright.

Nope, that's basically a community house rule.

The fact that every single diagram in the book shows models upright is purely coincidental I assure you

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Just standing the model on top of the tank in the appropriate position would seem to do the job...

Exactly this, put the model directly above where it is. that way you know exactly where the base is so you can measure on your next turn from exactly where it would be.

Simple solution.

That would only be a simple solution if your opponent agrees to let you use WMS.

We can't embark into the transport so I'd be okay with my opponent physically placing his model inside the wrecked vehicle. If he doesn't fit then he must quit. (Trying to be tfg).

Opponents can not stop you from using WMS. They can not agree on the position of the model, but you can clearly explain to someone exactly where a model should be using the WMS rules and if they still disagree they are just being difficult.

This is another rules debate that can be ended by simply telling your opponent "no".

It really can't, you can not deny your opponent the use of WMS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were already given on this thread

When you swim through water, do you have to completely clear the water in one "action"?

Well that's not a exactly a definition, but sure it's correct use of the word.

How about this. If I move through a door but stop before I come out the other side, have I moved through it, or moved into it?

You are moving through it.