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.

 Unforgiven656 wrote:
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?

Nobody is denying that 'from one side to the other' is one definition of 'through'. It's just not the only definition, nor the correct one for this situation.

Seriously, this was all covered earlier in the thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule, if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

Stormbreed wrote:
The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule,

No it does not, read it again.

if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

Actually the game would stop as you know where the location of the model is, but for some reason are not acknowledging it.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

Stormbreed wrote:
The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule, if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

You're misreading the rule. It says that the two of you have to agree on the model's actual position. It's not a blanket veto for one player to decide that he doesn't like the situation and refuse to allow it. It's just both players acknowleding the model's actual location so that there are no misunderstandings later.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

Yes, this has been discussed at length already. It doesn't stop the model from moving there, it just breaks the game when you try to shoot at them.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Opponents can not stop you from using WMS.

Yes they can. The WMS rule explicitly states that both players must agree to use it. Just like the requirement that placing the model in the spot has to be hard, not impossible, you keep ignoring this.

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.

Or they just don't think that you've demonstrated the model's position with sufficient accuracy by declaring "it's in the wreck" without actually placing it in a spot for both players to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
By removing the back hatch and showing you.

So does this mean you're conceding that you can't do this with any wreck or terrain feature that doesn't have a removable hatch for you to place a model inside? Because that's a pretty thorough concession if you're falling back on a situation which doesn't involve the "impossible for a model to be placed there" problem.

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

Well if the hatches are not on, then he can place the model in the wreck and there would not be a WMS issue.

Fragile wrote:

Well if the hatches are not on, then he can place the model in the wreck and there would not be a WMS issue.

You could similarly put models inside hollow plastic hills. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a dick move and certainly against the spirit of the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Opponents can not stop you from using WMS.

Yes they can. The WMS rule explicitly states that both players must agree to use it. Just like the requirement that placing the model in the spot has to be hard, not impossible, you keep ignoring this.

1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

2) Trying to place a model within a terrain feature like a wall, is Hard to do... (No ignoring anything)

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
By removing the back hatch and showing you.

So does this mean you're conceding that you can't do this with any wreck or terrain feature that doesn't have a removable hatch for you to place a model inside? Because that's a pretty thorough concession if you're falling back on a situation which doesn't involve the "impossible for a model to be placed there" problem.

You can do it, there are other ways to explain where the model is without actually placing the model in the location.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

That is why I do not glue the top hatches on, I can take them off and hold the model in place just fine...

 DeathReaper wrote:

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

I want to make this clear: you are not really doing this, are you? I mean Insaniak made perfectly clear that he wouldn't ever try this crap in an actual game, but you haven't...

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

So how exactly are you demonstrating this 100% LOS blocking? How do you know for sure that you don't have 0.0000001" of the model's head poking out the top of the wreck?

By removing the back hatch and showing you.

DR, as has been noted, it is not area terrain you are allowed to manipulate. Opening it is no different than moving it which is to say, it is not allowed.

Rismonite wrote:

 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.

This is true. By the book geometry is not accepted as a means of measurement.
"distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick ... Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"- Measuring Distances pg 4, BRB
Per RAW you must measure from the base of the model, not hovering the measuring tape over it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because it is blatantly ignoring the intent of the rules while trying to gain an advantage. I said it earlier, I'd rank this on the same level as claiming that opponents wraith-constructs can't shoot as they lack eyes.

 Abandon wrote:
"distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick ... Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"- Measuring Distances pg 4, BRB
Per RAW you must measure from the base of the model, not hovering the measuring tape over it.

You do realize that this is not always possible right?

Say you have a model on the first floor of a ruin, and you make your DT test and move out of that ruin through a wall. In this situation it is physically impossible to measure from the base of the model to the end position because the wall is physically blocking the tape measure...

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because it is blatantly ignoring the intent of the rules while trying to gain an advantage. I said it earlier, I'd rank this on the same level as claiming that opponents wraith-constructs can't shoot as they lack eyes.

So you are arguing Intent and not RAW?

Noted, and since intent is your opinion there can be no debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

That would be the part where the WMS rule says "as long as both players agree".

2) Trying to place a model within a terrain feature like a wall, is Hard to do... (No ignoring anything)

No, it is impossible.

You can do it, there are other ways to explain where the model is without actually placing the model in the location.

Please, explain these alternate ways of demonstrating exactly where the model is and that no part of it (even 0.000000000000000001" of the top of the head) extends outside of the wreck/hill/etc to draw LOS to.

I have not tried it in a game, but I am unsure why you think following the rules is "try this crap"?

Because you're not following the rules. You're playing it against RAW, and you're certainly playing it against RAI. This is as "reasonable" as arguing that models wearing helmets can never shoot or charge because they have no eyes to draw LOS from.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) no it does not "explicitly states that both players must agree to use it." If you disagree citation please.

That would be the part where the WMS rule says "as long as both players agree".

Yea, you might want to quote the whole sentence to find out why your statement is incorrect.

Please, explain these alternate ways of demonstrating exactly where the model is and that no part of it (even 0.000000000000000001" of the top of the head) extends outside of the wreck/hill/etc to draw LOS to.

By measuring the length, height, and width of the model in question and the length, height, and width of the difficult terrain in question and comparing them to show that the model would not stick out.

Because you're not following the rules. You're playing it against RAW, and you're certainly playing it against RAI. This is as "reasonable" as arguing that models wearing helmets can never shoot or charge because they have no eyes to draw LOS from.length, height, and width

The rules actually allow you to move through DT with a DT test, so rules followed...

As I said earlier Intent comes down to opinion so that can not be debated.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You do realize that this is not always possible right?

Tough luck, it's the RAW. Yes it leads to unplayable game, so that's why everyone actually plays using RAI.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, you might want to quote the whole sentence to find out why your statement is incorrect.

Been there, done that, already demonstrated why your argument is wrong.

By measuring the length, height, and width of the model in question and the length, height, and width of the difficult terrain in question and comparing them to show that the model would not stick out.

So you're going to pretend that everything involved is a simple box rather than an irregularly shaped blob?

The rules actually allow you to move through DT with a DT test, so rules followed...

You're breaking the rule that says WMS is for when placing a model is hard. Placing a model inside a wall is impossible so you are not permitted to invoke WMS and you will always measure range and draw LOS from the model's actual position on the table (which will never be inside the wall).

As I said earlier Intent comes down to opinion so that can not be debated.

Not when the author of the rule explicitly says "this is why the rule exists and what it is supposed to do".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, you might want to quote the whole sentence to find out why your statement is incorrect.

Been there, done that, already demonstrated why your argument is wrong.

You're assigning the requirement for permission to the rule. That's not where it is. Perhaps reading it again would clarify for you?

You're breaking the rule that says WMS is for when placing a model is hard. Placing a model inside a wall is impossible so you are not permitted to invoke WMS and you will always measure range and draw LOS from the model's actual position on the table (which will never be inside the wall).

It's almost like impossible things are very hard to do...

rigeld2 wrote:
You're assigning the requirement for permission to the rule. That's not where it is. Perhaps reading it again would clarify for you?

Again, been there, done that, already demonstrated why you're wrong. Since the word used is "agree" and not "agree on/about/etc" it can not refer to "the model's location" because "agree the model's location" is not allowed in English. Therefore it must be read as "may do this as long as both players agree".

It's almost like impossible things are very hard to do...

No, they are impossible.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
The RAW is we must agree for you to be able to use WMS, it actually says it in the rule,

No it does not, read it again.

if I don't like your placement you will not be using WMS to place it there. That's as RAW as it gets.

Actually the game would stop as you know where the location of the model is, but for some reason are not acknowledging it.

RAW also says you must be able to hold the model for me to trace LOS should I ask you too, if you say he's "Inside" something but you do not have permission to move the terrain on the field, you would never be able to hold the model where you're saying it is.

That is a different issue entirely, though one that has no bearing as if it is inside the wreck you are not going to have Line of Sight anyway.

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. If, later on, your opponent is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so he can check line of sight.

Okay there is the rules.

Let me put this into a game experience now for you.

1. Hey "Dan" (That's me) I'm going to move my model inside the Rhino you blew up for an easy First Blood.
2. Okay Jimmy (That's you) please understand that I don't think you are able to actually place the model there.
3. Listen Dan WMS says as long we both agreed and know its actual location I can.
4. Okay Jim, I don't agree on that location.
5. Dan you're just being stubborn, come on friend.
6. Okay Jim if I agree on that location are you able to at the very least follow the rest of that same rule? Once the model is in there if I want to check range, can you hold the model in place without moving any of the objects on the field?

Okay then....

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're assigning the requirement for permission to the rule. That's not where it is. Perhaps reading it again would clarify for you?

Again, been there, done that, already demonstrated why you're wrong. Since the word used is "agree" and not "agree on/about/etc" it can not refer to "the model's location" because "agree the model's location" is not allowed in English. Therefore it must be read as "may do this as long as both players agree".

It's almost like you're misquoting the rule.
Oh - you are. That's right. Thanks.

It's almost like impossible things are very hard to do...

No, they are impossible.

So you're saying that impossible things and hard/difficult things are different?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're saying that impossible things and difficult things are different?

I was going to make a comment about Difficult and Impossible terrain. And then I realised it's "Impassable" not "Impossible". I should probably get some sleep.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're saying that impossible things and hard/difficult things are different?

That would be pretty common usage of those words. Walking on your hands is hard, flying by flapping your arms is impossible.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like you're misquoting the rule.
Oh - you are. That's right. Thanks.

You're right, I'm not looking it up and typing out the exact words again because I've already done it. Go look back a few pages and see where I've given the exact quote and explained why it says what I'm claiming it does and why that's the only possible way of reading it.

So you're saying that impossible things and hard/difficult things are different?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because that's what the words mean. A hard/difficult thing is something that is possible, but requires a lot of work/skill/time/etc. An impossible thing is something that can't be done, period.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"distances are measured in inches (") with a tape measure or measuring stick ... Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base"- Measuring Distances pg 4, BRB
Per RAW you must measure from the base of the model, not hovering the measuring tape over it.

You do realize that this is not always possible right?

Say you have a model on the first floor of a ruin, and you make your DT test and move out of that ruin through a wall. In this situation it is physically impossible to measure from the base of the model to the end position because the wall is physically blocking the tape measure...

Still more plausible than checking LOS on a model inside a hill and that's what the rules say. If someone is going to try to place their model inside a hill they have moved outside of casual courtesy territory and into TFG territory IMO so I'd have no problem making them follow RAW to the letter.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like you're misquoting the rule.
Oh - you are. That's right. Thanks.

You're right, I'm not looking it up and typing out the exact words again because I've already done it. Go look back a few pages and see where I've given the exact quote and explained why it says what I'm claiming it does and why that's the only possible way of reading it.

No, because I disagree with your assertion and have explained why.

So you're saying that impossible things and hard/difficult things are different?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying because that's what the words mean. A hard/difficult thing is something that is possible, but requires a lot of work/skill/time/etc. An impossible thing is something that can't be done, period.

I guarantee I can make my model stand in the middle of that wall. It's absolutely possible. It's very hard, but possible.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because I disagree with your assertion and have explained why.

And you are wrong. There is only one way to interpret that sentence.

I guarantee I can make my model stand in the middle of that wall. It's absolutely possible. It's very hard, but possible.

No you can't, at least without modifying either the terrain or the model (which you are not permitted to do).

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because I disagree with your assertion and have explained why.

And you are wrong. There is only one way to interpret that sentence.

I guarantee I can make my model stand in the middle of that wall. It's absolutely possible. It's very hard, but possible.

No you can't, at least without modifying either the terrain or the model (which you are not permitted to do).

I personally have at times been able to put a model in the middle of a wall. It did not involve modifying the model or terrain.

_e

Nevermind, its been covered.