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:
Luckily WMS gives permission to place the model in a different location but act as if the model is in the intended location.

WMS only applies when placing the model is hard, not when placing the model is impossible. This is another thing you keep ignoring.

 Crimson wrote:
The question is not about walking through objects, but about placement of models.

Yes, I know. But the argument for it is based on the same principles that allow movement through. And given that the argument against from a lot of people has been 'because Physics!' I think it's worth reminding people that the game doesn't actually much care about physics when it comes to difficult terrain.



Meanwhile, a reminder again, folks, there is a separate thread for actually hashing out the for and against arguments. Discussion here beyond an explanation of why someone voted as they did should remain focused on the actual poll. No need to rehash the other thread here all over again.

 DeathReaper wrote:

So where is this rule, Citation needed.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071210084532AAmNke7

Luckily WMS gives permission to place the model in a different location but act as if the model is in the intended location.

Only in specific situations, which this is not one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Yes, I know. But the argument for it is based on the same principles that allow movement through. And given that the argument against from a lot of people has been 'because Physics!' I think it's worth reminding people that the game doesn't actually much care about physics when it comes to difficult terrain.

It doesn't? Try as I may, I cannot make my tactical marine and a plastic wall occupy the same physical location. Strange.

Crimson wrote:
It doesn't? Try as I may, I cannot make my tactical marine and a plastic wall occupy the same physical location. Strange.

But you can push him through the wall with no problems?

 insaniak wrote:

But you can push him through the wall with no problems?

No, but I don't think I actually need to do that. I can just measure the distance and place him in the end location of his movement, providing it is in a place the model can physically be.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

But you can push him through the wall with no problems?

No, ...

Hence my point: The difficult terrain rules don't care whether two objects can occupy the same space.

Seriously, there's a whole 8 page thread where this has been thoroughly hashed out by now.

Strict RAW no. Using WMS you must be able to hold the model for your opponent to draw line of sight to shoot. You will never be able to hold the model inside another model/building ect. So. No.

 insaniak wrote:
Hence my point: The difficult terrain rules don't care whether two objects can occupy the same space.

However, the rules do not permit you to draw LOS or measure range from an arbitrary spot inside a wall instead of from the model's actual position*. So the difficult terrain rules would have no objection if you somehow managed to violate the laws of physics and put the model inside the wall, but until you manage to do that you will always have to measure range and draw LOS from the spot you actually moved the model to.

*And, again, WMS does not apply because it only works when placing the model is hard, not when it is impossible.

 insaniak wrote:

Hence my point: The difficult terrain rules don't care whether two objects can occupy the same space.

But laws of physics do! You cannot do it because it is impossible! Two solid objects (e.g. a space marine and a wall) cannot occupy the same space. In an actual game with actual physical models YOU CANNOT DO IT! Rules doesn't say that the dice cannot levitate, that a same object cannot be in two places at once or that time flows forwards either!

How hard can this be? You are required to put the model somewhere, and you cannot put it in a place you physically cannot put it.

Seriously, there's a whole 8 page thread where this has been thoroughly hashed out by now.

Yeah, I don't know why we had to have two threads for basically the same issue.

Because, as I've said several times now, this thread is for the poll, and actual discussion of the rule should be confined to the other thread where it started.

 insaniak wrote:
Because, as I've said several times now, this thread is for the poll, and actual discussion of the rule should be confined to the other thread where it started.

So we can't discuss if models are allowed to hold hypothetical positions in this thread? That's kinda why I started it.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So we can't discuss if models are allowed to hold hypothetical locations in this thread?

Is there anything to be gained by having the exact same discussion carried on in two concurrent threads?

You started a poll for a topic that already had a discussion thread. Standard Dakka practice in that situation is to keep the poll thread for discussing the poll, and keep the actual rules discussion in the original discussion thread.

If you wanted discussion rather than poll results, I'll happily just close this thread and direct everyone back to the one that was already going when you started the poll.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So we can't discuss if models are allowed to hold hypothetical locations in this thread?

Is there anything to be gained by having the exact same discussion carried on in two concurrent threads?

You started a poll for a topic that already had a discussion thread. Standard Dakka practice in that situation is to keep the poll thread for discussing the poll, and keep the actual rules discussion in the original discussion thread.

If you wanted discussion rather than poll results, I'll happily just close this thread and direct everyone back to the one that was already going when you started the poll.

I don't appreciate the threat. I'm sorry if the poll upset you.

What on earth are you talking about? There was no 'threat' in my response.

It has been standard Dakka policy not to have two identical threads running in YMDC at the same time for longer than I've been on Dakka... which is a rather long time now.

So if you started this thread for the sole purpose of carrying on a duplicate discussion to the existing thread, it needs to be closed. That's not a threat. It's a simple statement of how the board works.

 insaniak wrote:
What on earth are you talking about? There was no 'threat' in my response.

It has been standard Dakka policy not to have two identical threads running in YMDC at the same time for longer than I've been on Dakka... which is a rather long time now.

So if you started this thread for the sole purpose of carrying on a duplicate discussion to the existing thread, it needs to be closed. That's not a threat. It's a simple statement of how the board works.

I've edited the topic to avoid any confusion and to ask posters to avoid discussing wms in this thread, I made no mention of wms in the poll, it was your suggestion for a rephrasing of the question that put it in, a suggestion I elected not to follow.

You just created more confusion than you will prevent. You're essentially asking if something is possible while asking people to disregard the rule that makes it possible...

 insaniak wrote:
You just created more confusion than you will prevent. You're essentially asking if something is possible while asking people to disregard the rule that makes it possible...

I guess I'll have to live with that.



Now back on topic, does anyone know a page in the terrain rules that gives permission for models to hold position they can't physically be placed in?

Yes, the rule you're looking for is called 'Wobbly Model Syndrome.

See this thread for details.