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.

From 'Models in the Way':

... and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

And from 'Wobbly Model Syndrome':

Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want.

Wobbly Model Syndrome states that it applies to terrain, not models. With the addition of the rules that state that you can't move through another model (friend or foe), it is entirely possible for a unit to be unable to declare a charge against a specific unit if its unable to get into base contact due to it being completely surrounded by enemy models locked in close combat with it.

NightHowler wrote:
I was responding to the claim that you could make models immune to a charge by crowding the second floor of a ruins so that chargers could not be placed in base to base. The rules pretty clearly allow a charge in the ruins scenario.

Only if you allow WMS to 'place' the model just off the edge of the floor. Otherwise, this edition does make that unit immune to being charged, because there is no legal way for an enemy model to move into contact with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stephanius wrote:
Not at all! Walls, floors, trees and in fact anything that isn't either a unit or explicitly declared impassable terrain at worst makes you take a difficult terrain test, messes with your initiative or reduces your possible charge distance.

If the place you are trying to move to is somewhere that you can not put the model, then (outside of using WMS which, as I said, not everyone agrees should apply) there is no way to legally make that move.

A ledge or floor infantry models simply count a 3" vertical movement is no obstacle to model movement.

Only in GW's ruins.

And even so, while moving up the level counts as 3" of movement, if your model is on the next level down it is still at least 3" away from the target... not in base contact.

Last edition had a rule allowing chargers in ruins to just move as close as they could and call it good enough. This edition doesn't.

The rulebook does not say that. Base contact is illustrative. If base contact would be important or very important such as overruling the explicit success and fail conditions of the charge, there should be a consequence noted for failure to establish base contact. Since there are no consequences laid out, nit being in base contact is a distinction without a difference in the melee.

The rules for moving your initial charging model require you to move into contact. If you can't do so, you are breaking that rule.

 insaniak wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I was responding to the claim that you could make models immune to a charge by crowding the second floor of a ruins so that chargers could not be placed in base to base. The rules pretty clearly allow a charge in the ruins scenario.

Only if you allow WMS to 'place' the model just off the edge of the floor. Otherwise, this edition does make that unit immune to being charged, because there is no legal way for an enemy model to move into contact with them.

Exactly. And that is exactly what I would claim WMS allows. As long as you roll high enough to make it to the second floor of the ruins, you can charge that unit.

Since there is no rule that states that models must be standing upright, you could also easily place your model on its side with the base touching the base of one of the enemy models or leaning through one of the windows, but with the WMS rule you aren't required to do that. You simply agree with your opponent that you both know where the model really is, then place it someplace safe.

This scenario is different than one where the enemy unit is completely surrounded. In that case it is impossible to assault.

NightHowler wrote:

barnowl wrote:
From "moving the Initial charger" in the digitial rule book for moving the first model:
"Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

Even models after the initial charge are expected to make contact:

"If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model."

And if it a model can not make base it must be with 2 or 6 inches of a model in base contact:
"If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of one of its own unit’s models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency."

Notice you are expected to make base contact all through moving the model.



WMS does not really apply to this case. WMS is for when models can be placed but will fall over, not for when they can't actually be placed because of no space for the base.

I like how you've decided when WMS applies for the rest of us. Thanks.

I have to say, though, that I think WMS works just fine.

There's always a small corner of a level of ruins that isn't completely covered with the round bases of the models that were placed there. I'm sure I could get my model wedged in there (unless you know a rule that says they have to be flat -- good luck finding that one) but I'd be worried that model will fall. Tada! WMS works perfectly.

So now the lousy WAAC player who was trying to game the rules to prevent 100% of all assault against his unit has to actually play to the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of the rules. It's players like this that suck the ever loving fun out of 40k. Rules-lawyering against both logic and the obvious intent of the rules to make their army invincible.

Fortunately, WMS is in the book, and sensible players won't try to say that their unit is unassaultable.

I just followed the rules :"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 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. If, later on, your enemy is
considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper
place so he can check line of sight."

I am going to say that matches what I said pretty good. So I based my position on the rules. What is yours?

And this YMDC, so yes it all about the letter of the rules. Spirit of the rules is not the point of YMDC, as that is HYWPI.

Barnowl,
I disagree to the How You Would Play it comment, they are more then welcome in this forum and give their own insight into the Rules. We simply request that they are marked as such so people do not confuse them with Rule As Written arguments. It is simply a matter of being polite to the other posters here, by making it so we don't end up three pages in before we realize someone has been arguing Rule as Written while the other has been arguing How They would Play It. I have seen that happen, hell I have been one of the parties involved in such discussions, and all easily avoided if the post was simply marked correctly.

The problem with Wobbly Model Syndrome is the same problem with The Most Important Rule:
They contain requirements for players to come to an agreement over something.

That one requirement makes it impossible for us to state anything more then 'talk to your opponent, they get to make the final call' on situations where people want to apply Wobbly Model Syndrome. My answer, when people push for either of these Rules too seriously in a Rule as Written debate, is to simply point out that people posting on this forum do not meet the criteria for Players or Opponents, as that is only granted to the people actually playing the game. This makes it completely irrelevant what you or I might consider to be a 'reasonable agreement,' the Written Rule does not grant us permission to apply our interpretation of a reasonable agreement in an on-line debate.

barnowl wrote:
And this YMDC, so yes it all about the letter of the rules. Spirit of the rules is not the point of YMDC, as that is HYWPI.

That's not what YMDC is about at all.

 insaniak wrote:

barnowl wrote:
And this YMDC, so yes it all about the letter of the rules. Spirit of the rules is not the point of YMDC, as that is HYWPI.

That's not what YMDC is about at all.

Really? Considering you are expected to mark when you call things HYWPI, that sounds like the letter/RAW is the point of YMDC. Rules 1,2, 4 of the forum also kind make that point. Never said there was no place for HYWPI, but the general point is resolving RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:

The problem with Wobbly Model Syndrome is the same problem with The Most Important Rule:
They contain requirements for players to come to an agreement over something.

That one requirement makes it impossible for us to state anything more then 'talk to your opponent, they get to make the final call' on situations where people want to apply Wobbly Model Syndrome. My answer, when people push for either of these Rules too seriously in a Rule as Written debate, is to simply point out that people posting on this forum do not meet the criteria for Players or Opponents, as that is only granted to the people actually playing the game. This makes it completely irrelevant what you or I might consider to be a 'reasonable agreement,' the Written Rule does not grant us permission to apply our interpretation of a reasonable agreement in an on-line debate.

I would agree with this point. I considered WMS rule pretty clear, but as you point out it does require agreement between players, so is not subject to "reasonable interpretation".

barnowl wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

barnowl wrote:
And this YMDC, so yes it all about the letter of the rules. Spirit of the rules is not the point of YMDC, as that is HYWPI.

That's not what YMDC is about at all.

Really? Considering you are expected to mark when you call things HYWPI, that sounds like the letter/RAW is the point of YMDC. Rules 1,2, 4 of the forum also kind make that point. Never said there was no place for HYWPI, but the general point is resolving RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:

The problem with Wobbly Model Syndrome is the same problem with The Most Important Rule:
They contain requirements for players to come to an agreement over something.

That one requirement makes it impossible for us to state anything more then 'talk to your opponent, they get to make the final call' on situations where people want to apply Wobbly Model Syndrome. My answer, when people push for either of these Rules too seriously in a Rule as Written debate, is to simply point out that people posting on this forum do not meet the criteria for Players or Opponents, as that is only granted to the people actually playing the game. This makes it completely irrelevant what you or I might consider to be a 'reasonable agreement,' the Written Rule does not grant us permission to apply our interpretation of a reasonable agreement in an on-line debate.

I would agree with this point. I considered WMS rule pretty clear, but as you point out it does require agreement between players, so is not subject to "reasonable interpretation".

I think it's important to point out that WMS does not require permission from your opponent to use. When it says "agree" it is referring to where the model is. You both agree that you see the assaulting model balanced precariously at an angle on the very edge of the second floor of that ruins and then you place the model on the first floor. You're both witnessing it's location, not agreeing whether or not to use the rule to allow an assault.

NightHowler wrote:

I think it's important to point out that WMS does not require permission from your opponent to use. When it says "agree" it is referring to where the model is. You both agree that you see the assaulting model balanced precariously at an angle on the very edge of the second floor of that ruins and then you place the model on the first floor. You're both witnessing it's location, not agreeing whether or not to use the rule to allow an assault.

Actually it does require your opponent's permission:

... as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

The 'and' makes that two separate requirements. Both players have to 1) agree to the rule and 2) know the model's 'actual' location. You're trying to read it as "... as long as both players have agreed to its 'actual' location."

Besides, even if it was an agreement on just the location itself... doesn't that involve some sort of discussion and acceptance between the two parties?
What if player A wants the Model in location X but player B states the Model can not be in location X... have they agreed on it's location?

Wow... I literally laughed out loud after reading the last two posts...

I imagined a scenario:

Opponent: "Uh, my model looks like it will fall over, so I'm just going to put it here so..."

You (interrupting): "Actually, the rule on page 74, paragraph 3, sentence 6 uses the word 'agree' and since I don't agree, you aren't allowed to put it there."

Opponent: Starts packing up miniatures to go find an opponent who isn't "that guy".

NightHowler,
Feel free to disagree with the Written Rule as much as you want, I won't even fault you for declaring people discussing what the Rule actually states as 'those ******* guys' if that makes you feel better, but I feel the need to point out something you might not be realizing: If one is relying on using Wobbly Model Syndrome in order to achieve something that would not be legal otherwise... maybe they should be careful about who they call 'that ******* guy.'

I also think there is a big difference between "I want to put my guy on this sloped will, but he's top heavy and keeps falling over" and "I want to put my guy on this half a millimeter wide sliver of ruins flooring, but there isn't enough space".

Wobbly Model Syndrome is clearly intended to fix the first. It's a HIWPI issue, but you'd have to convince me it's intended to fix the second.

Also, what happens if I make sure my guys are not only taking up the floor, but also hanging their bases over the edge a little so that there isn't even a sliver of floor available to an assaulting model? Should WMS allow my opponent to float in space?

It is my belief that the rules address this situation by telling you that you can't declare a charge against a unit you can't reach. My belief is that not being able to get into base to base contact means you can't reach the unit. In the absence of a specific game definition, we're required to fall back on the standard defintion. If you can't physically move such that you are touching a thing, how can you reach it?

JinxDragon wrote:
Besides, even if it was an agreement on just the location itself... doesn't that involve some sort of discussion and acceptance between the two parties?
What if player A wants the Model in location X but player B states the Model can not be in location X... have they agreed on it's location?

Jinx, if you break it down the whole game is something that must be agreed on. The wobbly model thing (as has been interpreted by our local gaming group) is that its a normal move but the model is skewed a little and might fall over. Are you saying both players have to agree physically move the model off the board and put a chit or something else like that on the table?

1 great example is a board we have that has texture of rocks and stuff on it. Metal ork nobs are notoriously top heavy and on this board they fall over all the time. Per the rules I would have to get my opponents agreement to pick the model up and place a proxy there but I do not have to get his agreement to actually move him on the board.

So I don't think I agree with the part about getting the movement agreed upon. I do agree that you must get your opponents agreement to remove the actual model and replace it with a chit or proxy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Besides, even if it was an agreement on just the location itself... doesn't that involve some sort of discussion and acceptance between the two parties?
What if player A wants the Model in location X but player B states the Model can not be in location X... have they agreed on it's location?

Jinx, if you break it down the whole game is something that must be agreed on. The wobbly model thing (as has been interpreted by our local gaming group) is that its a normal move but the model is skewed a little and might fall over. Are you saying both players have to agree physically move the model off the board and put a chit or something else like that on the table?

1 great example is a board we have that has texture of rocks and stuff on it. Metal ork nobs are notoriously top heavy and on this board they fall over all the time. Per the rules I would have to get my opponents agreement to pick the model up and place a proxy there but I do not have to get his agreement to actually move him on the board.

So I don't think I agree with the part about getting the movement agreed upon. I do agree that you must get your opponents agreement to remove the actual model and replace it with a chit or proxy.

Dude was I just ninja'ed?

osirisx69,
As Wobbly Model Syndrome states the two players have to come to an agreement... yes, I believe it is required before Wobbly Model Syndrome can be Resolved.

As for the whole game being an agreement, this is true but it is an agreement to play by the Rules in the book. The simple act of two players sitting down to play the game does not mean they tick off every 'must agree' box found in every Rule. As such clauses are attached to Rule that allow a player to ignore a whole range of Requirements and secondary Rules, it makes sense that they would need separate agreement to simply sitting down and playing the default Game. Wobbly Model Syndrome has proven itself to be one such Rule, people want to use it to get around the fact they can not meet the requirement to be physically placed in base to base contact due to restraints placed by other Models and Terrain pieces....

The only way we can judge if it is 'fair' or not is case-by-case, which is why such 'players must agree' clauses exist in the first place.
Only when the situation occurs can it be properly judged, and the only parties with opinions that matter are the two players themselves.

 Kriswall wrote:
I also think there is a big difference between "I want to put my guy on this sloped will, but he's top heavy and keeps falling over" and "I want to put my guy on this half a millimeter wide sliver of ruins flooring, but there isn't enough space".

Wobbly Model Syndrome is clearly intended to fix the first. It's a HIWPI issue, but you'd have to convince me it's intended to fix the second.

Also, what happens if I make sure my guys are not only taking up the floor, but also hanging their bases over the edge a little so that there isn't even a sliver of floor available to an assaulting model? Should WMS allow my opponent to float in space?

It is my belief that the rules address this situation by telling you that you can't declare a charge against a unit you can't reach. My belief is that not being able to get into base to base contact means you can't reach the unit. In the absence of a specific game definition, we're required to fall back on the standard defintion. If you can't physically move such that you are touching a thing, how can you reach it?

This is really what I am getting at. Per the RAW if you put your model on a hill and it fall over due to being top heavy or something (even though it is open ground) its WMS and your opponent could say "no you cant put that there because it wont stand up".


At least that's the impression I am getting. If that's not the premise of this debate let me know.

Yeah, that seems to be the current premise.

Does the position where you'd invoke WMS count as a valid ending position for the model? My general understanding and how I see most people play it is that you need to have space for the model, but given the uneven quality of the space, the model would fall over. The argument against WMS being applicable here is that uneven "ground" has nothing to do with it... there is no space to place the model. Even using super glue to hold the model in place would have no effect as there is no ground space for it to stick to.

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, what happens if I make sure my guys are not only taking up the floor, but also hanging their bases over the edge a little so that there isn't even a sliver of floor available to an assaulting model? Should WMS allow my opponent to float in space?

This is a problem with the rules using abstract concepts to deal with generic terrain...

Our models are allowed to move freely (with the appropriate difficult terrain roll) up and down levels in ruins regardless of whether or not there is any obvious way for them to do so represented on the model. But for practical reasons, we're stuck with the model having the end their movement somewhere that they can actually stand.

In a system that allows models to levitate between levels, there absolutely should be no problem with the models ending their movement in mid-air... because they're not actually supposed to be levitating, they're theoretically clambering up the ruin.

Necromunda got around this by restricting climbing between levels to actual ladders, and allowed players to place a marker of some kind on the ladder if the model stopped between levels.

Previously, 40K got around this by allowing models one level up or down to still count as being in base contact with the unit on the next level if there was no room to physically place them.

And many players have got around it in the absence of actual rules by simply extending WMS to cover this situation, even though it (strictly speaking) doesn't.


Because the alternative is situations like we have in the OP, where a model can't be charged because there is no mechanism in the rules that allows a tall model to bend over or crouch.