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.

col_impact wrote:
This is all resolved with frame of reference.

The Tidewall is moving Terrain and is a moving frame of reference for dealing with movement. Whatever can stand on it can do so without actually moving. The models move in reference to the terrain under their feet which in this case is a moving terrain that is itself moving in relation to the battleground. The models though are not moving in relation to the moving terrain that is under their feet.

If I set up my forces on a battleground table and move the whole table one inch to the left, have the models moved? In game terms, no. All of the model's relative positions are intact.

Same goes for the Tidewall. When the Tidewall moves the models that are riding on it do not move in relation to the models on the Tidewall or the terrain they are standing on (which in this case is the Tidewall). The moving terrain is a frame of reference (think of playing chess while riding in a car that is on a spinning planet orbiting around a sun).

Also, not sure why this is an issue of concern. Is there some killer combo that can be unlocked here?

Reread the rules. The reason the stormsurge doesn't work is because it can't have moved in anyway what so ever at all to anchor and fire twice. Tide wall says models have moved, but count as not having moved for shooting purposes. Since the stormsurge has counted as moved, it can't work with a moving tide wall. As it can't have moved at all in any form, but it has even according to the rules of tide wall. That's what was discussed and been proven.

I did read the rules.



The Tidewall forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So the Stormsurge does not move.

The frame of reference that the Stormsurge would use to measure movement has moved (the moving terrain) but the Stormsurge itself does not move.

col_impact wrote:
I did read the rules.

Spoiler:

Models carried with it are treated as being stationary for the purposes of firing weapons, but cannot move themselves in the same phase.

The Tidewall forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So the Stormsurge does not move.

The frame of reference that the Stormsurge would use to measure movement has moved (the moving terrain) but the Stormsurge itself does not move.

You're horribly and utterly wrong. The tide wall states a model has moved but acts ad if it hasn't for shooting purposes. The stormsurge says it can't move at all period. The stormsurge has moved. Stormsurge can't fire twice. Sorry, any other way is wrong, and no amount of your attempt to twist anything will change that. If you truly believe it isn't this way, I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong, and will have to change your way of thinking. It is what it is. Sorry

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


You're horribly and utterly wrong. The tide wall states a model has moved but acts ad if it hasn't for shooting purposes.

Show me the Tidewall rules that state that the model has moved. I just pointed you to the Tidewall rule that forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

It even states being treated as stationary for firing purposes. Why state that if the model hasn't moved at all? Awe, did I ruin your day? In all honesty, TO and itc and such have already started nerfing these dumb tau rules. This being one where they even state the dumb thing can't anchor. So, no matter what you think, you're wrong

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
It even states being treated as stationary for firing purposes. Why state that if the model hasn't moved at all? Awe, did I ruin your day? In all honesty, TO and itc and such have already started nerfing these dumb tau rules. This being one where they even state the dumb thing can't anchor. So, no matter what you think, you're wrong

I have just shown you in the rules how my argument is correct.

You have retorted by stomping your foot in the ground.

I suggest you start quoting rules and using logic and reason if you want to challenge my argument. No amount of foot stomping is going to win it for you.

I have stated my argument. Your rule you showed, shows my argument. It actually proves me right, not you. Now, please quote a rule IN your favor, not the oposition, makes you look foolish tbh

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
I have stated my argument. Your rule you showed, shows my argument. It actually proves me right, not you. Now, please quote a rule IN your favor, not the oposition, makes you look foolish tbh

Yes, in my quote I see the word "carried", I do not see the word moved. I see that the rule even forbids models that are being carried on it from moving. So a Stormsurge that is "carried" by the Tidewall does not move. In fact the Tidewall rule forbids it.

When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

col_impact wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
When the stormsurge is anchored it must remain on the table exactly where it was anchored. That very location. If it enters its shooting phase and is no longer where it was anchored it has not abided by the rules. Therefore if it is on the tide wall, and the tide wall moves, and it anchored, it didn't follow the rules as it is not where it anchored. Simple as that. Anything else is blatant cheating. It actually strengthens why my group doesn't play against tau. Our previous tau player now plays marines, cause he couldn't get games.

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

Hoo boy. Leave the thread alone for a few days and all hell breaks lose. I appreciate the patience and impartiality most of you have shown.

JinxDragon wrote:There is a reason we do not use pictures for Rule disputes....

The picture is from Games Workshop's official datasheet in WZD: Kauyon, but I understand that it doesn't affect RAW and only has a minimal effect on RAI.

Vash108 wrote:Has anyone written team@whitedwarf.co.uk or gamefaqs@gwplc.com to ask?

I have written Forge World, as the standard GW response regarding interaction of an older Forge World model is to disavow all knowledge of Operation Codename Project Mysterious Black Box and say that FW handles it's own issues. They've mentioned submitting the issue to a FAQ team. WD may be worth an email.

Vector Strike wrote:

Oberron wrote:
I got a question about the tidewall and movement. If there is a vehicle on top of the tidewall and it wrecks while on it. Can the tidewall still move with terrain on top of it?

well, the terrain is ON it, and the tidewall cannot move OVER difficult terrain. So I'd say yes.

"Yo dawg, I heard you like cover saves..."

I've heard RAW arguments saying that, because the Tidewall itself is Battlefield Debris and not Open Ground, it cannot move, as it's rules indicate that it can only move over open ground, and any area that it occupies stops being open ground. Other arguments have put forward that since that all levels of a ruin in a occupy the same 2D space, that any effects from any other terrain stacking scenario carry their rules all the way down to the table. I don't particularly subscribe to either argument, but a person make the claim.

insaniak wrote:Changing physical location is the very definition of moving.

I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms, but they do say that a standard 6" movement, "represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on." One could easily argue that a model on a Tidewall simply rides, and therefore does not move as the action it is performing does not move as it doesn't represent the above.

You're creating a distinction that isn't present in the rules. There is nothing in the rules that suggests that a model that moves without following the movement rules shouldn't be considered to have moved.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

The only reason why transported(as in transport vehicle) models "move" when the transport moves is because the transport rules tell us that they do count as moving.

Indeed. But that's a different situation, as the models in the transport aren't actually on the table. So any rules interactions with them can only occur where the rules specifically tell us to do so.

Same goes for deepstrike: it is only because those rules tell us the unit counts as moving that they do so

I disagree. They moved. The rules don't have to tell us that.

Do these not count as distinctions? In one, a model is not on a table, so the rules MUST tell us that they've moved, and then in another the models start off the table, so the rules don't need to mention it. This strikes me as inconsistent, though there are interesting arguments within.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Is this guy trying to put like... Stormsurge on his tide wall? That doesn't work.. I'd pack up my models, tell the TO how I stomped your face and you were a bad sport, claim a win, and move on. 0's across the board for even THINKING of attempting such impossible feats and bend the rules for tau scum

I'm trying to put a Forge World Drone Sentry Turret (30 point vehicle that doesn't move) or a DS8 Support turret on a Tidewall. A Stormsurge's base doesn't fit within a Tidewall's command disc, and I'm not sure it'd be legal to simply rest one on top of a disc. I've brought up the Stormsurge, though, as it is a current model, and one from the GW line, that forbids movement under any circumstances, unlike a Drone Sentry turret which is both Forge World and at least one edition out of date.

But I appreciate that you'd threatened violence over a potentially legal and fluff-legitimate interpretation of rules interactions, which is possibly RAI, and then insist that you've won, yet would consider the other player to be the bad sport. I'm also amused that you'd think any TO would let you "stomp [someone's] face" and simply accept your judgement and pass you on to the next round. I think you'd actually have quite a few consequences, if not an arrest or the other player returning in kind, then at the very least an ejection from the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

The Stormsurge did not move. Movement is a thing that happens in the movement phase and in the movement phase the player elected not to move the Stormsurge.

The Tidewall rule forbids the Stormsurge from moving.

Can you cite that movement is in reference to terrain?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

If you would like to cite rules, then please actually cite them. "Tau scum" is irrelevant bias, and I request that you leave the hostility and Imperial roleplay insults elsewhere.

@sinister samurai Please let us know what the verdict is from GW! And also in the meantime, maybe you can discuss with the TO before a tourney or just check with your opponent what it does, and then point out your reasonings. I am a tau player and I do believe that the models on top would be moving with the tidewall. If not its weird, because if the models go to ground to get the 2+ cover save, that means the tidewall would move and thus leaving the models behind, and in doing that actually forces the model to move away from the wall technically.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to
their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement,
you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the
units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move
before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of
your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll
explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and
change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.

Spoiler:

Which Models are Moving
Whether or not a model moves can change how effective it will be in the Psychic or
Shooting phases. You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to
move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just
before you start moving the other models of that unit. Remember that all models in the
unit must still maintain unit coherency (see below).

Spoiler:

MOVING THROUGH TERRAIN
As part of their move, models can move through, up or over any terrain they encounter,
unless the terrain is noted as being impassable.
Models can also use their move to ‘climb up’ terrain, as long as the model is able to finish
the move on a location where it can be stood. When measuring a move where a model
climbs terrain, add the distance the model moves horizontally to the distance it has
moved vertically; the result is considered to be the distance the model has moved.
In addition to the rules presented in this section, certain types of terrain can affect how
far your models can move, as they clamber over defence lines or pick their way through
tanglewire, for example. The rules for how these different types terrain affect movement
are in the Battlefield Terrain section.

Not sure the first spoiler shines any light on this particular interaction.
Not sure the second one does either, although, it does help the argument that you can declare a model as stationary if you choose not to move it, this is not strong, however.
The third one, however, does detail that certain types of terrain can affect how a model has moved, though I think that simply affects distance.

What Spoiler 3 does best, though, is strongly imply a "narrative RAI" interpretation of terrain and movement rules. And units remaining stationary in relation to the "ground" under their boots as a floating fortress carries them from place to place definitely feels like a "narrative RAI." I could see how an ad-hoc Stormsurge bolting itself forcefully into the bulkhead could damage the device, and how perhaps terrain with no solid foundation might not do much to prevent recoil and allow fast aiming.

So far, I'm in favor of Forge World and Fire Warrior drone turrets, large and small, being allowed to "move" in these cases. Sensor grids, and damaged/terrain-ified vehicles, as well. I don't think that's cheesy, or rules bendy. Stormsurges, again, don't fit on the discs. There's also a new Tidewall formation which, allegedly, lets a Tidewall portion move up to 9" under certain circumstances. A Stormsurge riding a Tidewall droneport up to 9" and still getting double fire would be mild to medium cheese, even if there's a lot of other limitations that would require good play to get that done.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

bleak wrote:
@sinister samurai Please let us know what the verdict is from GW! And also in the meantime, maybe you can discuss with the TO before a tourney or just check with your opponent what it does, and then point out your reasonings. I am a tau player and I do believe that the models on top would be moving with the tidewall. If not its weird, because if the models go to ground to get the 2+ cover save, that means the tidewall would move and thus leaving the models behind, and in doing that actually forces the model to move away from the wall technically.

This is a great point. But now I've got to ask, does going to ground count as a form of movement in an of itself?

Col - can i ask why you are measuring relative to the terrain piece to determine if the unit has moved? What rule tells you to use that method?

In my mind it does count as having moved. only in the shooting phase it doesn't count as having moved.

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

You need to dial down the hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms,...

I didn't say it was the Rulebook definition.

GW generally doesn't use defined keywords, so we're left in those cases to use the word's normal meaning.

Without a specific definition telling us that a model is only considered to be 'moving' if you are following the specific process outlined for the movement phase, we're left with the conclusion that any model that is moving is, in fact, moving.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

To a degree, yes.

It comes down to how far you're willing to bend the rules to get to a workable solution. In general, I find the simplest approach that requires the fewest rules changes is the best, unless an alternative would add something valuable to the game.

The simplest approach in this case is to not allow the Tidewall to move if it has an immovable object sitting on it. But I would have no particular problem with playing it the other way, as it has a certain cinematic value to it

Let's take a situation that will/could actually come up; it involves scratchbuilt terrain so I am going to give you the rules for that first:
Tyranid digestion vents
An area of terrain that is always open ground.
Start of each game turn roll a die; if the roll is equal or less than the current game turn digestive mists rule is applied to the area. Digestive mists provides a 5+ cover save to any model that would have 1 or more shooting attacks draw line of sight through the vents area. Digestive mists force a toughness test on all models entering, exiting, or moving through the vents area terrain; a failed test causes an automatic wound that receives a cover save.
If the digestive mists are already in play at the beginning of the game turn the die is still rolled, if the die result is greater that the current game turn the mists have dissipated for the turn and have no effect until they return.

So now you have the terrain the tidewall is moving over, and models on the tidewall. Those models are not entering, exiting, or moving through the mists(by rules, fluff: absolutely) so would not test.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Stormsurge is anchored exactly in the same position on the terrain it is standing on. You measure movement in reference to the terrain the model is on.

There is no rule in the rulebook that tells us to measure movement relative to anything other than the playing surface.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Oh it has moved. Your blatant ignorance for obvious rules for attempted tau cheese is insane my boy. I insist you try this, watch as you are unable to do so as others won't let you, due to it being against the rules, and then proceed to try and find friends. Tau scum is scum

You need to dial down the hyperbole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I don't believe that the BRB explicitly defines what movement is in game terms,...

I didn't say it was the Rulebook definition.

GW generally doesn't use defined keywords, so we're left in those cases to use the word's normal meaning.

Without a specific definition telling us that a model is only considered to be 'moving' if you are following the specific process outlined for the movement phase, we're left with the conclusion that any model that is moving is, in fact, moving.

Other than the circular reasoning that prevents them from moving. In this very same post, you point out an assumption you've made, and in a previous post, you mention an implied aspect of the rule. Is that not the same thing as creating a distinction that isn't present within the rules?

To a degree, yes.

It comes down to how far you're willing to bend the rules to get to a workable solution. In general, I find the simplest approach that requires the fewest rules changes is the best, unless an alternative would add something valuable to the game.

The simplest approach in this case is to not allow the Tidewall to move if it has an immovable object sitting on it. But I would have no particular problem with playing it the other way, as it has a certain cinematic value to it

My apologies. It just irks me extremely when I see players who got a good dex attempting to warp or twist, or as you said change a few rules around or attempt to look at a rule differently so that I can benefit them in the greatest way possible. I am glad to see that in here there ARE tau players that do understand they will not be able to have the stormsurge anchor and for twice on a tide wall. The col just needed to learn and understand that is all. He was refusing to and I got hot headed. I apologize

Can someone quote the Rules detailing how we measure a Models movement?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can someone quote the Rules detailing how we measure a Models movement?

Being at work I don't have the rule book in front of me, but we measure from the models base.

Measure from the base to where?

From the starting point to the ending point. You can't have the front of the base end farther than its allowed to move from where it began ie: a jump pack marine can move to where the front of his base is no more than 12" away from where it started. You could use the back of the base, front, middle, side... As long as you are measuring to the same spot every time and it doesn't break its maximum distance.

1) Have the Tau player balance his models on the Tidewall.
2) Have the Tau player move the Tidewall.
3) If the models fall off, they were moving. If not, they were only being carried and the terrain itself did all the moving.
4) Laugh if a model falls off the side of the table and breaks.

Steady hands win!

models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

it counts as moving during the movement phase if the tidewall moves.

As someone who plays Imperial forces (SM, Ad Mechanicus, IK), I am okay with someone doing this on a personal level. I personally, don't see the stationary model as moving and will play it as such until GW/FW rules it otherwise. When the vehicle anchors itself, it is anchoring to the terrain ie the Tidewall. The tidewall is moving not the model imo. If the model on the tidewall moved that would be different. Nowhere do I see mention of the Tidewall being a transport, which has specific rules involving movement.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

This is just condescending and rude. To make the assumption that all SM players are bullies and want you to not play xenos armies. I have 0 problems with someone playing Xenos armies, in fact I enjoy it. I might have issues with particular models or rules of said models because let's face it some models in this game are broke af and op. And I know xenos players have the same issues with some of the things I have. It is FINE for people to dislike broken stuff. This game would be very boring without xenos armies. I might dislike how eldar are pretty much op broken from a balance standpoint, but I don't want people to stop playing them. I enjoy the challenge. It sounds like you have some bad eggs in your local group who need to go jump off a bridge.

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

The only way to fit a Stormsurge on the Tidewall is to remove the base and put a foot on one of each of the larger "disc" sections.

 Kanluwen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
models are treated as stationary for firing weapons is not the same thing as models do not count as moving.

If the stormsurge even fits on the tidewall..

The only way to fit a Stormsurge on the Tidewall is to remove the base and put a foot on one of each of the larger "disc" sections.

In that case its hard to argue the tidewall can even move the thing, as its also on openground/difficult terrain and any distance it has moved from its starting point is real movement across the terrain as well.

can a model partially on a tidewall and partially off be moved by it? It says it can only carry friendly members if they are on the tidewall.

If the are on the open ground are they on the tidewall, it doesn't say wholely on the tidwall or must be only on the tidewall, however it also does not give you permission to be on open ground and move too.

regardless of that, it would count as moving during the movement phase as there is no permission to count as not moving, and the permission to count as stationary exists for firing weapons not for moving.

 NorseSig wrote:
As someone who plays Imperial forces (SM, Ad Mechanicus, IK), I am okay with someone doing this on a personal level. I personally, don't see the stationary model as moving and will play it as such until GW/FW rules it otherwise. When the vehicle anchors itself, it is anchoring to the terrain ie the Tidewall. The tidewall is moving not the model imo. If the model on the tidewall moved that would be different. Nowhere do I see mention of the Tidewall being a transport, which has specific rules involving movement.

It's nowhere near as cheesy as a group of space marines players being such whiney babies and personal bullies that they've forced a local player to change factions rather than learning to play better, but hey, each group has its own set of rules. Thankfully, GW and FW have created another option called 30k for Marine players that are afraid of 40k's xenos.

This is just condescending and rude. To make the assumption that all SM players are bullies and want you to not play xenos armies. I have 0 problems with someone playing Xenos armies, in fact I enjoy it. I might have issues with particular models or rules of said models because let's face it some models in this game are broke af and op. And I know xenos players have the same issues with some of the things I have. It is FINE for people to dislike broken stuff. This game would be very boring without xenos armies. I might dislike how eldar are pretty much op broken from a balance standpoint, but I don't want people to stop playing them. I enjoy the challenge. It sounds like you have some bad eggs in your local group who need to go jump off a bridge.

Except the quote was not referring to all SM players. Just a certain group, of which one member straight up said "We nerfed Necrons because we don't like this one guy we play with. He's switching to Eldar so we're going to nerf them as well."