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.

A terminator has 5" movement and is trying to get to the top of a 6" building. According to the my interpretation of the rules, he can move up vertically 5" one turn, then climb the last 1" on his next turn. Others have made the argument that the FAQ's usage of wobbly model syndrome does not support the ability for your units to partially climb walls.

YMDC. Without advancing, is a terminator able to climb up to the top of this building?

Here are the rules and FAQs I'm referencing.

Moving
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this. It cannot be moved through other models or through terrain features such as walls, but can be moved vertically in order to climb or traverse any scenery.

Q. What happens when an Infantry model cannot completely end its move on a floor of ruins when attempting to scale the walls?

A. If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome guidelines in the core rules to identify with your opponent where your model’s actual location is.

Wobbly Model Syndrome
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 painted model 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 the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so they can check if it is visible.

Hmm, unless someone is trying to twist the words somehow the faq literally answers the question:

Q. What happens when an Infantry model cannot completely end its move on a floor of ruins when attempting to scale the walls?

A. If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome guidelines in the core rules to identify with your opponent where your model’s actual location is.

The argument being made is that WMS only applies to positions that are difficult to balance a model on and does not apply to a positions that are impossible to balance a model on (such as a vertical wall).

I would say that if you want to do that, then it's OK. However, I wouldn't do it myself because I find it fiddly and annoying.

However, I think you might have to let this one go, as the Wobbly Model Syndrome bit says " ...as long as both players have agreed ..."; in your case, you and your friends have clearly not agreed.

The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

There's nothing prohibiting land raiders from moving through woods, or is there?

 daedalus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

There's nothing prohibiting land raiders from moving through woods, or is there?

What that has to do with anything?

Yeah, the faq seems to clearly answer this question.

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

This seems confused. WMS unquestionably allows models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance. That's the whole point of WMS. I mean, I guess you could argue that it only allows you to get on top of things that the model can kinda stay on for a few seconds before toppling, but there will be plenty of trees like this anyway.

The faq has absolutely nothing to say about which kinds of terrain your model can move over or up. All it suggests is that you can end your move part of the way up such terrain. So if you were already playing that Land Raiders can climb trees as long as they can kinda balance on the top, then the faq implies that you should let them end their move halfway up the tree. Personally I would probably not allow models to climb trees at all.

 Crimson wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

There's nothing prohibiting land raiders from moving through woods, or is there?

What that has to do with anything?

I dunno, it was your example. I was trying to figure out where the problem was.

Isn't this, like, the fourth thread about this on the front page?

You either have to agree that WMS allows putting models in places where they cannot physically stay or that it doesn't. If you agree that it allows that, then tanks can move to stay on treetops or on top of statues etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thommy H wrote:
Isn't this, like, the fourth thread about this on the front page?

I counted only two... But I probably missed some. In any case, that shows that this is an issue that causes a lot of arguments and confusion.

 Crimson wrote:
You either have to agree that WMS allows putting models in places where they cannot physically stay or that it doesn't. If you agree that it allows that, then tanks can move to stay on treetops or on top of statues etc.

It's not great and certainly doesn't make a lot of sense, but, yeah, I think that WMS suggests you can do both of those things.

Yeah, given that line of sight is so easy to come by, a tank driving up on top of a tree in a forest isn't going to break the game. The tank still has to pay the movement cost to get up there, and other models can still charge the tank by using the same WMS ruling.

So while it may be stupid from a believability perspective, if someone wants to do it, so be it.

the rules may permit this in theory.

But does the rules state you can place your model on some Lichen? You see terrain is terrain. In this simplified edition I don't see where climbing a +1 cover terrain should be an option.
If the terrain has 'defined' levels then yes. Currently I don't see 'levels' as part of the terrain rules. House rules for terrain is fine. New Terrain rules is fine. You want to bring a custom made terrain with a tree top tank parking lot bring it and let your opponent decide if they want to use it like any other 'optional' rule.

There used to be a thing in this game. IF it don't say you can do it then you CANNOT DO IT. Same as trying to climb a bush or treehouse. I think MyLIttlePonies has the option to climb trees. ...I am on the Warhammer 40K war forums right?

If a Terminator wants to stand on a bush or a Carnifex on a Statue or a Land Raider on a tree, well I will just say finish the game and never play that joe again. It is pure ridiculousness. There are some things that should make TFG get a hint and avoid being a tool for some commonsense fun. Tell the 'Bronie' goodgame and be done with him.

How many times has that happened? Even then of those times, how many times has it actually made a difference?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:

There used to be a thing in this game. IF it don't say you can do it then you CANNOT DO IT. Same as trying to climb a bush or treehouse. I think MyLIttlePonies has the option to climb trees. ...I am on the Warhammer 40K war forums right?

Oh man. You're allowed to move the model, and you're allowed to move the model over terrain, right? You're not allowed to climb ruins, right, like as a vehicle? Where are you not allowed to move through/over any other terrain? Nowhere? Then it's allowed. You wouldn't freak about a Land Raider climbing a hill right? Then lose the hysteria.

If a Terminator wants to stand on a bush or a Carnifex on a Statue or a Land Raider on a tree, well I will just say finish the game and never play that joe again. It is pure ridiculousness. There are some things that should make TFG get a hint and avoid being a tool for some commonsense fun. Tell the 'Bronie' goodgame and be done with him.

"Eeeeegahds! Someone's not being serious with their mandollies?! Let's not be ridiculous in our little toy soldier game full of space catholics, WW1 tanks, and BDSM elves!"

Daedalus wrote: You're allowed to move the model, and you're allowed to move the model over terrain, right? You're not allowed to climb ruins, right, like as a vehicle? Where are you not allowed to move through/over any other terrain? Nowhere? Then it's allowed. You wouldn't freak about a Land Raider climbing a hill right?

Well when most models move, I would expect them to move under a tree. Same with Cars and Tanks. Trying to 'game' the system for an advantage is just sour.

I mean is the tree floating in open air? I assume most trees are on the ground...so the tanks and models should be on the ground. commonsense

If a piece of terrain has multiple levels, like a ruins, then there should be special rules (like the ruins) again commonsense

If you want to make a piece of multilevel tree terrain. WONDERFUL. Then make rules for it and agree with your opponent on the ins and outs.

What is discussed here is some wackiness and there really cant be any defending it unless you are a purebred rules lawyer type. Bronies go home!

There doesn't seem to be an agreement. I'll probably house rule it so that Infantry can climb walls only in order to get to different levels. It's not strictly clear in the rules, but I think that'll prevent silly things like unassaultable positions and vehicles climbing tress. Are there any other reasonable scenarios that my compromise would prevent?

Nah. I was trying to help you work your way past your ad hominems, confused ideas that we can move over terrain if it's floating off the ground (wtf?), vague insults, and general poor apparent understanding of the rules, but feth it. It's late and it's not going to go anywhere at all. You win the internets.

plikt wrote:
There doesn't seem to be an agreement. I'll probably house rule it so that Infantry can climb walls only in order to get to different levels. It's not strictly clear in the rules, but I think that'll prevent silly things like unassailable positions and vehicles limbing tress. Are there any other reasonable scenarios that my compromise would prevent?

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable house rule. This thing really needs some sort of house rule anyway, it just doesn't work reasonably as written, either way one interprets it.

Wall? WTH is a wall? There are no walls in 40k. It's either a barricade, or a ruin and either way infantry models don't have to climb over it they just walk right on through it.

As for wobbly model syndrome it applies to anything the rules allow you to move in or out of or up or down. Nothing allows you to move up in a woods, and vehicles can't move up in a ruin.
So the tank in a tree argument is dumb and pointless. You can't even stick a scout sniper up in a tree much less a tank.

Example you buddy builds a little square bunker 4" tall, and puts troops all along the edge so you can't assault him because you models would have to hover in the air in order to do so.
That's what WMS is for mainly to prevent people from being goomba's with homebuilt terrain.

No, WMS is there as a simple practicality if a model would be wobbly. If it was called Wall Assault Syndrome or Homemade Terrain Leveller then it would be for what you describe. But it isn't.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, WMS is there as a simple practicality if a model would be wobbly. If it was called Wall Assault Syndrome or Homemade Terrain Leveller then it would be for what you describe. But it isn't.

Right. Except some people seem to believe that it allows every model to become Spider-man.

 Crimson wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No, WMS is there as a simple practicality if a model would be wobbly. If it was called Wall Assault Syndrome or Homemade Terrain Leveller then it would be for what you describe. But it isn't.

Right. Except some people seem to believe that it allows every model to become Spider-man.

Or the Rocketeer! I still can't believe someone unironically talked about his models hovering in the "ledge is full" thread. Beggars belief.

Wagguy80 wrote:
As for wobbly model syndrome it applies to anything the rules allow you to move in or out of or up or down. Nothing allows you to move up in a woods, and vehicles can't move up in a ruin.
So the tank in a tree argument is dumb and pointless. You can't even stick a scout sniper up in a tree much less a tank.

thank you!

The Advance Rules section expands terrain and invites you to create your own terrain I believe. So if your hills or super dense swamp or tree elf canopy terrain wants to have special rules, sounds like you have the option to develop them. They are of course house rules and wont be at tournaments. I used to do tournament play and love to fight the most uber and maxed out lists. That is what makes it fun, the challenge! I primarily enjoy adding a few new faces to our group of about a dozen players and set up big battles and sometimes Apoc battles. Gaming with pals has always been the most rewarding play imo

Wagguy80 wrote:
Wall? WTH is a wall? There are no walls in 40k. It's either a barricade, or a ruin and either way infantry models don't have to climb over it they just walk right on through it.

As for wobbly model syndrome it applies to anything the rules allow you to move in or out of or up or down. Nothing allows you to move up in a woods, and vehicles can't move up in a ruin.
So the tank in a tree argument is dumb and pointless. You can't even stick a scout sniper up in a tree much less a tank.

Example you buddy builds a little square bunker 4" tall, and puts troops all along the edge so you can't assault him because you models would have to hover in the air in order to do so.
That's what WMS is for mainly to prevent people from being goomba's with homebuilt terrain.

First off, infantry can only move through ruin walls without penalty. For a barricade they must move up and back down it as they move over it. So if the barricade is 1/2" tall, it takes 1" of vertical movement to cross over it.

Second, the rules allow models to move vertically to traverse terrain. They don't put any limitations beyond that. So yes, within the rules it is perfectly permissible to scale a tree (even a tank), even though it makes no real world sense. That kind of abstraction is the price to pay for quick and easy to learn rules.

So you think it is perfectly reasonable for your opponent to have his Land Raider move up the flag pole and then stop on top with the WMS?

I know some interpretation of the RAW could be seen this way, but as pointed out WHAT constitutes as terrain you can cross.

IS there impassible terrain anymore?

Just stand back and look at the side of the argument you are defending, RAW or not. Take a stand that you are content with ... Go with that.

Those power Lines and Poles on my battlefield are a new airial highway!! Now with 4 wires connecting the poles....can I place 4 tanks passing back and forth on that 'highway', one on each wire.

 admironheart wrote:
So you think it is perfectly reasonable for your opponent to have his Land Raider move up the flag pole and then stop on top with the WMS?

No of course not, but its important to know what the rules actually allow so you take the time to come up with rules for terrain in your game that both you and your opponent are happy with. There is no such thing as a 'flag pole' in the rules, so if you have one on the table, then its fine to say that no models can climb it if both you and your opponent agree.

I know some interpretation of the RAW could be seen this way, but as pointed out WHAT constitutes as terrain you can cross.

IS there impassible terrain anymore?

I think you know the answer already. There is no impassable terrain in the rules. Its just not there. So if you're using some piece of terrain that you feel shouldn't be able to be crossed, then you and your opponent just need to decide that together. But just assuming that something should be impassable based on your own personal feelings or previous editions of the game and not clearing that with your opponent before the game doesn't cut it. By the rules, if you don't clarify a piece of terrain can't be scaled with your opponent before the game, then it can be scaled by any model.

Just stand back and look at the side of the argument you are defending, RAW or not. Take a stand that you are content with ... Go with that.

Those power Lines and Poles on my battlefield are a new airial highway!! Now with 4 wires connecting the poles....can I place 4 tanks passing back and forth on that 'highway', one on each wire.

Again, there are no rules for power lines or power poles, so you're free to introduce rules for those into your games to prevent them from being scaled.

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

The relevant rules specify infantry. Not vehicles or any other keyword.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

The relevant rules specify infantry. Not vehicles or any other keyword.

WMS only applies to infantry?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is that if you use WMS to allow models to stay in places where they are impossible to balance, you're at the same time allowing land raiders to balance on treetops.

The relevant rules specify infantry. Not vehicles or any other keyword.

Also, isn't the rule supposed to be for those cases where the miniature would be unstable but the actual unit would be able to reach/stay in?