Switch Theme:

WMS and Moving Through Walls  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you allow models to stop moving halfway though a wall and/or claim Wobbly Model Syndrome?
Yes. RAW says yes.
Yes. Invoking WMS.
No. RAW says no.
No. RAW and WMS say no.
Has never come up in a game.

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

In the video below Reesh-ee-uss says it's OK to stop a model halfway through a wall and claim Wobbly Model Syndrome. This sparked a debate in my 40k group. What is your opinion?


@17:25

 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Mainly FOUR concerns here:

1. Walls don't stop an infantry from assaulting into the ruin.

2. Walls stop you from drawings LOS into them in ITC houserule.

3. You don't need LOS to declare a charge.

4. "Moving" through a wall and "charging" through a wall is two distinct concepts and rulesets.

EDIt I think this is a YMDC post.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/02 20:44:40


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Infantry ignore walls of ruins. Stopping halfway through a wall to claim WMS is way more reasonable than saying the unit suddenly lost the ability to move through walls because there's 2 mm less space then their base available on the other side.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/02 20:50:18


 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




"Infantry can move through the floors and walls of ruins without further impediment."

If it can move through walls, does that mean it can end its move in a wall?
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Moving through walls that block los is... Not a good rule imho.

   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 jeff white wrote:
Moving through walls that block los is... Not a good rule imho.
You can shoot into 2nd floor. ITC rules prohibit LOS at 1st level only.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




There is something wrong about being unassaultable and unshotable while being able to shot with your LoS ignoring weapons And I say this as a GK player who can get astral aim on his units.

I understand why ITC has LoS blocking tier one floor, but the stuff that can't be shot or assaulted should not be able to fire back.

The knight not being to able to smash in to a building, maybe stupid fluff wise, but I understand why they wanted the rule there.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I get that the wall of the first floor block line of sight but seriously the roof aswell?

On the subject of Wobbly model Syndrome the RAW is very clear.
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your painted modek damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know it's '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."

You can not use wobbly model to place a model somewhere it won't physically fit.
If you do so you obviously can not hold it in that position, there for your not in compliance with the complete rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/02 23:44:52


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Ice_can wrote:
I get that the wall of the first floor block line of sight but seriously the roof aswell?

On the subject of Wobbly model Syndrome the RAW is very clear.
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your painted modek damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know it's '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."

You can not use wobbly model to place a model somewhere it won't physically fit.
If you do so you obviously can not hold it in that position, there for your not in compliance with the complete rule.
Agreed. WMS doesn't let you place a model where it cannot physically fit, only where it can't sit stably. That means you can't put it inside a block of solid terrain.

And before people start trying to claim this lets you put models in mid air, the rule states "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want." It specifically calls out "piece of terrain", trying to float it in mid air is not being hampered by a "piece of terrain".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/03 14:29:21


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






no. WMS allows you to place a model that it can be placed and then move it somewhere safer. It's a common-sense option to allow you to protect your models from being bumped, not a means of gaining extra movement options by pointing to an arbitrary spot where the model can't be placed and pretending it's there.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.

"Unchargeable" comes from a combination of house rules and custom terrain. Maybe fix the house rule before saying the BRB needs fixing?

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




 greyknight12 wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.

"Unchargeable" comes from a combination of house rules and custom terrain. Maybe fix the house rule before saying the BRB needs fixing?


No, the unchargeable problem here is straight RAW. If you can't get into range (within 1") because there's a wall between you and the models, that's unchargeable. The house rule FLG/ITC adopts is about line of sight into/out of terrain, but as you'll recall line of sight is not a necessary component of a charge.This can be easily achieved by positioning models within buildings so that there is not sufficient room to fit a base in the building while also being more than 1" from a model positioned on the other side of a wall.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.


Why is a "workaround" needed? Do I get a workaround for the fact that models can hide out of LOS behind a wall and stop me from shooting them? Just accept the fact that sometimes terrain blocks what you want to do. That's why terrain exists.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Peregrine wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.


Why is a "workaround" needed? Do I get a workaround for the fact that models can hide out of LOS behind a wall and stop me from shooting them? Just accept the fact that sometimes terrain blocks what you want to do. That's why terrain exists.


Because normally nothing stops you from charging through walls with infantry and often competitive players will just say my intent is to keep these models inside the building x distance from the walls without physically placing them there in order to maintain the flow of the game so it creates situations where the choice is to accept their intent and be incapable of charging them because of a quirk of the rules, be that guy and pull a gotcha and move their models into the physical space provided anyway, or force the first player to waste a ton of time placing models just so in a fiddly cramped space. There's no good reason why models that normally can move and charge through walls are suddenly prevented from doing so because there's an enemy model exactly x mm away from the edge. It's inconsistent, makes no sense, and makes the game less interactive.

The GW terrain rules are trash, and anything that can be done to prevent situations where a player can't act due to some silly rules loophole nonsense is a positive change. First floor blocking LOS was good to stop the early gunline dominance when nobody had decent terrain set up for 8th, but that's also clearly a bit much now that tournaments and stores have restocked their tables. I'm a big fan of the proposed in/out, but not through method for drawing LOS as a result.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






There's nothing weird about it. Models can't be inside terrain, it doesn't matter why you want to move them there. It's just like jump pack models can jump over terrain, but can't be declared to end their movement hovering in empty space just because it would let them get LOS to shoot something. I get that it's inconvenient for charging, but the whole point of terrain is to be inconvenient.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/04 09:24:25


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.


Why is a "workaround" needed? Do I get a workaround for the fact that models can hide out of LOS behind a wall and stop me from shooting them? Just accept the fact that sometimes terrain blocks what you want to do. That's why terrain exists.


Because normally nothing stops you from charging through walls with infantry and often competitive players will just say my intent is to keep these models inside the building x distance from the walls without physically placing them there in order to maintain the flow of the game so it creates situations where the choice is to accept their intent and be incapable of charging them because of a quirk of the rules, be that guy and pull a gotcha and move their models into the physical space provided anyway, or force the first player to waste a ton of time placing models just so in a fiddly cramped space. There's no good reason why models that normally can move and charge through walls are suddenly prevented from doing so because there's an enemy model exactly x mm away from the edge. It's inconsistent, makes no sense, and makes the game less interactive.

The GW terrain rules are trash, and anything that can be done to prevent situations where a player can't act due to some silly rules loophole nonsense is a positive change. First floor blocking LOS was good to stop the early gunline dominance when nobody had decent terrain set up for 8th, but that's also clearly a bit much now that tournaments and stores have restocked their tables. I'm a big fan of the proposed in/out, but not through method for drawing LOS as a result.

Except there is a flawed logic in the "my intent is to be x from the wall" ok good but we don't use square bases in 40k so either the closes point is x from the wall in which case I can possible fit a model ofset between two of your models or they will actually be able to be charged from the outside of the wall as you need something like a 5mm+ think wall and perfect placement to prevent someone charging you. Intent isn't a free pass on doing the damn near impossible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/04 11:00:49


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






It is bizarre that you can move through a wall to begin with. But the rules are designed for GW terrain which is mostly composed of ruined corners of a building, so you can easily move to attack from the another side. You really shouldn't use the ruin rules for complete buildings.

But yeah, the terrain rules are kinda bad, and I think even with all the streamlining, melee model placement rules are kinda bad too. This is kinda similar situation of like how upper floor becomes unassailable if there is no room to place your models. And in game of this scale tracking the exact distance and pile in moves of each individual model is an unnecessary hassle. They should have abstracted it a bit more somehow.

   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Every year ITC is house ruled further and further away from actual 40k, I don't think we're playing the same game anymore.

It's a gamey way to abuse the spirit and intention of the rules for an advantage. Tactical Master! Another reason I can't stand FLG at all.





"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
I get that the wall of the first floor block line of sight but seriously the roof aswell?

On the subject of Wobbly model Syndrome the RAW is very clear.
"If you delicately balance it in place, it is likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your painted modek damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know it's '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."

You can not use wobbly model to place a model somewhere it won't physically fit.
If you do so you obviously can not hold it in that position, there for your not in compliance with the complete rule.
Agreed. WMS doesn't let you place a model where it cannot physically fit, only where it can't sit stably. That means you can't put it inside a block of solid terrain.

And before people start trying to claim this lets you put models in mid air, the rule states "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want." It specifically calls out "piece of terrain", trying to float it in mid air is not being hampered by a "piece of terrain".


Don’t you just hate it when people try and misuse WMS like that?

Oh... wait...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you're trying to abuse the atrocious ruin rules to deny your enemy the ability to assault you, they are more than entitled to abuse the WMS rule to hover their units in mid air.

Forge the Narrative! Santa Cawl gave them hoverboots.


Awkward.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 NurglesR0T wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Every year ITC is house ruled further and further away from actual 40k, I don't think we're playing the same game anymore.

It's a gamey way to abuse the spirit and intention of the rules for an advantage. Tactical Master! Another reason I can't stand FLG at all.






What? The ITC suggestion does exactly the opposite. Letting the player charge the opponent holed up in the building who would otherwise be unchargeable going by the main rulebook.

Also, where are you getting "every year ITC is being houseruled further and further away" like it's some drastically different statement? Here are the differences:

First floor ruins block LOS
Infantry units may invoke WMS to finish a charge against a unit in ruins if there's a wall in the way (technically not even official as ITC hasn't updated their rules and all we have to go on is the podcast).
Scoring/missions - nobody uses GW missions other than GW.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





To me, this is all just silly. A low wall, half the model's height, sure they can vault over and shoot over it. A full wall? Nope! no moving through it. No charging and no shooting unless there's a window to see through.
Shooting into the 2nd story, only through holes and windows. It's always been assumed (at least in my old group) that there is a ladder or some other way to climb to the next story so we did allow charging to the 2nd floor if the unit was already inside on the first floor.

We're gonna need another Timmy!

6400 pts+ 8th
My Gallery

Free scenery I created for 3d printing: https://cults3d.com/en/users/kaotkbliss/3d-models
____________________________
https://www.patreon.com/kaotkbliss
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Of course not. Why would it be?


Because making a workaround for unchargeable units in one story buildings is better than the alternative? It's not difficult to implement, gives the defensive player a reason to not want to camp since getting assaulted without overwatch is a bad spot to be in, and gives the charging player incentive to bring infantry.


Why is a "workaround" needed? Do I get a workaround for the fact that models can hide out of LOS behind a wall and stop me from shooting them? Just accept the fact that sometimes terrain blocks what you want to do. That's why terrain exists.


Because normally nothing stops you from charging through walls with infantry and often competitive players will just say my intent is to keep these models inside the building x distance from the walls without physically placing them there in order to maintain the flow of the game so it creates situations where the choice is to accept their intent and be incapable of charging them because of a quirk of the rules, be that guy and pull a gotcha and move their models into the physical space provided anyway, or force the first player to waste a ton of time placing models just so in a fiddly cramped space. There's no good reason why models that normally can move and charge through walls are suddenly prevented from doing so because there's an enemy model exactly x mm away from the edge. It's inconsistent, makes no sense, and makes the game less interactive.

The GW terrain rules are trash, and anything that can be done to prevent situations where a player can't act due to some silly rules loophole nonsense is a positive change. First floor blocking LOS was good to stop the early gunline dominance when nobody had decent terrain set up for 8th, but that's also clearly a bit much now that tournaments and stores have restocked their tables. I'm a big fan of the proposed in/out, but not through method for drawing LOS as a result.


I see nothing wrong with wanting your opponent to follow the rules of the game. Especially not in a tourney setting. And certainly not if you're aiming to gain some kind of rules advantage over me. You want to camp in a building in such a way that you can claim the rules prevent me from assaulting you? Ok, fine, the rules say you can do that. But you'd damn well better do the work of placing your models correctly.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





RogueApiary wrote:
 NurglesR0T wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
RAW seems clear, but is it a good house rule for ITC otherwise?


Every year ITC is house ruled further and further away from actual 40k, I don't think we're playing the same game anymore.

It's a gamey way to abuse the spirit and intention of the rules for an advantage. Tactical Master! Another reason I can't stand FLG at all.






What? The ITC suggestion does exactly the opposite. Letting the player charge the opponent holed up in the building who would otherwise be unchargeable going by the main rulebook.

Also, where are you getting "every year ITC is being houseruled further and further away" like it's some drastically different statement? Here are the differences:

First floor ruins block LOS
Infantry units may invoke WMS to finish a charge against a unit in ruins if there's a wall in the way (technically not even official as ITC hasn't updated their rules and all we have to go on is the podcast).
Scoring/missions - nobody uses GW missions other than GW.


Changing the mission is literally the biggest change you can do to the game. How much different would be the game if the only mission was kill points? A lot right? Then why ITC misions shouldn't heavily alter the game when they have kill points in EVERY mission, where GW missions very rarely have them?

Kill points are just an example. Changing missions is the single biggest change you can do to the game without completely rewriting rules, and also the reason why many tend to ignore ITC results when it comes to balance discussions, they are simply playing a different game.

Also, plenty of tournaments are run on GW missions, especially CA missions. Mostly in Europe.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Spoletta wrote:

Also, plenty of tournaments are run on GW missions, especially CA missions. Mostly in Europe.


LVO, Nova, and SoCal are all ITC or a very similar variant and those are what get discussed most often and are seemingly held in high regard for balance since GW postpones the FAQ for Nova and LVO.

The London GT had a highlander detachment system, fixed objectives, and other modifications.

   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:

Also, plenty of tournaments are run on GW missions, especially CA missions. Mostly in Europe.


LVO, Nova, and SoCal are all ITC or a very similar variant and those are what get discussed most often and are seemingly held in high regard for balance since GW postpones the FAQ for Nova and LVO.

The London GT had a highlander detachment system, fixed objectives, and other modifications.



That's why i said "mostly in europe". What i really meant though was not the big events, but the standard tournaments at the stores, the real 40K. As far as i know, in Europe those tournaments are run for the majority on GW rules, since we do not have to "prepare for the big ITC events". Yes, they even use the dreaded maelstrom missions once in a while, and those tournaments are damn fun.

In any case, this was just to point out that the "Standard" way to play 40K actually exists, and has a big follow, so sayiing "ITC changes missions but no one uses standard missions so it doesn't count" is a bad argument. ITC uses it's own mission set, which could be better or worse than standard missions, i don't want to start that discussion, but in any case they heavily alter the way the game is played, to the point that some consider it a different game, or at the very least an heavily house ruled version of 40K.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






RogueApiary wrote:
What? The ITC suggestion does exactly the opposite. Letting the player charge the opponent holed up in the building who would otherwise be unchargeable going by the main rulebook.


It's not the opposite at all, it's exactly what they said: exploiting the rules to gain an advantage. RAW and clear RAI models can not be declared to be at some arbitrary point inside a terrain feature, even if that place would be really good for them. If a wall obstructs a charge then too bad, you don't get to charge. You don't get to claim some ridiculous exploit of WMS and ignore the existence of the terrain. Go around the long way and charge the unit from the exposed side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
I see nothing wrong with wanting your opponent to follow the rules of the game. Especially not in a tourney setting. And certainly not if you're aiming to gain some kind of rules advantage over me. You want to camp in a building in such a way that you can claim the rules prevent me from assaulting you? Ok, fine, the rules say you can do that. But you'd damn well better do the work of placing your models correctly.


It's unreasonable because it wastes time without adding anything to the game experience for either player. It's not like insisting on perfect measurement is actually going to prevent your opponent from doing it, it just means you get to sit there and wait while they perfectly measure out everything. Saying "they are X distance away from the wall" allows both players to get on with the fun part of the game, and it's to your advantage to accept the offer. It's like moving a horde of orks. Yes, by RAW you can insist on perfect measurement for every model in the horde, but do you honestly care that much when only the position of the front models is critical? Wouldn't you rather let them measure carefully for the front models, the ones that will determine the success or failure of a charge, and then fill in the rest of the horde behind them even if maybe they gain 0.01" of irrelevant distance? The difference in the outcome of the game is incredibly unlikely to be significant, but you can save yourself a lot of waiting.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/05 09:06:10


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Personally, I don’t agree with what Reece said about WMS and charging through walls and, I’d wager that given a few minutes of discussion and clarification, his statement would be revised. Also, unless it gets added into the ITC FAQ document, then it still isn’t an “official” ITC ruling.

Charging through walls (most terrain is roughly 3mm thick I think) is only possible if you’re on a 25mm base. 32mm bases can’t fit.

Personally, I’d change how Infantry interact with “walls” anyway. I’d require infantry models to be equipped with Krak grenades, Melta bombs, demo charges etc in order to be able to “blast through” the wall and move through. Frag grenades etc wouldn’t be able to do this. All infantry models without those kind of grenades or without the FLY keyword would have to find a big enough gap in the wall to enter and exit through. I’d also class any modelled “doors” as gaps – but I don’t think most of them are big enough for 32mm bases to fit through.
I’d also change how “enclosed buildings” work. Starting off, no objectives can be placed inside them and a unit cannot hold an objective marker if the only models within 3” of the marker are inside an “enclosed building”. After that, I’d change it so you cannot fire weapons that do not require LoS from inside of them (let’s shoot this mortal through the solid roof, what could go wrong?!?!?!) and I would give any unit shot at by an indirect fire weapon whilst on the ground floor of a multi-story “enclosed building” +2 to their cover save as opposed to the standard +1. This would also result in cover bonuses being capped at +2 regardless of other possible additions (i.e. Prepared positions or unit abilities). In regards to the FLY keyword, they can land on the roof, if they can be placed, but can only enter the “enclosed building” if they “walk instead of fly” and are equipped with the required grenades.

Sure… It’s a bit more complicated than “Infantry can move through walls” but dear Emperor, it is needed.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: