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.

So a friend of mine sent me this photo from a facebook group and said the group is currently in a shouting match over if this is legal or not. You guys are the best RAW arguers I know. So I'm curious. Is this legal RAW?

I'm referring the rhino.

Yes, it is legal, RaW.

Edit: At least the Rhino part is legal. You can't put models on top of other models as Backspacehacker states below.

No, absolutely not. There is the base of wobbly model syndrome but this is not a case. A model needs to fit through an opening in order to move through it. I'm sure BCB will come.in here and say there is nothing in the brb that says you can't turn a model on its side, but the answer is no, you can not do that and if anyone is trying that on you call their crap right away for being a TFG


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can not do what he is doing on the ground that he is also putting models ontop of another model. You can not stack your models and use them to boost them like that.

Yeah we are pretty sure that the models on top are supposed to be the guys embarked in the rhino.

It was the turned on its side thing that had everyone up in arms.

So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

balmong7 wrote:
So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

No, there isn't. As long as you can physically place a model somewhere, it can go on there. No rule requires a model to be "right side up", even if it has a base. You are given permission to move models "in any direction", which includes rotating.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

No, there isn't. As long as you can physically place a model somewhere, it can go on there. No rule requires a model to be "right side up", even if it has a base. You are given permission to move models "in any direction", which includes rotating.

While i agree that this is legal according to the RAW, keep in mind that many people believe that there is an unwritten rule that says models have only one direction that they can be placed on the battlefield (base on the ground or tracks/wheel on the ground if were talking about a baseless model). RAI, this is probably not intended but as it is written in the rules, it is legal.

There is no rule about how to place models, by the RAW. However, there sure is clearly an intent that models should be placed as flat as reasonably possible in relation to the surface that is supporting the model. I can't imagine any judge allowing what the person in this photo is doing to be allowable.

balmong7 wrote:
Yeah we are pretty sure that the models on top are supposed to be the guys embarked in the rhino.

It was the turned on its side thing that had everyone up in arms.

So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

I'm just gonna give you fair warning, if you do stuff like that, your not going to be a person people are going to want to play with. There are common sense rules, turning your rino flat on its side like that to wedge it into a place it should not be going, is one of those rules.

That's very much akin toodeling for advantage. It's a dick move and I would highly suggest not doing it or allowing it. If you wanna be TFG then by all means be TFG. But again, RAI vs RAW

 Backspacehacker wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
Yeah we are pretty sure that the models on top are supposed to be the guys embarked in the rhino.

It was the turned on its side thing that had everyone up in arms.

So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

I'm just gonna give you fair warning, if you do stuff like that, your not going to be a person people are going to want to play with. There are common sense rules, turning your rino flat on its side like that to wedge it into a place it should not be going, is one of those rules.

That's very much akin toodeling for advantage. It's a dick move and I would highly suggest not doing it or allowing it. If you wanna be TFG then by all means be TFG. But again, RAI vs RAW

Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Not technically against the rules to put it on its side, but if someone pulled that I likely wouldn't ever play them again. Very much against the spirit of the rules, and community consensus for both casual and organised play is generally that you shouldn't do it.

The rules of 40k require a level of interpretation and common sense to play, and this kind of RAW pedantry doesn't have any place in the game in my opinion.

Obviously if everyone involved is happy then it doesn't matter how you play, but clearly they aren't happy given the "shouting match"!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Vehemently disagree. But I know I'm not going to convince you on it, so I'll let others make up their mind.

 Stux wrote:
Not technically against the rules to put it on its side, but if someone pulled that I likely wouldn't ever play them again. Very much against the spirit of the rules, and community consensus for both casual and organised play is generally that you shouldn't do it.

The rules of 40k require a level of interpretation and common sense to play, and this kind of RAW pedantry doesn't have any place in the game in my opinion.

Obviously if everyone involved is happy then it doesn't matter how you play, but clearly they aren't happy given the "shouting match"!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Vehemently disagree. But I know I'm not going to convince you on it, so I'll let others make up their mind.

This, it's a very quick way to make people not like you. This is very much akin to the BS of rolling scatter die back in 7th on the opposite end of the table from where the blast is and arguing that there is no rule saying I have to roll close to where my blast marker is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
Yeah we are pretty sure that the models on top are supposed to be the guys embarked in the rhino.

It was the turned on its side thing that had everyone up in arms.

So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

I'm just gonna give you fair warning, if you do stuff like that, your not going to be a person people are going to want to play with. There are common sense rules, turning your rino flat on its side like that to wedge it into a place it should not be going, is one of those rules.

That's very much akin toodeling for advantage. It's a dick move and I would highly suggest not doing it or allowing it. If you wanna be TFG then by all means be TFG. But again, RAI vs RAW

Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Going for the classics are we? How about some new songs?

"iT dOeSn'T sAy I CaN't!" is not a valid argument. Permissive rules is as permissive rules does.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

balmong7 wrote:
Yeah we are pretty sure that the models on top are supposed to be the guys embarked in the rhino.

It was the turned on its side thing that had everyone up in arms.

So BCB there really isn't anything prohibiting turning it on its side to fit?

I'm just gonna give you fair warning, if you do stuff like that, your not going to be a person people are going to want to play with. There are common sense rules, turning your rino flat on its side like that to wedge it into a place it should not be going, is one of those rules.

That's very much akin toodeling for advantage. It's a dick move and I would highly suggest not doing it or allowing it. If you wanna be TFG then by all means be TFG. But again, RAI vs RAW

Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Going for the classics are we? How about some new songs?

"iT dOeSn'T sAy I CaN't!" is not a valid argument. Permissive rules is as permissive rules does.

You're correct. "It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument. However, the rules literally say you can move models "in any direction". Thus you have permission to rotate your models.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
However, the rules literally say you can move models "in any direction". Thus you have permission to rotate your models.

Bruh...

Those are some hefty mental gymnastics in coming to that conclusion.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
However, the rules literally say you can move models "in any direction". Thus you have permission to rotate your models.

Bruh...

Those are some hefty mental gymnastics in coming to that conclusion.

So are you claiming I can't rotate my Land Raider to turn a corner? If I can rotate along one axis, I can rotate across all axis. There is no in-between in the rule as written.

It's akin to someone saying you can't fire Assault weapons after advancing. By RAW it might be correct due to poor wording, but only TFG would actually try to enforce that kind of rules mongering.

I would just pack my models and never play this guy ever. Maybe he should play chess if he doesn't care about narrative and his rhino isn't even painted.
Sometimes I wonder why are people playing such an expensive hobby if they don't even care about the only good things about it.

To be clear. This is academic for my friends and I. We wouldn't do it, but we couldn't find any rules saying it was illegal. I figured if one existed you guys would find it quickly.

balmong7 wrote:
To be clear. This is academic for my friends and I. We wouldn't do it, but we couldn't find any rules saying it was illegal. I figured if one existed you guys would find it quickly.

In the court of TFG law, yes you could do it via raw. But in actual play and even tournaments, this would not make you a good person to play with.

This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

To be fair, terrain should be set up how ever you want and the player shoud realize you can go there with a tank.im not gonna try to park in a spot that's only wide enough for a bike to park.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

Why? Other games have places that can be impassable based on base size, why should 40k be so special?

Manoeuvring is a thing.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

Sometimes having terrain be tight in areas to prevent large models from passing through can be cool and add to both the gameplay mechanics and narrative of the game. Now if the whole board is like that or someone literally can't even move out of their deployment zone because of it then yeah then it's a serious issue. One or two spots like that though isn't too bad map wide.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

Why? Other games have places that can be impassable based on base size, why should 40k be so special?

Manoeuvring is a thing.

Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

 Stux wrote:
Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Then GW should have made the rules reflect that.

 Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

Why? Other games have places that can be impassable based on base size, why should 40k be so special?

Manoeuvring is a thing.

Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Truth be told, 40k is a whole other game if you build it up like an actual give City, like have it so vehicles can only go down roads or very obvious paths and have like 3 levels on buildings.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Absolutely. Part of the point of terrain is to district the movement of larger models.

Then GW should have made the rules reflect that.

They did, but unfortunately they didn't account for the level RAW pedantry that people would stoop to.

If you play it with a degree of common sense it isn't a problem - and GW staff play in this way. Not in your very extreme method of rules interpretation.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

To be fair, terrain should be set up how ever you want and the player shoud realize you can go there with a tank.im not gonna try to park in a spot that's only wide enough for a bike to park.

How do you know he was trying to park it there and not that the Marine driving the Rhino was pulling a stunt from a James Bond movie jacking the vehicle up on one tread to fit through the spot, and that's as far as he got that turn with him coming out on the other side the next turn?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

That should be determined by the setting. If you are in a rural area it would make sense that there would be distance between buildings. If you're in a city there could be enough room for a standard armor vehicle or tank, but likely not a super-heavy. Terrain shouldn't be placed so everything can fit between it or it would just negate the purpose of the terrain.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
This situation shouldn't even have to come up ever. TFG or not. Terrain should be placed so that you can maneuver your vehicles without having to do such shenanigans.

That should be determined by the setting. If you are in a rural area it would make sense that there would be distance between buildings. If you're in a city there could be enough room for a standard armor vehicle or tank, but likely not a super-heavy. Terrain shouldn't be placed so everything can fit between it or it would just negate the purpose of the terrain.

True but by the same realism logic a titanic unit ahould have no problems brwaking through the walls of a civilian construction.