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.
Stux wrote: You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.
Citation needed.
Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.
No, it is not "frankly childish" it is asking you for a rules citation to back up your statement.
If you can't produce said rules citation, then your statement can not be correct.
Well "If you delicatley bablance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken." does seem to indicate that it's the nudging of the table that causes the model to fall, and that the model should be able to stand by itself pre-table nudging.
,
Nobody is disputing that, in fact I am not arguing for balancing the model at all. Merly that it is alowed to place the model there and then you remove it so it will not be broken. Everyone in this debate understand the arguments pressented by both sides. Or at least I think we do, though I can not speak for anyone but myself. We are merly unsure of the interpretation of the rule and lean in different directions.
How exactly would the base of the flyer "fit" on an extended Girder?
Fit is assumed to mean it can be placed down on it with mabey some of the base overlapping the sides but able to be released without hands holding it.
If a model is top heavy and slides or tilts over, but otherwise can be placed somewhere, you can claim wobbly model syndrome. If it clearly cannot be placed there without assistance then it cant be placed there legally.
Your free to interpret it otherwise, however no tournament will rule otherwise to my knowledge.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
I define "fit" as physicaly fitin within the place. Witch I think would be the most common use of the word. (As oppose to beeing fit for instance, in the case of work outs.) So you can not place a flying unit somewhere it is does not fit. Like a chaos demon, mortarion or a hive tyrant with wings tryng to stand on a small messanine in a ruin. If the wings does not fit because the ruin walls you can not declare wobly model syndrome because it does not fit. Likevice you can not cram it sideways between 2 ruin floors and say it fits. But on top of a pin girdle there is no such physical barrier for the model.
Now usualy there are some aditional rules regarding how you can place a model. You can not be within 1/2" of an enemy base (or units.) You can not place it over a friendly base (essentially making a small pile of bases.)
However as far as I can see it is alowed by the rules, and it is not deyed by the rules. We can wiat for an FAQ. I the meantime I will be anoyed by my opponents airplanes.
Edit:
I am actually more unsure now.
I am digging a bit more into the rules. It seems what keeps regular models from climbing along walls with wobbly model syndrom is that they need to finish a climb.
Spoiler:
MOVING OVER TERRAIN
When a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved over
a terrain feature but not through it (so models can’t move
through a wall, but can climb up or over it).
A model can be moved over terrain features that are 1" or less
in height as if they were not there – any vertical distance up
and/or down that they would have to make to traverse such
terrain features is ignored. A model can be moved vertically
in order to climb up, down and over any terrain features that
are higher than this, counting the vertical distance up and/
or down as part of its move. Models cannot finish any kind
of move mid-climb – if it is not possible to end the move as a
result, that move cannot be made.
However, flying models do not climb, it seems. The wording is odd. Climbing is not defined. Flying units are instructed not to measure distance up or down. So weather they climb is ambigues.
Spoiler:
If a unit’s datasheet has the Fly keyword, then when it makes
a Normal Move, an Advance or it Falls Back, its models can
be moved across other models (and their bases) as if they
were not there, and they can be moved within Engagement
Range of enemy models. In addition, any vertical distance up
and/or down that they make as part of that move is ignored.
However, these models cannot finish their move either on top
of another model (or its base) or within Engagement Range of
any enemy models.
Lastly the wording for "scalable" terain keyword alows model to stand on topp of them. But reading the rules closer it states infantery, beasts, swarm and flyers can be set up or end the move on the upper floor of this terrain feature. A pin girdle is clearly not the upper floor. (Also, it seems you can never stand in the middel floors of a multi floored ruin.) I stand corrected, but not by the rules sited by people up until now. :-p Sorry guys
There are other rules for obstacles with that terrain feature though. In theory, if an obstacle has a pin girdle and is scalable a flyer could claim wobbly model syndrom on there. However, I am not gonne define any such obstacles as scalable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/03 00:51:08
Wobbly Model is not used based on if a model can "fit". It comes into effect when you "place" a model. If you cannot place the model somewhere then you cannot use Wobbly Model. The rule expects you to be to be able to place a model somewhere and not hold it it place, hence the statement about the model falling due to the table being nudged. Naturally, you can't place a model where it will not fit. You also call cannot place a model somewhere it is practically impossible to balance, like on one or two pin points.
You and your opponent are free to decide when you can use Wobbly Model in a mutually agreeable way, but don't expect most opponents to agree you can do so on a pin.
Stux wrote: You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.
Citation needed.
Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.
No, it is not "frankly childish" it is asking you for a rules citation to back up your statement.
If you can't produce said rules citation, then your statement can not be correct.
Well "If you delicatley bablance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken." does seem to indicate that it's the nudging of the table that causes the model to fall, and that the model should be able to stand by itself pre-table nudging.
,
Maybe, but there is nothing definitive that says "You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving." like Stux claims.
The rules do say "provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location" So, as long as it is possible to "place the model in the desired location" you can claim WMS. (Though this is even not all that clear, admittedly).
Basically just discuss it with your opponent before the game.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
Stux wrote: You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving.
Citation needed.
Seriously, there's so much in this game that is required for play but isn't stated explicitly in the rules. If you're going say something, be constructive. Parotting "citation needed" is frankly childish.
No, it is not "frankly childish" it is asking you for a rules citation to back up your statement.
If you can't produce said rules citation, then your statement can not be correct.
Well "If you delicatley bablance a model in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as someone nudges the table, leaving your painted model damaged or even broken." does seem to indicate that it's the nudging of the table that causes the model to fall, and that the model should be able to stand by itself pre-table nudging.
,
Maybe, but there is nothing definitive that says "You have to be able to leave the model there without it moving." like Stux claims.
The rules do say "provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location" So, as long as it is possible to "place the model in the desired location" you can claim WMS. (Though this is even not all that clear, admittedly).
Basically just discuss it with your opponent before the game.
I do believe you are trying to make this seem unclear to support your baffling proposition...
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"
Am I able to set my flyer down on a building, from which it's base extends slightly off the sides?
What if the wings extend slightly off the sides?
If the answer is "no", that's fairly objective. There needs to be a flat surface large enough to fit the entire base.
But is that objective? How steep a gradient can a slope be before it becomes untenable for my flyer? Take even a moderate hill, say the side of GW's old Realm of Battle board. A lot of flyers can't sit on the side of that hill because they will immediately fall over from the angle. Is that Wobbly Model? It fits, but I can't leave the model there even for a second.
Or what about if there's a slight bump? Say a clear plain dotted with small rocks. Can I place my flyer on top of the rocks? It's not actually flush with the ground, but it's sitting happily on the small rocks?
It would seem reasonable to me that you can place your flyer in such a position.
But then of course you're in another grey area. How much terrain needs to be underneath the flyer's base to count? How high can the difference be between layers?
Can my flyer sit on top of a Munitorum container? It's base sticks out the sides but it'll balance.
What if you set the Munitorum container on it's end, can the flyer still sit on it? It'll balance, but more precariously now (partly due to the stability of the container beneath).
What if instead of the Munitorum container, it's a smaller more generic container? How small does a box need to be before it moves from "Wobbly Model Syndrome" to "doesn't fit"? Does it matter if it's only a small box so the aircraft can tip off and rest it's base on the table, so it doesn't fall all the way? how sharp an angle can the aircraft rest at? we're back to the slope argument.
I know I'm pushing to break this rule. But some of this stuff is hardly a niche situation (the slope of a hill).
The strength of a rule is determined by how well it holds up to this sort of scrutiny. The current rule is extremely vague. Deliberately so because battlefields are very complex and GW doesn't want to have to deal with the difficulties of the nuance I have provided.
But in such a situation all you can say is "the rules are vague, you just need to agree with your opponent". Trying to pretend the rules pass some objective declaration when they simply don't is folly.
The solution is very simple. In a tourney you ask a ref to clarify, whereupon he will tell you you can't.
In a non tourney game, your opponent will announce that you have won the game, and now it is time for you to go home so he can watch Netflix with the remainder of the game time.
JohnnyHell wrote: I do believe you are trying to make this seem unclear to support your baffling proposition...
baffling proposition? I am not sure what you mean.
The rules say "provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location"
If a model can fall off a terrain piece, but there is enough room for the model, then it is physically possible to place the model there.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
The fact that this conversation is happening, despite GW explaining what the purpose of wobbly model syndrome, is a sign of how bad the community can get. The rule obviously isn’t designed to be for balancing models in pin heads. Things like this shouldn’t need explaining in the rules. You should all be grown up enough sort it out between yourselves during or before the game. The rules should allow for common sense and shouldn’t have to explain every tiny detail.
The problem is common sense is very subjective. Not to mention that during a game such calls are always going to be tainted with a degree of bias.
I'm sure we all agree that balancing on a pin head is an extreme example that shouldn't be permitted.
But where's the line?
Exactly how small an object can I balance my flyer on top of?
This is important.
And this is where I call for the practicality test.
If it can actually be placed there without outside intervention, that works for me. I'll then let you use Wobbly model to mark the location or use other means to stabilize the model. If it can't, you need to place it somewhere it will stay.
Unfortunately, this rule must be vague because to be more specific, GW has to regulate terrain. As terrain is freeform, they cannot account for all possibilities. Therefore they are better off being vague.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem is common sense is very subjective. Not to mention that during a game such calls are always going to be tainted with a degree of bias.
I'm sure we all agree that balancing on a pin head is an extreme example that shouldn't be permitted.
But where's the line?
Exactly how small an object can I balance my flyer on top of?
This is important.
Bias is an issue but that’s an issue with the community trying to gain any little advantage it can. Like I said the big problem is that this is a discussion at all. It isn’t important and isn’t down to the rules writers to tell everyone what models can be placed where or what fits means. They explained the point of wobbly model not that long ago and that should be enough. If you want to spend hours trying to balance a model on stick that’s up to you not GW to fix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: And this is where I call for the practicality test.
If it can actually be placed there without outside intervention, that works for me. I'll then let you use Wobbly model to mark the location or use other means to stabilize the model. If it can't, you need to place it somewhere it will stay.
Unfortunately, this rule must be vague because to be more specific, GW has to regulate terrain. As terrain is freeform, they cannot account for all possibilities. Therefore they are better off being vague.
^^^what he said.
Anything else leads to only specific terrain built in set ways can be used so no cool terrain or home made stuff anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/03 15:10:20
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem is common sense is very subjective. Not to mention that during a game such calls are always going to be tainted with a degree of bias.
I'm sure we all agree that balancing on a pin head is an extreme example that shouldn't be permitted.
But where's the line?
Exactly how small an object can I balance my flyer on top of?
This is important.
Common sense is sociocultural, but in no way is it "subjective". Common sense, for what it's worth, is literally basic, sound proceedings with situations in life that is common to all men. You either have common sense or you lack common sense.
skchsan wrote: Common sense is sociocultural, but in no way is it "subjective". Common sense, for what it's worth, is literally basic, sound proceedings with situations in life that is common to all men. You either have common sense or you lack common sense.
Except that's simply not true.
I despise common sense being used to essentially mean "you either agree with me and you're right, or you don't and you're stupid".
Humans are incredibly varied and all bring different life experiences and preferences that colour what they expect and deem reasonable. The whole point of rules is so that people have a common framework they can agree on without having to hash out all the minor variations in people's thoughts. Some people will argue it's an aircraft, it's not actually on the ground, so it's fine to place it on top of an aerial even though the model won't stand there itself. Others will argue it's just a hunk of plastic and if it can't sit perfectly flush on the table it's not legal.
Common sense is an extremely vague term that works fine for the black and white, it's not a good solution to the grey in between because everyone is a little different.
Niiai wrote: I define "fit" as physicaly fitin within the place. Witch I think would be the most common use of the word. (As oppose to beeing fit for instance, in the case of work outs.) So you can not place a flying unit somewhere it is does not fit. Like a chaos demon, mortarion or a hive tyrant with wings tryng to stand on a small messanine in a ruin. If the wings does not fit because the ruin walls you can not declare wobly model syndrome because it does not fit. Likevice you can not cram it sideways between 2 ruin floors and say it fits. But on top of a pin girdle there is no such physical barrier for the model.
Okay, going by your own definition, does the model fit within the place, i.e. within the footprint of the girder?
skchsan wrote: Common sense is sociocultural, but in no way is it "subjective". Common sense, for what it's worth, is literally basic, sound proceedings with situations in life that is common to all men. You either have common sense or you lack common sense.
Except that's simply not true. I despise common sense being used to essentially mean "you either agree with me and you're right, or you don't and you're stupid". Humans are incredibly varied and all bring different life experiences and preferences that colour what they expect and deem reasonable. The whole point of rules is so that people have a common framework they can agree on without having to hash out all the minor variations in people's thoughts. Some people will argue it's an aircraft, it's not actually on the ground, so it's fine to place it on top of an aerial even though the model won't stand there itself. Others will argue it's just a hunk of plastic and if it can't sit perfectly flush on the table it's not legal. Common sense is an extremely vague term that works fine for the black and white, it's not a good solution to the grey in between because everyone is a little different.
You're mixing up societal norms & expectations with common sense.
Examples of common sense would be: "communication is inherently ambiguous, particularly so in its written form. Therefore, it is prudent to understand that miscommunication is inevitable, and that when miscommunication does occur, we should strive to make attempts to understand each other rather than outright denouncing each other."
Common sense isn't about whether one is 'more right' than others. Just because more people believe in point A, it doesn't make it more right than say, point B, because of common sense. In the same line, when one argues for point B for the very sake of argument itself, whether or not argument B is actually logically sound or not, that person isn't applying one's common sense, but rather eschews all common sense and argues for the sake of argument. When we say "that's common sense", we're not saying that's what the majority believes. We're saying "you're not applying common sense, because you're constantly trying to say that 'move/moves/moving normally' is supposed to be read 'move, or moves, or moving normally' instead of 'move normally, or moves normally, or moving normally'." In this example, the common sense being applied is "English language has certain rules and are expected to be followed in order to have proper communication."
The underlying point being made is that "the WMS is a rules suggestion for protecting your miniatures with sentimental & monetary value. If the model could reasonably fit in a given space, but would otherwise expose itself to potential risk of being damaged, then the WMS rule should be invoked. WMS should not be used for gaming the rules (placing models where they can't physically fit or stay via WMS)." The common sense being asked to be employed in this particular post is: "English language has certain rules, and they should not be twisted in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, in order to make it means something else".
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/02/03 17:47:54
Common sense is defined in law in the uk in a way by using “what would an average man in the street do/think principle”. It relies on people being able to imagine what the common man would do/think. It’s not that hard. Could I balance my big expensive complicated model on a pin head and have it fit there. The answer is clearly no, it’s not what you think it’s what the average person would think. No you can’t.
I'm sorry, but this reeks of the time at a GT someone was putting Repulsor tanks on top of terrain and they were literally unable to be charged. Why are things like this argued here? I would like to know the intent behind the question? WHY is it necessary to put your flyer atop a piece of terrain? Because it lacks to movement to go elsewhere? Then it should be ok. Because you want to exploit a bit of wording that allows you to make a unit unable to be attacked in melee? That would be silly, and you should know the answer.
The underlying point being made is that "the WMS is a rules suggestion for protecting your miniatures with sentimental & monetary value. If the model could reasonably fit in a given space, but would otherwise expose itself to potential risk of being damaged, then the WMS rule should be invoked. WMS should not be used for gaming the rules (placing models where they can't physically fit or stay via WMS)." The common sense being asked to be employed in this particular post is: "English language has certain rules, and they should not be twisted in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, in order to make it means something else".
If that's the common sense you're arguing about here, it was never in question.
The thing in question here is where the line is between it can't physically fit, and it can fit but not stably.
Obviously my use of the extreme example is confusing people, so I'll walk it back.
First, let's consider the slope of a hill. It's about a steep gradient, an infantryman will happily sit on this slope. But my top heavy flyer won't, not in a million years, it overbalances immediately every time I let go. Does model physically fit? But it won't stay there at all.
Or another example. Munitorum container. The flyer's base is noticeably larger than the container it's sitting on. But the model will sit there quite happily until someone knocks it. Is that allowed?
Can it sit on an object any smaller than a munitorum container? I have reasonably stable hands, I can get it to sit there quite happily. I know others who have injuries and very shaky hands, they may not able to get it to balance. Am I just allowed to place my model on more locations?
Yes, placing models in ways where they cannot be charged is terrible and I despise it.
But let's not change one rule in a misguided attempt to fix another. We already have the 5" vertical engagement to address the problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/03 19:03:13
kirotheavenger wrote: Obviously my use of the extreme example is confusing people, so I'll walk it back.
First, let's consider the slope of a hill. It's about a steep gradient, an infantryman will happily sit on this slope. But my top heavy flyer won't, not in a million years, it overbalances immediately every time I let go. Does model physically fit? But it won't stay there at all.
The model can reasonably fit at the location, and the terrain type is a hill (which allows placement of models on top by default). Therefore, WMS applies.
kirotheavenger wrote: Or another example. Munitorum container. The flyer's base is noticeably larger than the container it's sitting on. But the model will sit there quite happily until someone knocks it. Is that allowed? Can it sit on an object any smaller than a munitorum container? I have reasonably stable hands, I can get it to sit there quite happily. I know others who have injuries and very shaky hands, they may not able to get it to balance. Am I just allowed to place my model on more locations?
The model can reasonably fit at the location. Terrain type is likely (or at least should be) Obstacle. Application of WMS falls whether or not the containers were given Scalable trait. If it does, then yes, WMS applies. If not, then no, the flyer (or any model for that matter) can't be placed on top.
Another example: Terrain is a Sanctum Administratus, assembled exactly as shown. The terrain is an Area Terrain with Scalable trait. Flyer attempts to 'land' on the 2nd floor of the terrain (not the top), but finds out that it's wingspan would not allow it to fit in the given space/location. Then, the model cannot reasonably fit at the location, therefore WMS does not apply.
For what it's worth, the application of WMS is a case-by-case scenario, and the terrain type/trait discussion is something you must figure out between the players before the game starts. If anything, I think units with VEHICLE keyword, when attempting to 'scale' a building, needs to take a dangerous ground test of sort and apply slain result to it on a certain roll.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/03 19:27:01
What about trying to place the flyer on the top floor of that ruin?
It has the Scalable trait, and you can probably get the model to balance (with a lot of base overhang).
If you're applying "it has scalable, therefore I can" then the question is not in doubt and there is no ambiguity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/03 19:36:46
kirotheavenger wrote: What about trying to place the flyer on the top floor of that ruin?
It has the Scalable trait, and you can probably get the model to balance (with a lot of base overhang).
If you're applying "it has scalable, therefore I can" then the question is not in doubt and there is no ambiguity.
No people just need to stop trying to game a concept that's been part of wargaming since before 40k exsisting.
Like FFS we had this rule understood and almost everyone I ever met played it like a sane reasonable human being back when 40k was on its 2nd edition.
Why every so often does someone have to go full nugget and try and game a rule that's only really there so you don't end up crying over your model now needing to be replaced because someone (insert chosen expletive here) 4 tables down was clumsy and bumped all the tables.
It's simple can you put the model in place and let go of it without it falling for a couple of seconds.
If yes then it's placement, rules depending obviously is valid.
If you have to hold the flaming thing then no as your holding the model in a place it can not remain unassisted.
Also you realise that you have to be able to put the model back in position to check range, line of sight etc.
Hope it's not a heavy model you need to hold at arms length for oh most of my movement phase, shooting phase & charge phase.
Seriously when did the number 1 rule stop being don't be a ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/03 19:51:21
kirotheavenger wrote: What about trying to place the flyer on the top floor of that ruin? It has the Scalable trait, and you can probably get the model to balance (with a lot of base overhang).
If you're applying "it has scalable, therefore I can" then the question is not in doubt and there is no ambiguity.
Reread above. WMS is a case-by-case and not a catch-all rule. This margin of significance ('how much of an overhang is a fit, and when does it stop being a fit?") you keep trying to invoke to make such case a valid application of WMS, this is something that needs to be hashed out with your opponent prior to game. There is no rule set in stone for terrain and how edge case models/units interact with it. If you think you should allow WMS at the 3rd story, then it's allowed. If it's not, it's not. Simple.
At the height of ridiculousness of this discussion, let's say all of my terrain are made of magnet, and I put a super-strong magnet underneath my flyer base. My flyer is affixed to its stem via glue and holds steady in any angle/position. My flyer can be attached to the side of the terrain without falling off for years. So, one can argue that the model "can fit reasonably without falling" and the terrain has Scalable trait. Does WMS apply here? After all, the rules only prohibit the application of WMS in order to make models "float" in mid air. Clearly, the word 'scalable' derives from the word scale, which means to ascend or climb, and the flyer is clearly 'climbing' up the wall.
A good example of WMS applied would be: my dark talon has a wing span of ~9 inches. There are two 10" tall terrain pieces spaced apart ~10 inches. My dark talon makes a move without going hovering (thus MUST make min 20 inch move), and the only valid location is in between the two terrain pieces. There are few decorative elements that jut out from the exterior of the terrain pieces that just so happens to be in the way of the dark talon's wings, preventing legal placement (including maintaining direction from its initial pivot) of the dark talon without exposing it to potential risk of falling and breaking. You invoke the WMS and pretend the model is there.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/02/03 20:24:43
"it's unclear, you need to hash it out with your opponent" is a perfectly reasonable answer you could have given much sooner.
It's the pretending there's some sort of objective measure that that I'm arguing against.
But I think it's quite clear that what's reasonable differs markedly between everyone here.
One person argues that the model must remain there for a few seconds, then it counts as a reasonable.
Another argues it's absolutely fine to leave the model on the slope of a hill (a position in which it's impossible to leave the model for a few seconds due to too weight).
And yet you're both arguing that it's all down to simple common sense and I'm a twit just trying to duck everyone over.
kirotheavenger wrote: "it's unclear, you need to hash it out with your opponent" is a perfectly reasonable answer you could have given much sooner.
It's the pretending there's some sort of objective measure that that I'm arguing against.
But I think it's quite clear that what's reasonable differs markedly between everyone here.
One person argues that the model must remain there for a few seconds, then it counts as a reasonable.
Another argues it's absolutely fine to leave the model on the slope of a hill (a position in which it's impossible to leave the model for a few seconds due to too weight).
And yet you're both arguing that it's all down to simple common sense and I'm a twit just trying to duck everyone over.
What hills are you using that you can't place the model in the correct possition unsupported for a few seconds.
Seriously kids these days, oh how funny it would be seeing them trying to balance the OG socknaughts on an incline.
Heck I remember the amount of models I have had to counter balance just to make them stand up on a flat surface. Yet guess what every one of them could be made to stay in place on a sloping hill even on relms of battle boards.
kirotheavenger wrote: "it's unclear, you need to hash it out with your opponent" is a perfectly reasonable answer you could have given much sooner.
It's the pretending there's some sort of objective measure that that I'm arguing against.
But I think it's quite clear that what's reasonable differs markedly between everyone here. One person argues that the model must remain there for a few seconds, then it counts as a reasonable. Another argues it's absolutely fine to leave the model on the slope of a hill (a position in which it's impossible to leave the model for a few seconds due to too weight). And yet you're both arguing that it's all down to simple common sense and I'm a twit just trying to duck everyone over.
What hills are you using that you can't place the model in the correct possition unsupported for a few seconds.
Seriously kids these days, oh how funny it would be seeing them trying to balance the OG socknaughts on an incline.
Heck I remember the amount of models I have had to counter balance just to make them stand up on a flat surface. Yet guess what every one of them could be made to stay in place on a sloping hill even on relms of battle boards.
I also remember the days where I used to counter weigh my 25mm base models - US nickel would fit like a glove underneath the cavity of the bases.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: "it's unclear, you need to hash it out with your opponent" is a perfectly reasonable answer you could have given much sooner.
It's the pretending there's some sort of objective measure that that I'm arguing against.
But I think it's quite clear that what's reasonable differs markedly between everyone here. One person argues that the model must remain there for a few seconds, then it counts as a reasonable. Another argues it's absolutely fine to leave the model on the slope of a hill (a position in which it's impossible to leave the model for a few seconds due to too weight). And yet you're both arguing that it's all down to simple common sense and I'm a twit just trying to duck everyone over.
My answer was given on the first page of this discussion, while emphasizing that all terrain related shenanigans should be hashed out PRIOR to the game for the benefit of both players. In fact, all things not covered by the rules word for word without a shadow of a doubt should be discussed prior to the game.
For what it's worth, in the example I gave before with the sanctum administratum, you can easily assign Unstable Position (top level) and Scalable (2nd floor) to the Area Terrain.
As the OP described a non-specific, highly theoretical ("can I place it here if it can balance on a top of a pin") edge-case scenario, I cannot lend any specific 'opinions' about the case. I can only provide a general rule (or the lack of) which can be found in the rulebook.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/02/03 21:36:35
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but this reeks of the time at a GT someone was putting Repulsor tanks on top of terrain and they were literally unable to be charged. Why are things like this argued here? I would like to know the intent behind the question? WHY is it necessary to put your flyer atop a piece of terrain? Because it lacks to movement to go elsewhere? Then it should be ok. Because you want to exploit a bit of wording that allows you to make a unit unable to be attacked in melee? That would be silly, and you should know the answer.
Unfortunately many of the folk who inhabit this dark corner of dakka love an argument about rubbish like this and will forever ignore the likes of me and you and common sense for sake of being smarter than those arguing against them.
