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.

Andykp wrote:

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.

I am constantly reminded of the argument someone got in on this sub a while back, regarding the RAI of whether or not taking a wound that is later nullified by a FnP actually counts as "Taking a wound". This went on for 5-6 pages, and the person never gave in. I really admire the tenacity of some of the people on this sub to stick to an idea. Truthfully, I learn a lot from this sub, and I'm glad it exists. I just wish there wasn't so much "That depends on what the definition of "is" is, and whether or not the narrator is wearing purple socks" style arguments.

In the words of the great Eddie Izzard:

Let's just call it a SPOON Jim!. And we'll put words around the Spoon to tell what type of dog it has, and when it goes to the Bathroom.

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

My Stormraven is very top heavy, it topples over from just a slight incline.
I don't see what relevance your objection has. Especially since the exact same argument would apply to an OG Socknaught trying to balance.
You'll also notice I specifically defined the gradient of thr hill has sufficient such that the flyer tips over.
All sorts of hills have this problem, such as GW's craters that most infantry won't balance on. Although the texture of the terrain helps as well.

As pointed out, YMDC is a place for discussing what the rules say. Not to share what we would gentlemanly agree with your opponent.
I find discussing the extreme cases to be interesting. Just sticking to the obvious cases "does my model fit in a flst open plain" and agreeing to be thoroughly uninteresting.

The fact if the matter is the rules say "if the model fits". What does fit mean?
To me it seems pretty obvious that there needs to be be room to accommodate the model. But people are arguing WMS is perfect for placing a model somewhere it can't go but there's terrain sticking in the way. To me that model clearly doesn't fit.
In practice I would accept that it should fit and random greebly bits shouldn't have a massive affect on the game, so would allow the model to be placed there. But this is YMDC, the rules don't say to do that. In fact WMS doesn't even really apply as the model is perfectly stable there and is in little danger of falling over.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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.

I am constantly reminded of the argument someone got in on this sub a while back, regarding the RAI of whether or not taking a wound that is later nullified by a FnP actually counts as "Taking a wound". This went on for 5-6 pages, and the person never gave in. I really admire the tenacity of some of the people on this sub to stick to an idea. Truthfully, I learn a lot from this sub, and I'm glad it exists. I just wish there wasn't so much "That depends on what the definition of "is" is, and whether or not the narrator is wearing purple socks" style arguments.

In the words of the great Eddie Izzard:

Let's just call it a SPOON Jim!. And we'll put words around the Spoon to tell what type of dog it has, and when it goes to the Bathroom.

I just wish the sub was more welcoming and less of a place to try and show off how clever you think you are. Must be horrible to pop in hoping for some as noob to the hobby!

 doctortom wrote:

 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?

Yes. I can physically place it on top of the girder.


However as I pointed out further up this is a moot point for scalable aria terain. Obstacles with scalable on the other hand, yes.


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.

I hashed it out with my opponent. We where unsure but said yes. Then I asked here. However, by now I found the awnser.

But I do not think it is too much to demand that such questions have an awnser. Hashing it out with the opponent when I am asking here really do not help as I am not playing you guys (any time soon at least.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

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.

In this case it was just a question of practicalitaty. As the gap between the building and the terain was to big for the plane as they can not end the move sideways.

Of course here we discuss the rule in the abstract. Usually baconbug or somebody else has the awnser you need. It appears this has become a hot potato.

@Niiai To be frank, it sounds like one of you are trying to game the system.

From what I understand, you're trying to balance the flyer on top of the pointy, decorative vertical pieces at the edge of the flat platform. The way I see it, this is a case of stretching the definition of what "fit" means, and is no different than models existing partially within walls or floating along the side of the building. Right now, you're TECHNICALLY fitting. And when you're technically right about something, then it's usually in a grey area.

IMO, WMS should only be used when a legal movement cannot be completed safely because of the arrangement of terrain/models. It's not a rule that you should invoke to justify whether or not the move is legal or not. In other words, if you are planning out your move with the intention of invoking the WMS, then it's most likely not a case for WMS.

 skchsan wrote:
@Niiai To be frank, it sounds like one of you are trying to game the system.

From what I understand, you're trying to balance the flyer on top of the pointy, decorative vertical pieces at the edge of the flat platform. The way I see it, this is a case of stretching the definition of what "fit" means, and is no different than models existing partially within walls or floating along the side of the building. Right now, you're TECHNICALLY fitting. And when you're technically right about something, then it's usually in a grey area.

IMO, WMS should only be used when a legal movement cannot be completed safely because of the arrangement of terrain/models. It's not a rule that you should invoke to justify whether or not the move is legal or not. In other words, if you are planning out your move with the intention of invoking the WMS, then it's most likely not a case for WMS.

No we are not. Neather of us knew the rules. I asked here for the rules. People on here do not seem to know the rules either, witch let me to belive the rules are abigius. That is not gaming the system.

However, I did find the awnser to the question I was asking. And no, it is not allowed. However you will runn into a similar as the one we have discussed/are currently discussing if you where to have an obstacle (as opposed to aria terain) with the 'scalable' rule.* In the picture provided on the rulebook there is one container flat, and another one at at 45% angle. Since it is scalable and it is an obstacle models would be allowed to walk on top of it. Including the 45% angle. This would also include planes, asuming they fit. (Meaning they physically fit, as in no part of their plastic is crashing into other parts of plastic.) You could of course call wobbly model syndrome as it can not stand on a 45% angle.

We could of course argue how you define 'gaming the system' but it all seems very clean cut to me.

*As it is a rather long thread I can as a reminder point out that area terain with the scalable rule only alows you to be on the upper floor of a piece of terain (and ground floor). This would exclude girders etc. as well as any floor betwen topp floor and ground floor. That are the rules as they are writter. However, there is no place that states how much of your base need to fit, only that it needs to fit, so you could have 10% of the base on the topp floor and call wobly model syndrom. The previus sentence is my interpretation of the rule and it seems to be the point people on both sides of the debate keeps getting back to, in one for, or another.

In the rule you refer to the wording includes the term “upper floors”, not upper floor, and that means “all floors above the ground floor”. If you read it correctly it helps.

Ah Istand corrected. Dyslexia.

This is part of the problem when people start going raw Lawyer and start trying to select key phrases and words instead of reading the entire paragraph. GW doesn't do high skilled technical writing.

Sometimes you may find that a particular terrain feature makes it hard(1) for you to place a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance(2) 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. In cases like this(3), provided it is still physically possible to place the model in the desired location(4), you may find it helps to leave a model in a safer position, so long as both players agree and know its 'actual' location. If, later on, an enemy model is shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in place so they can check visibility.

1 Note they say hard, not impossible for you to place the model.
Hence if the model will not fit or would require breaking a rule to fit it's not a legal possition for the model so the model can not end it move their regardless of Wobbly Model

2 Balance, not hold

verb
put (something) in a steady position so that it does not fall

3 in cases like this so tying the rule to the previous sentences conditions being met.

4 once again GW reference that the model must physically be able to be placed in the desired position.

So for your 45 degree slope container if your model will balance without your assistance then have met condition the conditions 1, 2 and 4.

If the model falls without you holding it then NO for multiple reasons

1 you are admiting it is not possible for you to place the model in your desired position

2 if you have to hold the thing it's clearly not possible to balance the model

4 again holding is not placing the model hence you can not place the model in that possition physically.

If you know you're going to need to invoke the WMS, then it's likely not a proper "fit".

The WMS should be invoked only when you know a model is supposed to fit but doesn't because of reasons. It shouldn't be invoked to allow you to put models in places that it shouldn't fit but does because of technicality.

You do not need to invoke WMS. You just say 'I place it here' and drop it. It will crash to the table but it was a legal move. Those parts of the rule seems quite clear. Asumed as long as you have been 'dumb enough' to deem an obstacle terrain piece have scalable without good surfaces/angels. Like the crates in the ilustrated picture.

However, I am sure it will be relevant very rarly.

If you were trying to place a flyer atop anything that would inherently make it so that it cannot be charged, it is gaming the system. I can't say if you have done or were trying to do that, however there was a LOT of it in 8th, and it was pretty heavily abused. I think that's what myself and a few others were apprehensive about.

 Niiai wrote:
You do not need to invoke WMS. You just say 'I place it here' and drop it. It will crash to the table but it was a legal move. Those parts of the rule seems quite clear. Asumed as long as you have been 'dumb enough' to deem an obstacle terrain piece have scalable without good surfaces/angels. Like the crates in the ilustrated picture.

However, I am sure it will be relevant very rarly.

Yeah then it's not valid, you want to go that daft Yeah I can place models in any point of free space above the table and say I place the model here the fact that is 36+ inches above the objective so yeh you can't shoot rhem even standing below them and objectives don't actually have a high characteristic so as long as the model has fly that's a 0 inch charge on my own turn on your foot sloging infantry. After moving to be within any range requirements for my shooting in my own movement phase.

Arguments based clearly on thw wording of the printed rule has been made your nolonger arguing in good faith.

Models that don’t fit can’t invoke WMS.
Models that aren’t stable on their own before removing your hand can’t invoke WMS.
Both of these are implicit in the rules as written.

Honestly folks, it’s the clearest and least argument-causing version of the rule yet. Don’t make it harder that it has to be. If it fits, it sits, like a cat. If knocking the table might jeopardise your model, then it’s WMS time. It’s not a substitute for physics.

I would almost agree with you, except that prohibits flyers from positioning on most moderate slopes.
It would also prevent infantry from taking position on may slopes, the sides of GW's craters are particularly slippery.

It also suggests it's possible to place a model there by hooking on with an outstretched arm or something, as that allows the model to stay where it otherwise wouldn't.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I would almost agree with you, except that prohibits flyers from positioning on most moderate slopes.
It would also prevent infantry from taking position on may slopes, the sides of GW's craters are particularly slippery.

It also suggests it's possible to place a model there by hooking on with an outstretched arm or something, as that allows the model to stay where it otherwise wouldn't.

Whaddya know, some common sense! Welcome, you’re much needed around here!!! Who’s running these slopes on their tables though? Planet bowling ball with a few ruins is the default, no?

Except for that last line, that’s asking for broken models and is not the spirit of the rule.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models that aren’t stable on their own before removing your hand can’t invoke WMS.

Well that is absolutely not true. I have a StormRaven that would never be able to sit on any sort of incline or decline if that were true, since the SR is extremely top heavy and will tip over instantly if it is on any type of hill.

When I played at home during my yoof, I had the green static grass mat that GW sold, and we used to place books underneath it to make hills.
A lot of people use GW's Realm of Battle board, particularly in GW stores. 2/3 of that table contains hills.
I think hills are pretty common, although a lot of hills are more like a block with bevelled edges cut from foam or something.
GW's craters are pretty ubiquitous as terrain, and they have sloped sides (and the smooth plastic means most infantry can't even get a grip).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models that aren’t stable on their own before removing your hand can’t invoke WMS.

Well that is absolutely not true. I have a StormRaven that would never be able to sit on any sort of incline or decline if that were true, since the SR is extremely top heavy and will tip over instantly if it is on any type of hill.

I have a broken stormraven and will testify to its balance issues.

This is why absolutely no one ever weighs down bases

 alextroy wrote:
This is why absolutely no one ever weighs down bases

That is just modelling for advantage in one interpretation of the rules. ;-)

 Niiai wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
This is why absolutely no one ever weighs down bases

That is just modelling for advantage in one interpretation of the rules. ;-)

How so?

Because the you would be able to balance in places where you should not of crouse! Before you know it you have terain made out of metal and have magnets underneath your bases.

(This was of course sarcasemn. In my line of thought you do not need to balance your models.)

Heck, there are some models you can't balance on a flat surface because they are overweighted (hello, Hormagaunts).

Oh god yes. I have not run them for a while I had forgotten.

 alextroy wrote:
Heck, there are some models you can't balance on a flat surface because they are overweighted (hello, Hormagaunts).

Rebase or weight the base. Be practical about it. Let’s not pretend that a poorly-designed infantry kit or old metal model on 25mm legitimises the daftness posited upthread!

I in no way implied that. I just pointed out that weighing down bases to avoid models falling over from minimal balance issues is nothing unusual.

Ah that’s good then!