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.

I have struggled through 8th with the "wholly within" terrain rules. Do they mean every model, every part of every model, ahhh...

But now for 10th ed preview they leak the new concept of "wholly on top", huzzah!

I bring you 5 cases. Wich of these 5 examples do you consider the unit of 2 warhounds to be "wholly on top" of the hill?

I'd say 1st and 4th

I can understand why they chose the wording 'wholly on top' instead of 'wholly within'.

I had this exact conversation with a friend last edition.

'Wholly within' is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean wholly within the concave portion of the crater or just wholly within the perimeter of the terrain feature?

'Wholly on top of' I think is less ambiguous and can be read as 'wholly within the perimeter of the terrain feature'.

Pictures 1 and 4 above would receive cover.

Hmm interesting interpetations. I would assume 3 is wholly on top aswell as no part of the base is touching table or other terrain features. If its not on top of the terrain, then what is it on top of?

 Gitdakka wrote:
Hmm interesting interpetations. I would assume 3 is wholly on top aswell as no part of the base is touching table or other terrain features. If its not on top of the terrain, then what is it on top of?

I guess a FAQ on this will follow the same interpretation you can already read in the Hills type section of the article: " Both models and other terrain features can sit on top of hills provided they don’t overhang the edge".

Case closed.

I would say 1 and 4 are wholly on top of the terrain. For me, on top is meant to signify that the entire base is on or above the terrain piece, not that the three dimensional nature of the terrain prevents the base from touching the table top.

Case 3 the model isn't wholly on top of the hill. Part of the model is above the table and not the hill.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Case 3 the model isn't wholly on top of the hill. Part of the model is above the table and not the hill.

Yes. The same goes for image 5

Why don’t we wait for 10th rules before 10th rules threads? Just a thought. This subforum is for advice on how to resolve game situations. We can’t do that for a ruleset that doesn’t yet exist for us.

As others have said, 1 & 4. The entire base of the models needs to be above the footprint of the hill/crater and not the ground level.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why don’t we wait for 10th rules before 10th rules threads? Just a thought. This subforum is for advice on how to resolve game situations. We can’t do that for a ruleset that doesn’t yet exist for us.

We do have bits and pieces so if people have questions on how those bits of rules work this is the place to do so. It is true that we don't have the complete picture yet so the answer may not be fully correct but that is just how it is.

1 & 4 certainly. 3 counts as wobbly model in my book.

This will get clearified. In 9th edition "whole within" refered to every units base in a unit needed to be touching a terrain piece. Whole where reffering to every units in the model. This will all be fixed. No need to cry wolf. Unless you are an Aha fan, in witch case just play that tune!

 Niiai wrote:
This will get clearified. In 9th edition "whole within" refered to every units base in a unit needed to be touching a terrain piece. Whole where reffering to every units in the model. This will all be fixed. No need to cry wolf. Unless you are an Aha fan, in witch case just play that tune!

Well thats how i read it in 8th first aswell, but then they had deployment rules stating minis set up "wholly within" deployment zones. As only touching the zone would be insane, i swiched camps into "wholly within" meaning every model and every part of those models within, not just touching.

I do not remember 8th edition that well. I just know I really liked ninth for providing clearer rulings.

The 8th edition GSC needed you to deploy only touching the blip, and not within the deployment zone. Meaning you could start your trucks outside of the deployment zone and then use them as a spring board for charging. (In 8th edition the rest of the models needed to be withing your deployment zone, but the initial model dod not have such restrictions.) The point of this anecdote is tonilustrate that 8th could be a mess, and ninth is better. I am hoping 10 will be good.

 Gitdakka wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This will get clearified. In 9th edition "whole within" refered to every units base in a unit needed to be touching a terrain piece. Whole where reffering to every units in the model. This will all be fixed. No need to cry wolf. Unless you are an Aha fan, in witch case just play that tune!

Well thats how i read it in 8th first aswell, but then they had deployment rules stating minis set up "wholly within" deployment zones. As only touching the zone would be insane, i swiched camps into "wholly within" meaning every model and every part of those models within, not just touching.

Wholly within distance in 9e is slightly different to wholly within terrain.

In terrain if you are in terrain you are wholly within.

Wholly within distance(aura, deployment etc), is whole base within.

Refer glossary.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gitdakka wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
This will get clearified. In 9th edition "whole within" refered to every units base in a unit needed to be touching a terrain piece. Whole where reffering to every units in the model. This will all be fixed. No need to cry wolf. Unless you are an Aha fan, in witch case just play that tune!

Well thats how i read it in 8th first aswell, but then they had deployment rules stating minis set up "wholly within" deployment zones. As only touching the zone would be insane, i swiched camps into "wholly within" meaning every model and every part of those models within, not just touching.

Wholly within distance in 9e is slightly different to wholly within terrain.

In terrain if you are in terrain you are wholly within.

Wholly within distance(aura, deployment etc), is whole base within.

Refer glossary.

Well in that case, by 9th definition would every model on top (partially) count as whole unit being "wholly on top"?

Meaning all 5 cases in my OP are wholly on top?

9e doesn't have wholly top.

Pointless to try to figure out how 10e rule we know not of works rn 9e where isn't that rule.

Play 9e or 10e. Not imaginary mix of them

tneva82 wrote:
9e doesn't have wholly top.

Pointless to try to figure out how 10e rule we know not of works rn 9e where isn't that rule.

Play 9e or 10e. Not imaginary mix of them

No need to be rude.

This thread will inevetebly have speculation to some extent, as we only have a rules teaser to go by. Now using historical context of 9th or 8th is usefull for understanding what gw try to communicate. "Wholly within" and "wholly on top" having similar meanings is not that far fetched. If you think having a light hearted discussion of this new rules concept GW has introduced is pointless, don't reply. I find it interesting at least.

The premises of the discussion is a bit twofold. On one side you are semantically trying to find all the different ways to interpret the rule. On the other side there is the implication that the implementation of the rule will be bad and we have to have discussions like this to determine the raw vs the rai of the rules.

Over the course of ninth their rule writing has become much better including using a more standarised language. I am sure 10th will be even better.

I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

To me, that's merely "on top", not "wholly" so.

 Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

Dudeface wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

If 4 clowncars have one wheel in one parking space, are they all in the parking space as intended? It all depends on the intention does it not?

If the intention is to be 'wholly' in the parking space - then no, they aren't... :p

Crispy78 wrote:
If the intention is to be 'wholly' in the parking space - then no, they aren't... :p

I would say it depens if I mean "wholly" as in "the whole group" or "every part of every participant of the group". Two different intentions for same wording having very different implications.

 Gitdakka wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

If 4 clowncars have one wheel in one parking space, are they all in the parking space as intended? It all depends on the intention does it not?

No. It doesn't. It matters if they're in the space. Can't quite follow where the metaphor is supposed to be going, but the wording of the rule is quite clear in English.
Unless there's some GW-ese language defining it differently waiting in the rulebook, the base of the model needs to be entirely within the bounds of the terrain feature.

Voss wrote:

 Gitdakka wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gangland wrote:
I'll wait till the rulebook is out to criticize, but I will say, if needed, I would houserule it that as long as 51% of the model is on top of the terrain feature it would be "wholly on top."

If the car is 51% in the parking space, is it in the parking space as intended?

If 4 clowncars have one wheel in one parking space, are they all in the parking space as intended? It all depends on the intention does it not?

No. It doesn't. It matters if they're in the space. Can't quite follow where the metaphor is supposed to be going, but the wording of the rule is quite clear in English.
Unless there's some GW-ese language defining it differently waiting in the rulebook, the base of the model needs to be entirely within the bounds of the terrain feature.

 Lorek wrote:


These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up...

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Most importantly #3...

 Gitdakka wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
If the intention is to be 'wholly' in the parking space - then no, they aren't... :p

I would say it depens if I mean "wholly" as in "the whole group" or "every part of every participant of the group". Two different intentions for same wording having very different implications.

This is arguing against the basic meaning of the word.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wholly

wholly
in British English

ADVERB
1. completely, totally, or entirely
2. without exception; exclusively

Otherwise, the rules already shown clear up the points you've raised. They specifically mention it is per model, e.g. for craters and rubble: "Each time a ranged attack is allocated to an INFANTRY model that is wholly on top of this terrain feature, that model has the Benefit Of Cover against that attack"

Aha well spotted! I did not see they made the rules distinction on a model per model basis. Had they said "each time a unit is wholly...." it would be hard to understand.

"But each time a model is wholly..." is a lot clearer with the distinction


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Would you guys be hardcore with models being "wholly on top", including cannons, banners wings etc.? Because as i see it that is how the Rule is written. Or are you content with only the base?

Depends on how the model rules are written. Often, GW focuses on the base (for infantry at least, in terms of movement and measuring), so the base is all that matters.

The big thing here is that 'wholly on top' has alternatives that are easy to demonstrate, ie: 'if a model is partially within (or touching) any element of this terrain feature, it gains the benefit of cover.' That's where your other cases would come up.

And its the kind of thing that has been done in past editions. So if they wanted partial overlap to work for 'benefit of cover', they just would have said that.


Also keep in mind, groups don't matter for this rule. Benefit of Cover is on a model by model basis, not the unit. If you're using terrain that can't completely fit at least a 40mm base or 2 25mm bases, your terrain is inadequate, (unless its something really specific, like a lookout post or an exposed control station for a bridge, tractor beam or similar for a single operator)