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 I have recently seen some people say that due to wobbly model syndrome a model (particularly a Flying one) can assault from the top of a building down the side to enemy models below that are base to wall with the tower that are otherwise inaccessible due to bubble wrap units. Is this true? I thought you needed to be able to fit the base of the assaulting model where it ends the charge and wobbly model just let you not place it if it would fall over or be unsteady. I did not think it was a carte blanche to assault anywhere.

Here is an example of an issue another person had with this issue:

have a question regarding the ruling of charge

I had my hive guard parked just against the wall of a high tower of the fortress of redemption, leaving no room for any model to stand between the guards and the wall. I also bubble wrapped my guards with warriors so that no enemy unit can get within 1" of my guards on the open ground.

Then, my friend flied his heldrake and parked it on the tower. He claims the heldrake can just charge my guards despite there is no room for it to be within 1" of my guards. He says the heldrake is flying so it just needs 2" to charge my guards. He cites the wobbly model syndrome, saying although his heldrake cannot stopped with 1" of my guards, he can just put his flying heldrake on the top of the tower, pretending it stopped within 1" of my guards at some point of the wall of the tower, where my guards parked against.

Do you think this is the rule allows?

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.

It's not about any abuse and not even a ruin ( as mentioned in the post above its a fortress of redemption) the question is if you put your models back to a wall and surround them with bubble wrap units can an enemy assault them?

Timeshadow wrote:
It's not about any abuse and not even a ruin ( as mentioned in the post above its a fortress of redemption) the question is if you put your models back to a wall and surround them with bubble wrap units can an enemy assault them?

Yes. There are no rules claiming you need to have room for your model's base to do it yet there are rules indicating what happens with ruins. Infantry can climb ruins and stop midway per GW, Flyers simply ignore the terrain and act like it's not even there, and Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry, and Bikes aren't allowed to climb or assault up ruins at all because their base has to remain on the ground level. Note: Fly keyword overrides the Vehicle+ exception.

Covers just about everyone, doesn't it? If you can find a loophole somewhere that isn't list in what I just said, go for it.

The rules about this are vague and unclear. Infantry can climb vertical walls and stop midway, if they dont make it to the upper level. The rule says to use WMS in that case, but the WMS rule says you must be able to delicately balance the model in place, you cant do that on a vertical wall, it would fall down. Using common sense i would say that a flying unit can fly, or hover in mid air 1" from your model(s), and attack them. You should talk about situations like this before you play. Trying to make your units unchargeable with unclear rules is not fair.

Ok I guess the edge of the board is the only "safe" wall you can use then good to know. As I said it just seemed odd that a few units of infantry bubblewrap can prevent a flyer or anything from charging the wrapped unit as long as the wrap is 2" or more thick and leaves no room for a base inside but a wall can't.

"Units gain no benefit from cover in the fight phase"

However "He cites the wobbly model syndrome, saying although his heldrake cannot stopped with 1" of my guards, he can just put his flying heldrake on the top of the tower, pretending it stopped within 1" of my guards at some point of the wall of the tower, where my guards parked against. "

Movement rules are pretty clear that models cannot end their movement within 1" of an enemy model (besides in the fight phase - and then it must be an enemy they have declared a charge on). He can do a lot of things with a flyer but he can't say it ended its move on top of your Guards IMO. If he can't find a spot that fits WMS that ends the models move within 1" its not really a completed charge. WMS and the Helldrake Rules and Fly don't all convince me that it's Base is meant to be ignored and nothing is available to cite saying bases can overlap - much less enemy bases in combat. So its up to both of you - but I'd want to see images of your setup because I bet he could WMS over some things such as the 4 corners; even if you DID manage a lockout, it sounds like even 1 casualty in your unit opens up his WMS foothold, so he just needs to pick off 1 guard before charging and he's good.

The thing is, a 'wall' is not always a 'wall'. If the wall is part of a ruin, then it has very specific rules, which means infantry can move right through it, but non-vehicle models cannot.

If its just a stand-alone wall, then who knows? This would count as 'scratch-built terrain' (pg 251 of the rulebook), in which case you and your opponent are the ones that need to decide how that wall actually plays.

Regardless of which way you play, remember that it is entirely possible for a model to fight in close combat right through a solid object (like a wall) if they are within 1" of the enemy that is on the other side of that wall, so clearly what some people think of as common sense doesn't always apply when following the rules.

As others have pointed out, the exact parameters of how far the wobbly model syndrome rules can be pushed is still quite unclear, with the only thing GW has currently made clear via a FAQ is that infantry (and only infantry) are allowed to end their move hovering in mid-air on the side of a ruin wall using the WMS.

GW still hasn't clarified whether they intend for infantry units up on the upper level of terrain to be essentially unchargeable from non-infantry units (who aren't allowed to climb the ruin).

So until they provide some more clarification, you really need to discuss these types of things with your opponent before the game and get on the same page so neither of you has something happen during the game that you feel is unfair.

Doesn't it have a datacard?

Can a Model end it's turn within what we would previously called "Impassable Terrain?"
Does this extend to Models that possess the FLY Keyword?

We have to accept the fact that Game Workshop has never written decent rules for Terrain. Every edition released we see Terrain rules being removed from the game, sometimes being shunted to other places where they make no god damn sense, and 8th Edition is no exception. One of the things they did in 7th to cover up the fact they are giving up on Terrain, and have continued in 8th as per Page 251, was to literally state 'Players have to determine this between themselves.' Not only do you have permission to make a 'enemy can not charge through this piece of terrain' rule by adding it to the Datasheet, you are required to have a Datasheet detailing these rules in the first place before you can use the terrain in question.

Now, this is the part I found very interesting as I research for my answers here in the past and that hasn't ended in my return:
A quick search for the word "impassable" brought only a single response back for me and it was within the 'Scratch Built Terrain' rules in direct relation to Buildings. It simply states: Some players prefer to say that certain terrain features, such as giant rock formations or imposing sealed buildings, are simply impassable to any models. I found this to be very interesting because, without a deeper search to find where they might be hidden that an e-search failed to find them, it would suggest there is no such thing as impassable terrain until players determine what that means between themselves. Wouldn't have even needed to be a flyer, in the Opening Posters situation, for the unit to be able to finish it's move inside the Building in question....

For those further willing to consider 'What the writers intended' over what is written, considering we have reached a point where 'Rules Break' because we are outright told we must make our own rules, I would like for you to consider the following. The previous sentence on that very topic reads: Perhaps you will create a river (presumably a fantastical one filled with lava or acid) with entirely new rules, agreeing that the only models that can cross it safely are those that can FLY . We have two sentences informing us that certain Terrain should be flagged as 'impassable to models without Fly' and some terrain should be flagged as 'Impassable to any Models.' Buildings, such as the one being discussed here, are placed within the 'All Model' category by the page section being discussed when it says most players will consider these sealed buildings to be what we used to call impassable terrain.

Thus; I don't believe it was the writers intention for a Model to be able to finish it's movement, charge or otherwise, INSIDE a building simply to charge the unit from behind and that is where the Model would have to be legally placed before Wobbly Model Syndrome can even kick in.

Personally:
Terrain sits in the same pile of 'do not bother discussing here' for the same reason as Wobbly Model Syndrome and The Most Important Rule does. These three Rules in question have specifically stated that you need your opponents consent to use this rule. Thus any player who simply states 'I would not allow it' is going to be able to provide a Rule as Written reason for why it will never work in a game. The fact that Game Workshop requires your opponent's consent in order to do X or Y with terrain ensures the only person you can discuss these problems with are your opponent and not faceless voices on the internet.

- Added -
The second thing that keeps coming to mind, and is only a question the Opening Poser can answer:-
Was this actually purchased as part of your Army, or was it placed as Terrain?
Cause if it was purchased as part of the Army then that opens an entirely different Can of Worms that makes me wonder how the Heldrake got onto the tower in the first place....

If the Fortress was purchased as part of the army then it is an 'enemy model' and WMS doesn't allow a model to be on/over enemy models.

If it was not and is standing in for a ruin or an impassable lump on the table then he has a claim.

Then again WMS is purely there to consider placement when the terrain is to awkward to place a model - WMS can't be used to say you are above an enemy model. If you took the terrain away, leaving your soldiers exactly in place would the Heldrake fit? If not he can't use WMS to assault.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
If the Fortress was purchased as part of the army then it is an 'enemy model' and WMS doesn't allow a model to be on/over enemy models.

If its done that way, the Tyrant Guards are considered to be embarked passengers and CC is resolved rather differently.

One does not Embark by standing beside a Transport, even with their backs pressed up against the Hull like they really want to be inside of it.


Serious question though:
I could be going blind, I am old and this is a new book, but I am having a hard time finding a 'can not end your move on top of/or inside a Model / Impassable Terrain' restriction here. To be fair, I am not able to find Rules at all for Impassable Terrain but that is an entirely new problem, and why I no longer discuss Terrain on message boards aside from lamenting I can no longer discuss Terrain on a message boards. For those confused, previous editions of the book also had Rules allowing one to move through terrain and models as if they where not present. All these rules all contained exception clauses informing us the Model in question still had to end it's move 1 inch away from Enemies, could not end on-top of Friendly models, and other restrictions that made it impossible to end the move physically inside of another Model from a Rule as Written stance, not just Common Sense stance.

The removal of such things is... puzzling... as they where good straight forward instructions.
Of course, if I was to get into a deep Rule Lawyer mindset I would highlight that the Rule does state 'across' and not 'through,...'


Personally, I do not believe the Authors intended for a Model to physically end it's movement inside of another Model.

When I read the Opening Post, it was clear the charging Model had to end it's move physically inside of another Model in order to attack from that position. These Hive Guard had their arses pressed up against that wall, in order to prevent an assault from the rear, and the Opponent is now Assaulting from the Rear. There was a reason the opponent in this situation was using Wobbly Model Syndrome in the first place, and it wasn't because a rock on the scenery was making the Model tilt to the side a bit too much... he wanted to end physically inside of that wall in order to be 1 inch from the Target bases.

The other case I envisioned was diving on top of them from above, little Horizontal movement to clear the base over the wall and then down to an inch from the enemies bases. This move would also require Wobbly Model Syndrome, as you would need to hold the Model physically above the models in question and letting go will cause Gravity to do it's thing. The problem with this maneuver is it also leaves the Model 'Clipping' through another Model, as the Target is not a collection of empty Bases but actually have a physical Model taking up that space above them.

One last parting thing to the Opening Poster though:
Learn the words 'I do not give Consent to use Wobbly Model Syndrome in this manor' and do not be afraid to use them.
It is a rule that needs your consent for a reason, to avoid opponents abusing it to do silly things with Terrain, so do not allow your opponent to use this Rule unless you agree the use is justified.

JinxDragon wrote:
One does not Embark by standing beside a Transport, even with their backs pressed up against the Hull like they really want to be inside of it.

I will just say there is a leak of the datacard for the Fortress online, and that it handles this very clearly: models are embarked and have firepoints as if it was open-topped. Placing models on the setpiece itself is only done to remind players of the models embarked in the fortress.

Of course that only applies if you have the rules (from whatever book its from) and aren't treating it as a custom ruin.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0DgJ3xARCfM/UGqVhIgiM4I/AAAAAAAANh0/6KYpiW6Co1s/s400/%255BUNSET%255D

While not exact, that is what I am picturing with the Opening Posters describes of their backs being to the wall. The Model in the picture represents the Unit being Targeted, only right up against the Fortress' wall with a bubble wrap of other Models around it. The Hel-drake was parked up on top of the tower just out of shot, as it has a flat top and can easily balance a Model there, and the Model in question has Rules allowing it to move through Terrain. Putting aside half a dozen little questions I could raise, some that prevent it being there in the first place, let us just state the Heldrake is legally positioned and has made the Charge distance, in order to focus on the part of the problem I have been addressing.

In order to be placed behind the Model in that picture, again assuming it was a inch or so back, the Heldrake would have to end the Charge Move physically inside the Fortress of Redemption. The opponent in this situation is arguing that Wobbly Model Syndrome allows this to occur, and all they require is to cross the distance from chargers base to once inch of the target's base. The only thing that is preventing the Model from being placed where the charger wants to place it in the first place is the entire Fortress that was placed there previously!

Even if we place the Target Unit onto the Fortress, with the back right up against the tower proper, it still has changed the problem of where the Opening Posters opponent would have wanted to place the Heldrake. While we both agree that such would not have been the correct way to play it, the same problem exists as the Charger needs to be physically placed inside the solid matter making up the Tower in question to be behind the Targeted Unit. That was the entire purpose of putting the back to the wall, because it was impossible to place a Model in a location that would allow an attack from that direction. It was a good solid wall as well, an entire Fortress of Redemption, which is why the Opening Poster likely feels cheated by what they views as a bad-faith use of Wobbly Model Syndrome.

So, in my understanding of the problem, the question is:
Can a Model end it's Move physically inside another Model, using Wobbly Model Syndrome to justify it?
As I don't agree to the final position, as required by Wobbly Model Syndrome, the answer is No.

It does actually hinge on the use of the Fortress in the game. If the Fortress is a purchased component then it is a intact model (not 'terrain') - in essence an immobile vehicle and the Heldrake can no more park on top of it than it could on top of an enemy Land Raider. There would not be room to charge.

If, however, it is a 'ruin' it is actually terrain - a part of the table that provides cover - it's walls and ceilings a feature that may block LOS - but not necessarily movement. A model with FLY would be entitled to be 'on/in' the terrain and therefore use WMS to charge the enemy.

A model with the fly rule can move through terrain without penalty. However only infantry can move through ruin walls freely.
So while it has the fly rule, it is not infantry and no part of it can, or even be considered to be intersecting the wall. So it cannot WMS on the wall to make an assault because it would then be in the wall of the ruin, and it cannot be.

If it's not a Ruin and it's an actual building then it's definitely a no he cannot do that. So it's just a no all around.

A Model with the Fly can move across models and terrain as if they were not there... which can be interpreted in different ways, so really needs to be better written
Yet that was a deliberate change in wording and it should be consider that the Authors where trying to change how these Models function in relation to Terrain.