Jump to content

New/Returning players: Important Video on Close Combat


Lyraeus

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

however, given the case of the tire, for example, if the tire is not low enough to impact against the base of the model that is surrounding it, then moving the vehicle past the base of the model, even given that the tire has to pass over the base, is evidently technically legal, and not one that I even bother to contend. It just means I need to place the models surrounding the baseless model more carefully to prevent a fall back movement.

Now I question what models you have that are baseless. As any and all models that come with a base need to be based on the size of base they come with until GW implements a Base standardization as they did with AOS. 

 

As for gubbinz like things stifling out, for baseless models (which are all vehicles or things with vehicle parts such as soul grinder) you measure from the hull. That does not count vertical distance so once again if that tire is measured to be base to base of my model, you are locked in. 

If you want to play otherwise we can call a judge or 3rd party representative and have them wat h the game because that to me is as Ish states, simple modeling for advantage 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ish said:

So, basically, you've decided to weaponize modeling for advantage and are getting salty that people are saying its unsportsmanlike?

Did I get salty? My apologies, that was not my intention.

As far as modeling for advantage I don't think that I think that way. In the past competitive 40k had a lot of techniques for modeling for advantage. And, especially in 7th ed, basing for advantage. In particular the system of scattering during deep strike. Since you could use the models and the bases that were purchased with it in the box, having a 25mm base on, for example, a jump pack unit meant more survivability that the newer models for the same unit that came with 32mm bases. In 8th edition however you want as large a base as you can get for many reasons. 8th edition has a much more clean system that does away with the competitive necessity for making sure that the models are put together in certain ways. This means that the modeling can be done as the kit assembly intends them to be assembled making for very beautiful models, especially with the newest lines of casts which are frankly gorgeous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

Show me, Peter, where in the rules it says that other parts of the model for based models count for the purposes of measuring movement or determining movement, please and I'll continue to discuss your theory about trapping with the model itself.

The Repulsor is the only one I know of that can do that but it's rules states as much due to it coming with a 80mm base (I think that's the size). You still measure from hull though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself this: "If it were another model for this same unit, but it didn't have that pose / that gun / that banner / etc., would the same action be possible?" If the answer is "No." and you do it anyway then you are modelling for advantage. 


47327_md-Eldar,%20Wraithlord,%20Crouchin

This is a very nicely done conversion of an Eldar Wraithlord, giving some dynamism to an otherwise rather bland model. However, it is half the height of a standard Wraithlord. If you were to play with this model and insist that it could not be shot behind a piece of terrain that blocks LOS to it but would not block LOS to another Wraithlord, you are being a bad sport.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peter.cosgrove said:

The repulser can fly, so it doesn't matter on a fall back movement. As long as the model ends up more than 1" away the models attempting to surround it don't matter.

Agreed.

So back to: Show me, Peter, where in the rules it says that other parts of the model for based models count for the purposes of measuring movement or determining movement, please and I'll continue to discuss your theory about trapping with the model itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

The Repulsor is the only one I know of that can do that but it's rules states as much due to it coming with a 80mm base (I think that's the size). You still measure from hull though. 

100 mm as a matter of fact.

The Thunderhawk, Thunderhawk Transporter, Manta, and several of Forge World's other massive flyers all have a rule where you measure to where the model would be if it were on the table, then add 12", to account for the fact that to use these multiple kilogram models you'll either need a non-standard custome built flying stand or you'll have to just have them resting on the table "landed."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ish said:

Ask yourself this: "If it were another model for this same unit, but it didn't have that pose / that gun / that banner / etc., would the same action be possible?" If the answer is "No." and you do it anyway then you are modelling for advantage. 


47327_md-Eldar,%20Wraithlord,%20Crouchin

This is a very nicely done conversion of an Eldar Wraithlord, giving some dynamism to an otherwise rather bland model. However, it is half the height of a standard Wraithlord. If you were to play with this model and insist that it could not be shot behind a piece of terrain that blocks LOS to it but would not block LOS to another Wraithlord, you are being a bad sport.
 

While I agree, both with the beauty of the model and the convention, I would think that the kneeling space marine model should be considered as it is modeled but that's me thinking wysiwyg straight out of the kit.

Image result for kneeling space marine missile launcher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pretre said:

Agreed.

So back to: Show me, Peter, where in the rules it says that other parts of the model for based models count for the purposes of measuring movement or determining movement, please and I'll continue to discuss your theory about trapping with the model itself.

I don't think I said anything particular regarding based models. Just the ramifications of baseless models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

It doesn't change anything. BRB states you cannot move through enemy models. If there are models surrounding a model, and in order to move the model the models surrounding the model have to be moved out of the way, then you can't fall back. While it is not as important with based models, because the base is the model, and as long as the base can move through, then the model can move through, a baseless model with sticky outy bits that when moved has to tip or knock over the models surrounding it in order to move makes placing the surrounding models a very careful endeavor. There have been enough times where I have thought I had a baseless model surrounded, preventing a fall back movement, when the baseless model could be moved. I have especially been faced with the rather odd contention that the baseless model, in order to move had to pass over the base of one of my models, but the baseless model, having no base, could do so because it doesn't have a base. 

 

57 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

Since this turned into a name & shame thread, what carl is referring to is the capability to use the model's modeling against a non based model, not only because the developer's statement about not being able to move when in base to base does not apply to non based models, to legally move the model against a portion of the opponent's model in such a fashion that should the opponent's model wish to move (i/e fall back)  it would have to move the model that was placed against it thus denying the fall back movement.

Here you go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

While it is not as important with based models, because the base is the model, and as long as the base can move through, then the model can move through

I believe that is what I typed.

You don't have to believe. I quoted and highlighted it for you.

Here, I'll simplify. This is what the rules that I quoted from the rulebook say:

If a based model wants to move past a based model, the base of the based model cannot move through the base of the other based model.

If a non based model wants to move past a based model, the hull of the nonbased model cannot move through the base of the based model.

If a non based model wants to move past a nonbased model, the hull of the nonbased model cannot move through the hull of the non based model.

 

edit: And yes, it's actually within 1" for many things, but I'm simplifying.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, peter.cosgrove said:

While it is not as important with based models, because the base is the model, and as long as the base can move through, then the model can move through

I believe that is what I typed.

So you are saying a soul grinder can move over my grots because it's baseless? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pretre said:

<Here, I'll simplify.>

<If a non based model wants to move past a based model, the hull of the nonbased model cannot move through the base of the based model.>

edit: And yes, it's actually within 1" for many things, but I'm simplifying.

I think you have simplified a bit too far for clarity. A unit that wishes to fall back is already within 1" And the fall back movement doesn't have as many restrictions as a normal movement. The only restriction is that the unit must end the fall back movement further than 1" from enemy models. 

The situation I continually find myself in is that even though a portion of the baseless model's hull passes OVER one of my model's bases it didn't pass through it, as the case may be.

And to be more particular, what is the specific ruling wherein a portion of the hull is already overlapping the base of the model before the movement phase.

So, I will preface the next bit by asking a question. Is the indicated direction a legal fall back if the land raider ends it's movement more than 1" away from the dreadnought? The hull is already over my base and the base is touching the landraider (It isn't actually if you look at the picture close enough, but assume that it is.)

Fallback.jpg.90845ecf36b50b31d2e4b59abfdf2b43.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peter.cosgrove said:

I think you have simplified a bit too far for clarity. A unit that wishes to fall back is already within 1" And the fall back movement doesn't have as many restrictions as a normal movement. The only restriction is that the unit must end the fall back movement further than 1" from enemy models.

I clearly put the 1" part in there for parts of movement that was not the fallback phase. That's why I said 'And yes, it's actually within 1" for many things, but I'm simplifying. It has nothing to do with fallback, but was in there so you didn't say I over simplified. Instead, you did the opposite. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I could see an argument that the  dreadnought moved into an illegal position originally since no part of it's base should 'move through' the hull of the land raider and that would include moving under it. That being said, I don't think we're going to sweat that normally, the same as we're not going to sweat the land raider moving because neither the base or the hull is moving through each other in actuality.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pretre said:

I clearly put the 1" part in there for parts of movement that was not the fallback phase. That's why I said 'And yes, it's actually within 1" for many things, but I'm simplifying. It has nothing to do with fallback, but was in there so you didn't say I over simplified. Instead, you did the opposite. lol

My apologies. The original discussion point (my point) was referring specifically to those cases wherein a based model is trying to lock in a baseless model to prevent fall back movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Peter, you're trying to add caveats and extra rules where there aren't any. So I'm going to go to bed and just paraphrase myself again:

Show us, in the rules, with quotes from those rules, where your assertion is correct. I have quoted actual rules to you and you have made diagrams that don't reference the rules. So, show us some rules.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peter.cosgrove said:

My apologies. The original discussion point (my point) was referring specifically to those cases wherein a based model is trying to lock in a baseless model to prevent fall back movement.

The only way to lock in a baseless model with a based model is to make it so that the hull must move through the base. So surround it with your base. The rest of your model is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...