Jump to content
Steve_M

Placing Bases On Obstructions

Recommended Posts

Hoping this gets clarified one way or the other soon. It came up at the club at the weekend and it was unfortunate not being able to give a definitive answer to the two people playing. Not really an issue for friendly games but for tournaments can be a massive issue if some people think you can or can't stand on certain obstructions. 

I would prefer the ruling to involve having a flat surface big enough to place the base largely because I feel ruling the other way(place anywhere regardless of how the piece looks) will have my group looking at 2D obstructions with the rest of our terrain being 3D. Either that or I am going to have to get quite creative in creating very flat obstructions ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AdamJHilton said:

Just play with nothing but 3D crates for your obstacles. :D

Tabletop-art.eu has some nice Crate models I use as obstacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've managed to balance A&G both on the Solid Ground Studios 3D Obstruction wall, AND be in base to base contact with each other, both at 45 degrees.  Very precarious. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that's an interesting point. Since A&G need to be in b2b for the magic to happen, can Greede be on top of an obstacle and Averisse be on the ground with both models touching the edge of the terrain and count as b2b? The rules state that all distance is measured horizontally, so the distance between the models would still be 0". Greede could even be overlapping Averisse's base if the obstacle was a table. 

Would the answer change of it was 3D terrain vs. 2D terrain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think models can ever overlap, even if raised terrain physically permits them to do so.  I'm not confident of the legality of balancing a model on terrain such that it is stable but it's base is not parallel with the plane of the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MechMage said:

I don't think models can ever overlap, even if raised terrain physically permits them to do so.  I'm not confident of the legality of balancing a model on terrain such that it is stable but it's base is not parallel with the plane of the table.

Both of those issues are among this thread's many unaddressed questions. It's all a big, unspecified gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rulebook states that obstructions can include statues. Now if the statue is 3D, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that you are balancing a model on top of it. Ergo, the model can never end its movement on a top of statue.

The rules are pretty clear in this regard IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wynter said:

The rules are pretty clear in this regard IMO

Yeah, all distances are measured horizontally, therefore vertical distances don't exist, therefore all terrain is 2D. QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MilitaryCoo said:

Yeah, all distances are measured horizontally, therefore vertical distances don't exist, therefore all terrain is 2D. QED.

Does the "QED" finish this thread? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Models may end their movement on top of, or be placed on, an obstruction if there is sufficient room to position the model’s base."

 

To me this line really screws up any movement on 3D terrain. I don't like it. I don't make moves over terrain because of it. It's ambiguous and non specific.

 

How I personally would fix the problem. Simple. Everyone has fixed forests. Forests used to be a huge pain in the ass because you can clearly move into them but 3D terrain makes that impossible. What did people do? You make a 2D proxy where the forest is. Add 3D trees on top. Move the 3D pieces when you have to enter or otherwise interact with the terrain.

So do the same with obstructions. Make a Proxy 2D shape like a traced cut out of paper. Place 3D terrain on top of the proxy to make it look good. When someone wants to move over or on the terrain, remove the 3D element and use the proxy.

having "sufficient room " becomes a non issue. The rules become clear.

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our gaming group just got a bunch of 2D terrain made out of the same mouse pad material that the GB mats are made out of; it's really nice! So for us it's a nonissue at least. 

Although, I must admit that 3D terrain is more immersive and impressive to walk past. I might have to pick up some model trees and crates from the local hobby store to place on top of everything; as CrazyBlaine suggested. That way I just move things out of the way if necessary.

Of course, that really doesn't solve the ambiguity of the core rules questions being discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AdamJHilton said:

Our gaming group just got a bunch of 2D terrain made out of the same mouse pad material that the GB mats are made out of; it's really nice! So for us it's a nonissue at least. 

See I disagree. (I think we got the same kickstarter ... it was awesome ;>). Even on 2D terrain what constitutes "sufficient room "?

is it A: enough room so you model can stand without falling over.... so 2D terrain you can just clip it

or B: enough room so your whole base in completely overtop of the terrain piece.... so obstructions smaller than your base size you cannot stand on

I don't know the answer to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solution to the "Forest problem" was to have the trees act as barriers. Admittedly that wouldn't work in a tournament setting due to layering two pieces of terrain...

As I've said upthread, personally I'd like the rule to just be that models may jog over, but may not end their move, on obstructions, and otherwise they're impassable. Barriers that allow jogging and don't block LOS, essentially. Unfortunately that's not actually the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2017 at 6:27 AM, AdamJHilton said:

Everyone seems to agree that B is the correct answer, although the rules don't explicitly state it on p48.

So now is this the official ruling? I can't find it anywhere. I found the same question asked 2 other times but only vague responses.

Because we use 4" x 1" wall obstructions that are flat. Now 1" is smaller than 30 mm so then what you are saying is that at no point can a model stand on a 1" wide obstruction. Is this correct?
 

I mean we use walls from Warmachine that are 1" x 4"... should we be making walls that are 30mm x 4"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that there's any textual evidence to support that. It's not as if Obstructions are worded as "Models may end their movement on top of, or be placed on, an obstruction if there is sufficient room to position the model’s base completely within the obstruction."

I'm pretty sure it's A (from upthread) by a strict reading of the rules. Can you place it and have it remain in place unaided ("sufficient room to position the model's base")? If yes, placement is legal. Waiting on confirmation from the Lawyers, of course.

Again, I think this is a lot of hoop-jumping and ambiguously worded rules for minimal design benefit, and results in weird outcomes like the Unassailable Crate FortTM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Siberys said:

"sufficient room to position the model's base"

The only thing we know prevent model placement are other models, markers, barriers, and the pitch edge.

 

There's nothing in the quoted sentence that suggests this is about balancing models, and a lot of weird stuff that happens if you think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that it's either "balance" or "treat 2D and 3D differently", unless you're reading more into the rules than is actually there. Other places in the rules where "completely within" is intended are stated as such, after all.

If I had to put money on it, I'd say the ruling we'll end up with is a hybrid of A & B; you're able to "toe in" on 2D terrain because the rules says nothing about being "completely within", but on 3D terrain you'll need space for the entire base. Which is IMO dumb, but follows the wording of the rules precisely - see "a lot of hoop-jumping and ambiguously worded rules for minimal design benefit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there is also the receiving the ball after unsnapping question, I believe both of these are game changing rules to get a ruling on and could warrant an errata 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×