PDA

View Full Version : How cheesy, if at all, is this?



BBWags
17-02-2010, 14:54
When it comes to disembarking from a vehicle, would you consider it to be cheesy, WAAC, or whatever, for a small unit to disembark from a rhino/razorback to the second story of a building? (meaning the first floor up off the table). This floor is easily within the 2" disembarkation range of the access point hatch (the top of the hatch, at least).

Lord Damocles
17-02-2010, 14:56
As far as I'm concerned, this move is lactose free.

Cheeslord
17-02-2010, 15:07
Seems reasonable from a simulationist point of view (you get out the top hatch onto a nearby ledge).
Seems reasonable from a gamist point of view (OK you get into the ruins probably a turn faster than if you had to disembark at ground level, but hardly broken compared to some of the other tactics available)

Mark.

Noodle!
17-02-2010, 15:11
I don't think it fits into the "spirit" of the game at least, and thus feels a bit cheesy. I wouldn't use it in a friendly game as it feels more like a loophole. I see troops disembarking from the actual hatch on the ground, and the top hatch of, for example, a chimera is mostly for shooting or emergency disembarking.

However as long as it's a legal move I wouldn't really frown upon an opponent doing it in a tournament.

Vepr
17-02-2010, 15:12
It does not seem abusive. If the measurements are correct and the vehicle had to properly deal with any terrain if it was area instead of a loan ruin then I do not see a problem.

bigcheese76
17-02-2010, 15:15
Its a bit cheesy, as getting out of a non open topped vehicle, you may not assault to represent you getting out and getting used to your surroundings. So you probably wouldnt know the ledge was there and would just be in a rush to get out the transport.

IAMNOTHERE
17-02-2010, 15:16
I'm not sure, isn't it a 3" move to go between floors?

Or is that just CoD?

Emissary
17-02-2010, 15:21
Agreed, I don't think it's cheesy, but I don't think you can do it either. It is supposed to be 3" between floors and I don't think it's reasonable to think you can deploy 2" out and 3" up.

Logarithm Udgaur
17-02-2010, 15:26
If you feel that you need the validation of anonymous persons on the internet, you should already know the answer.

Thud
17-02-2010, 15:31
Personally I don't think this is legal for the reason mentioned by IAMNOTHERE and Emissary, so that may cloud my judgement. So, if it were legal it would be, at the very least, shady. And I don't particularly care for shady moves in 40k.

wazatdingder
17-02-2010, 15:36
This is a really poor pole.
You have only left us 2 real options, OK and Cheese.
My understanding of "CHEESE" is that the move is legal, but not really in the spirit of the game, abusive of the rules.
I don't believe that this is even a legal move.

1.RAW= 3" up
2.To move out of a transport, you move 1" out of the vehicle and then 3" up, therefore you would need 4" of movement to make this move as a disembarking move.

P.S. What's WAAC? A new term for you personal level of cheesiness.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 15:43
If you feel that you need the validation of anonymous persons on the internet, you should already know the answer.

I am seeking the opinion of other players with whom I would otherwise not have any interaction. My gaming group is fairly small, but I'm thinking about playing at a FLGS shortly, so I'd like to get an idea of the reaction I might receive if I do this move with people I'm not used to playing with.

WAAC = Win At All Cost

Again, take the rules discussion to the rule-forum, for this discussion, assume it is perfectly legal.


This is a really poor pole.
You have only left us 2 real options, OK and Cheese.
My understanding of "CHEESE" is that the move is legal, but not really in the spirit of the game, abusive of the rules.
I don't believe that this is even a legal move.

Um, yeah. 2 options, each with a degree of intensity. Is it cheesy? Yes or no. How much so? Very Cheesy = WAAC. Legitimate and Cool= Tactical Brilliance!

Again, whether this is legal or not is not a discussion for this thread. Assume it is. If you don't think it is, go to the rules forum.

IAMNOTHERE
17-02-2010, 15:46
WaaC is win at all cost and for the record if you don't need 3" to move between floors then I'm for it.

As to the poll? I've not voted as it has no real options.

You don't stand on the top of the hatch when you get out you stand on the bottom.

IIRC there is a strategem in CoD that allows skimmers to disembark on floors other than the ground. By it's very existence I'd say that what your suggesting breaks the rules.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 15:48
As to the poll? I've not voted as it has no real options.

The question is basically a yes or no question. It is and here the degree to which it is, or no it isn't and here the degree to which it isn't. How many options were you looking for?

wazatdingder
17-02-2010, 15:51
By assuming the move is perfectly legal we would be validating it.
Please don't open a discussion in one forum and tell us to discussion in another.
That's as annoying as being a cheese-monger.

Balragore
17-02-2010, 15:56
I'm not sure, isn't it a 3" move to go between floors?

Or is that just CoD?


Agreed.

OP, I understand that telling someone to 'assume' what is being said is true/legal is a great intention, but it just doesn't (always) work that way.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 16:02
Ok, I edited my first post and took away the attempted ban on rules discussion. I just didnt' think a rules-discussion was appropriate for the general forum. But I thought the discussion of cheesiness or not was very much appropriate for the general forum.

So to get it out of the way. The rules say when you disembark, you must place models "within 2" of the access point." 6 models disembarking from a razorback could easily all be placed within 2" of the top of the any of the access hatches on the razorback. There is no rule that says you must measure from the bottom of the access point, etc.

So I think its pretty clear by RAW that it is allowable.

So is it another oversight by GW that leads to practicing this move to be cheesy? Or is it fine?

Charistoph
17-02-2010, 16:09
If the transport has not moved this turn, it's as legal as cheese in Wisconsin.

If it moved to the ruins, then they disembarked to another level, than it is illegal and as cheesy as possible.

Lord Damocles
17-02-2010, 16:21
As to the 3" between floors debate - you disembark from the 'top' of the access point, meaning that the actual distance covered by the disembarkation move is 2" or less.

oni
17-02-2010, 16:21
Meh, I don't have an issue with it.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 16:31
If it moved to the ruins, then they disembarked to another level, than it is illegal and as cheesy as possible.

but it is still within 2" of the access point so whats the problem?

Noserenda
17-02-2010, 16:32
Personally id say it was an illegal move.

wazatdingder
17-02-2010, 16:32
If the transport has not moved this turn, it's as legal as cheese in Wisconsin.

If it moved to the ruins, then they disembarked to another level, than it is illegal and as cheesy as possible.

Whether the vehicle has moved or not should not factor into the matter.
Disembarking is 2" no matter when it is done. If you add movement it is a completely different argument.

A big issue I see here is lack of definition in the terrain.

Also, vertical and horizontal movement are measured from the base of a model, whether the model moves up the terrain or climbs up to the top of the vehicle you still need to measure up.

As far as I can tell this move is very WAAC.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 16:42
As far as I can tell this move is very WAAC.

Out of curiosity, why?

archie-d
17-02-2010, 16:48
i wouldnt say i call it cheesy, but i dont personally think its a legal move.

how many vehicles have top hatches? and are top hatches deemed access points on any vehicles with them?

Chem-Dog
17-02-2010, 16:51
I'm not sure, isn't it a 3" move to go between floors?

Or is that just CoD?

I think the contention is that a 3 dimentional vehicle will invariably have a portion of it's exit points within 2 " of a second level of a building (assuming the CoD terrain as standard). It's stretching the letter of the law but not technically illegal as far as I can ascertain, you wouldn't find me doing it though.

wazatdingder
17-02-2010, 17:01
Out of curiosity, why?

This is about to turn into a RAW v RAI argument (which I hate), a lot of talk about spirit of the game and such. Being on the RAI side of this argument I am wrong to any rules lawyers out there.

As someone who has played since 2nd ed I know one thing for sure about the game developers, they can't micromanage every situation. Otherwise, the 40k rule book would look like the US tax codes and codices would be released at a rate of 1 a year.

At some point, I heard or read a developer refer to 40k as a 2d game that uses 3d models. Therefore, the base of the model is the game piece and all interactions between models are really the bases.

So yes, you are technically within two inches of an access point, and if your gaming group is OK with that fine. But, if someone doesn't think that it is in the spirit of the game and you still insist on doing it, then it becomes a WAAC moment.

BBWags
17-02-2010, 17:10
i wouldnt say i call it cheesy, but i dont personally think its a legal move.

how many vehicles have top hatches? and are top hatches deemed access points on any vehicles with them?

Again, it doesn't matter if there is a top hatch or not. You can be 2" from the standard side/rear hatches as it is.


At some point, I heard or read a developer refer to 40k as a 2d game that uses 3d models. Therefore, the base of the model is the game piece and all interactions between models are really the bases.

The only way that could make sense is if there were no LOS-based rulings. Obviously when things are done from model's eye view, you can't say its a 2d game in any facet whatsoever.


So yes, you are technically within two inches of an access point, and if your gaming group is OK with that fine. But, if someone doesn't think that it is in the spirit of the game and you still insist on doing it, then it becomes a WAAC moment.

While I understand what you're saying, I think it's a bit unfair. If for some reason a person doesn't understand the rules correctly, but I demand to play as the rules dictate, how should I be considered the WAAC player? For instance, if my opponent doesn't realize that a model with Move Through Cover gets to roll extra dice to move through terrain, but I still demand the right to roll the dice according to the rules to use the ability to the best advantage, why should I be considered a WAAC player?

Obviously the answer is, "Well, that's different, because you can plainly show the confused opponent the Move Through Cover rule stating how many dice you get to roll."

Yep, and I can plainly show you that models may be placed anywhere as long as they are still within 2" of the access point. That is the rule.

Captain Brown
17-02-2010, 17:15
I don't think we need two threads on the same subject started by the same member in different forums, especially when this poll posts keep going back to the basic rules definition.

For those interested in discussing this rule then go to the thread Disembarking UP (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245429).

Thread closed.

Captain Brown
WarSeer Inquisition