In a Tournament, I'd say "Sorry, I don't think that's legal. What with it not being what the rules say, and stuff."

In a friendly game, I'd say "Bullshit. Wise up, you can't fit. If you want a skinny Rhino, model it better. Also, you drive into that wall it's Dangerous Terrain."

In a Tournament, as a compromise, I'd suggest they take a DT test for every inch they attempt to move.

 

I wouldn't let him get away with it. The exhausts are clearly depicted on every Predator, Razorback, Whirlwind, Vindicator, and Rhino model, meaning they aren't simply there for show on a few models, and they aren't an optional item to attach. As such, I'd consider it a part of the model to be measured in this instance, as logic would dictate it was meant to be there.

It seemed as if he were pulling rulings out of the air to help him.

However, as I don't take the game to be a big, gigantic thing worth arguing over, I'd offer him the compromise that he'd have to take a Difficult Terrain test to drive there this time, and next time he'd better have some hard proof.

 

I'd kick him in the balls. Seriously. :aggressive:

 

What an arse

 

thanks guys no I feel alot better

 

Was it some kind of terrain where he couldn't just take a dangerous terrain test for the rhino? Cause that would make the situation kind of mute, unless of course he rolled a one.

 

Now I'm going to disagree with the majority here and say it depends on what type of gap he is trying to get his rhino through. If it's between two buildings and he can't clear the walls, then the answer is either no or make a difficult terrain test as others have said already. If however the gap is between two pieces of two dimensional area terrain with no vertical height (for example two minefields) then he should be able to measure the vehicle's width at the tracks, not worrying about any extra width gained by exhaust stacks or sponsons or anything else IMHO. It's always wise to discuss these things prior to playing a game however.

 

I can see your point on the 2d terrain, and won't have taken that up for debat. But here was trying to drive between my rhino and a piece of impassable terrain, and this was why I said no.

I can see the difficult terrain as a probleme solver, but I cant see why some one playing around the rules should have 5 out 6 odds to doing a foul move. So game wise I think the difficult terrain test is stupid and having fun wise I see your point.

 

Hey, I just run over the walls. It's more fun!

Ahh, for the ancient days when terrain could be destroyed! And Apokalypse. Oh, and Shokk Attack Guns.

 

This begs for the best answer ever, a counterquestion:

How long is a rope?

There is only 1 answer for it and that goes 100% on the Rhino size question too, regardless of silly "I have red that this doesnt count shit"

 

How wide is a Rhino?

"Does the model fit between the terrain"

"No"

"Too Wide then"

 

can see the difficult terrain as a probleme solver, but I cant see why some one playing around the rules should have 5 out 6 odds to doing a foul move

I don't think its a way to avoid playing by the rules. If its difficult terrain than its difficult. If units can make a roll and walk into it, why can't a vehicle make a move through it. However, in your case if he was trying to get through the gap between your vehicle and an impassible terrain than yeah if his vehicle can't get through than he is stuck too bad. I wonder if he was using a predator with side sponsons would he say they don't count for trying to get through a gap.

 

sounds like a classic case of " i really don't want to lose cos it hurts my ego- would you mind awfully if i just cheated?"- i agree with Deathklokk- kick him in the nuts....hard. Then don't play him again... given that i doubt he would want to play you again after being kicked in the nuts anyway...

 

Unless, you know, he *enjoyed* the full on kick to the sack (multiple kicks to the nuts in rapid succession is called, "speedbagging," just for the record), and if so, then I'd say he has deeper rooted issues than just being a cheater. :wink:

As for the, "if infantry can go there, why can't takes," arguement, while it works *some* of the time, it doesn't always work (ie, tank traps count as difficult for infantry, impassible for tanks). Can't say as I've ever heard of the, "exhaust pipes don't count toward the hull," arguement either, though, but in reality, it makes *some* sense. Normally, we go by the tracks of the vehicle.

If the tracks fit, you must acquit! :biggrin: