This is an issue my gaming group has discussed but have not found an official rule orcome up with an answer for yet.....
Close combat in ruins/on buildings....
Example- An eldar (or whatever race) army has infantry on the 2nd of 3rd floor of a ruin. My imperial knight wants to assault them but is unable to get into base contact for obvious reasons yet the guys are literally right in front of it's face. Can it assault them? Obviously, I would assume athe stomp attacks would be lost lol.
Take it a step further and assume it is an actual building where I would of course not be able to assault the guys inside. What about the guys standing on top/a wraithknight standing on top. Could I assault them and if I can, how much do I have to be able to "reach".
So far, I've just been saying "I dont know so I'm not even going to try but will look into it". Looking for an official ruling but have not been able to find any.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This is an issue my gaming group has discussed but have not found an official rule orcome up with an answer for yet.....
Close combat in ruins/on buildings....
Example- An eldar (or whatever race) army has infantry on the 2nd of 3rd floor of a ruin. My imperial knight wants to assault them but is unable to get into base contact for obvious reasons yet the guys are literally right in front of it's face. Can it assault them? Obviously, I would assume athe stomp attacks would be lost lol.
Take it a step further and assume it is an actual building where I would of course not be able to assault the guys inside. What about the guys standing on top/a wraithknight standing on top. Could I assault them and if I can, how much do I have to be able to "reach".
So far, I've just been saying "I dont know so I'm not even going to try but will look into it". Looking for an official ruling but have not been able to find any.

This tends to be hotly debated. You can't declare an assault if you can't "reach" the target. Some people say if you're within 12", you should be able to reach the target and that if you can't physically place the model, you just invoke "wobbly model syndrome" and say "this is where I'm trying to place my Knight Titan". I tend to be on the other side of the fence and say that if you can't physically place the model, you can't reach the target and therefore can't declare the charge.

For me, wobbly model syndrome is for situations where you CAN place the model... it just tends to be top heavy and fall over, or maybe keeps sliding down a hill.

And from a fluff background, this makes sense. Is your Knight Titan actually going to enter a ruined building and climb to the second story? Or is it going to pound the building to dust with heavy weapons fire?

Ultimately, you have to decide what "reach" means. My take is "achieve base to base contact" while being able to physically place the model.

If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

Like Kriswall said, this is a hotly debated topic.

In other words, this thread is unlikely to reach a consensus, as is usually the case when RAW do not provide a clear answer but two opposing camps are convinced that RAW are in fact crystal clear. Many find it difficult to admit to ambiguity, even with rules as poorly written as GW's.

Im looking at it as though it would be easier in fact to attack with close combat weapons if the target is at stomach or chest height. At 6'11" it would be harder for me to swing a sword at a target that stands only 12" tall standing on the floor than it would be to swing it at a 12" tall target standing on a table in front of me.

I did not mean a rubble ruin with intervening walls and horizontal distance where the actual model would not be able to physically reach, I was talking a 90 degree angle between a flat table and the wall with the infantry stand on on the ledge right in front of the knight. I'm talking that if I were to swivel the knight at the waist, I could literally knock the eldar off of the ledge down onto the table (not that I would mistreat someone's models that way).
Looking for something official.

Not looking to gain any advantages, my one opponent has a wraithknight and another is looking into a stompa so i understand the official ruling would apply to them as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
Like Kriswall said, this is a hotly debated topic.

In other words, this thread is unlikely to reach a consensus, as is usually the case when RAW do not provide a clear answer but two opposing camps are convinced that RAW are in fact crystal clear. Many find it difficult to admit to ambiguity, even with rules as poorly written as GW's.

Understood. I'm one of the few who acknowledge their ambiguity and catch a lot of flack for it on here. i dont think my groups would have any problem hammering out a house rule for it amongst ourselves. I was just wondering if there was something official to base our decision on or maybe save us the trouble.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Im looking at it as though it would be easier in fact to attack with close combat weapons if the target is at stomach or chest height. At 6'11" it would be harder for me to swing a sword at a target that stands only 12" tall standing on the floor than it would be to swing it at a 12" tall target standing on a table in front of me.

I did not mean a rubble ruin with intervening walls and horizontal distance where the actual model would not be able to physically reach, I was talking a 90 degree angle between a flat table and the wall with the infantry stand on on the ledge right in front of the knight. I'm talking that if I were to swivel the knight at the waist, I could literally knock the eldar off of the ledge down onto the table (not that I would mistreat someone's models that way).
Looking for something official.

Not looking to gain any advantages, my one opponent has a wraithknight and another is looking into a stompa so i understand the official ruling would apply to them as well.

There is no official ruling.

You and your gaming group would do well to talk to each other and decide how you would play it. RAW will not provide you with a clear answer.

To help your group decide, here is my best understanding of the two sides of this argument.

CANNOT CHARGE CAMP
If there is no space to place the models then it is not possible to put the model into base to base contact with the unit it is trying to charge and so the charge will automatically fail. This is because the rules for charging say that you must place the initial charger in base to base with the closest model in the unit being charged.

CAN CHARGE CAMP
If you have rolled the required distance to put the model into base to base, but there is not enough room to place the model, you can claim wobbly model syndrome and call the charge successful, leaving the charging model in the closest place it can fit without falling over.

These two camps do not agree. Your group should decide which works best for you.

Edited to say that you had replied while I was posting this. I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse. Hope you guys find something that works for you.

fidel wrote:
That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

It also means that those bikes that don't physically fit on the second floor can't go onto the second floor. Moving through terrain second paragraph 1st sentence "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood."

You literally are required to be able to physically place the model there, so yes a Tyrant on the top floor of a building is impossible to assault.

For an additional example, consider a single model standing at the end of a 40mm wide "alleyway" between two buildings. An Imperial Knight is right outside the alleyway, about 6 inches away from the target model. Can the Imperial Knight declare a charge? I say no because there is no way he'll fit down the alleyway and such can't be placed to make base to base contact.. From this, I say that distance alone won't allow a charge to be declared. You need to also be able to place the model.

The "different levels in a ruin" isn't the only scenario where this would apply. Essentially, any tight terrain scenario can cause similar problems.

So... If you completely fill up a level on a ruin, you are essentially unassaultable... unless your opponent shoots one or two dudes and makes room for an assaulting model. This generally isn't that hard to do. If you can't kill a single dude with a 4+ cover save... your army list probably needs work.

Models with very large footprints (i.e., Imperial Knights and most Monstrous Creatures/60mm base critters) will always have problems being placed in buildings. Assault doesn't really change that. It just because a problem in assault because that's the only time a player is likely to want to put IKs on the 2nd or 3rd floor of a building.

But there are other examples where the "can't place the charging model in base to base" reasoning seems to break down, or at least becomes less clear.

Let's say the sole surviving member of a space marine squad is 2" away from a Knight Titan. Unfortunately for the Knight Titan, the space marine has cleverly hopped up onto a 1" tall crate. The Knight Titan must now wail in impotent fury as it is unable to assault the space marine since he cannot be placed in base to base. If that space marine were a librarian who could cast invisible on himself he would become invincible.

Let's say that there are 10 crates! Then the whole squad can become invincible and could shoot their melta weapons at the Knight from the safety of their unassaultable crates.

If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

fidel wrote:
That quite literally means Megatron, that I can place a hive tyrant on the top of a ruin (those little corner pieces) and he will never get assaulted.... Rather than just saying that If I am right under him that I need a 3 inch charge (well 5 due to the -2 for difficult terrain). It would make no sense in the world if you played it your way. Anything bigger then a terminator base would never be able to assault anyone in buildings because their bases would be too big. What about my bikes? They cannot fit due to their basing, are they allowed to assault?

That seems to break the rules a little no?

It's not so much that it breaks the rules as that the rules are broken to begin with. This is another of the things that they fixed in 5th edition (by allowing you to assault in ruins by just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough) and then broke in 6th (by reverting to the base contact requirement with no thought to how that would affect units on terrain).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

This statement confuses me. If you're deliberately changing the rules, then that is just a house rule (or HIWPI). The fact that the original rules are silly doesn't change that fact.

You seem to be suggesting that YMDC (as some sort of collective hive-mind entity) has a problem with house rules. It (even though it isn't such an entity) has no problem at all with house rules... It's just generally preferred for them to be clearly presented as such.


In the case under discussion, there is no clear consensus, on YMDC or elsewhere. Some players think WMS should apply... some have no problem with models being un-assaultable in this sort of situation. Personally, I lean towards applying WMS, precisely because of situations like your crate example... or any other situation where a model isn't sitting flat on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules are even a little bit unclear, I say that's a great time to bring some sanity back to the game. Even if everyone on YMDC says it's HIWPI.

This statement confuses me. If you're deliberately changing the rules, then that is just a house rule (or HIWPI). The fact that the original rules are silly doesn't change that fact.

You seem to be suggesting that YMDC (as some sort of collective hive-mind entity) has a problem with house rules. It (even though it isn't such an entity) has no problem at all with house rules... It's just generally preferred for them to be clearly presented as such.


In the case under discussion, there is no clear consensus, on YMDC or elsewhere. Some players think WMS should apply... some have no problem with models being un-assaultable in this sort of situation. Personally, I lean towards applying WMS, precisely because of situations like your crate example... or any other situation where a model isn't sitting flat on the table.

I never said I was changing the rules. I said that when the rules aren't clear, it's a great opportunity to bring some sanity to the game.

I also lean toward applying the WMS because it seems more reasonable than a 75 foot tall metal robot not being able to step on a dude because he's standing on a bucket. That's all I was trying to say.

And I think 99% of people on YMDC are very reasonable. But when people are not reasonable, they also tend to be much more vocal and the debates much more heated. My point wasn't that the folks of YMDC would all disagree, but that even if they did, if the rules do not give a clear RAW answer , I would play it the way that made the most sense.

Hypothetical positions are a non starter, the 5th and 6th ed rules for ruins made it clear you can only move a model where they can physically fit. They also had rules to handle assauling up a floor in a ruin in which the floor was entirely full of enemy models and as such base to base contact was not possible. In 7th, the ruin rules are a joke and instead of being 4 pages are a few sentances.


The reality is this, the game, even without terrain, involves "un-assaultable" situations. Simply put, enemy models are impassable, if you want to assault enemy unit x but it's entirely surrounded by enemy unit y, you simply cannot assault enemy unit x. Perhaps another unit could shoot unit y opening up a gap allowing you to assault unit x.



I don't want to see mawloc's sideways on a middle ruin floor, at the same time I'm fair, I think model height should be factored into assault, but I also think infantry should be able to retreat deeper into large ruins to avoid getting assaulted by large models.


I want involved terrain rules, it makes for a better game. I want to avoid like the plague nova style hyper abstract terrain because land raiders of rooftops are emblematic of everything wrong with this game .

Well using the 5th edition rule of just moving close enough to a building and then being able to assault a target on the 15th floor is an example of how it was not fixed then any more than it is now. You just traded different players being upset without ever actually addressing the issue or using common sense.of course, we are talking about the current edition rather than 2nd are 4th or 5th so nts made about those editions are less and irrelevant.
Not that i ever plan to do this but a player could lay the knight on its side so that the base sticks up and could then touch the base of a mode standing on a ledge would allow base contact likewise along the line of the crates making you unreachable, I cant see anywhere in the book that says the model HAS to be standing on it's base. Whats to stop a tau player from modeling their entire army doing handstands with the bases in the air? True, their LOS might suffer but they would be immune from assault.
Use the minfantry in an alley between 2 ruins example. a knight can move through ruins. How does this affect where the model's base is at? I remember in an older warhammer fantasy book where they mentioned destroying castle walls and they suggested getting a sledgehammer OR just marking it in some way to mark the point here it is destroyed and not "actually" on the table. If we do something like that (not the sledgehammer idea of course lol) it would not "be" there but we still couldnt get into base contact.

The point is, I was hoping for an official ruling without actually expecting one.
In order to cover EVERY possibility that could ever come up in a game, the rulebook would have to be as large as Good Magician Humphrey's book of answers and would likely be as hard to read and understand. However, I feel that GW should put better "general guidelines in place that use common sense and have a public living document FAQ for reference. Sorry, the FAQs I have seen so far just dont really cut it for me.

On this issue, not a big deal, I'm sure we can hammer something out.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

I don't believe this is true. I had an opponent put 5-6 tau battlesuits at the top of one of the battlements terrain pieces. When he went to charge he said I couldn't because I couldn't place models. If you think about it from a reality standpoint my models ran through the front door and ran up to them. I do not believe you actually have to make base to bade contact. Just have to be in the range of the charge and place them as close as possible.

Fluff wise don't hormagaunts and genestealers scale buildings? To say that because there are 5 termites on the top floor that nothing can reach them is absurd.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well using the 5th edition rule of just moving close enough to a building and then being able to assault a target on the 15th floor is an example of how it was not fixed then any more than it is now. You just traded different players being upset without ever actually addressing the issue or using common sense.

That's not quite how it worked. It only enabled assaults one level removed.

And i dont recall seeing a single complaint about it during 5th edition. It was pretty universally regarded as the simplest, most common-sense way to handle it.

There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

They thought they had fixed the problem by adding an intrinstic climbing mechanic but they didn't because the only time you can be out of base to base for combat currently is with barricades.

As for placing a knight on its side, you actually can't do that after moving it. Feel free to start all your models laying on their side if you want to, the second you move them by the rules they'll have to end their movement standing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

That's a great attitude you've got there chief.

And the answer to the question about rulings and faq's is a resounding no, in fact the state of terrain rules is so poor that nova is basically not even using terrain rules, everything is abstract, nothing is impassable and anything can drive vertically up walls if they're able to end their move without falling. Land raiders on rooftops.

We play a terrible game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There were plenty complaints about it then. However, this is not a "5th edition" thread. Personal preferences towards different editions dont really play a part in the question asked and can only serve to cause unnecessary disruption and controversy because as we have seen, people with axes to grind will shoehorn that argument in anywhere they can and many of us just want to play a game and have fun without internet politics.
Of course, in the OP, I did not specifically state which edition so i will state it now to clear that up. I am asking the question about the CURRENT edition and the current edition ONLY.
As there is evidently no page number to flip to in the rulebook with an answer, has anyone seen anything by way of FAQs or any rulings for it at tournaments or events and how it was played there?

Nobody has an axe to grind. It was pointed out that the current rules don't clearly deal with the situation, even though previous editions did. Pointing out what those previous rules were is useful for enabling people to formulate house rules to deal with the situation.

So, seriously, less drama please.

Thanks. If only more people had a good attitude, there would be a lot less trouble and drama on the internet. lol. Not holding my breath on it happening any time soon. Till,then, we can keep setting a good example and refrainingfrom doing it ourselves..
The book actually says standing on base? What page is that on? I mentioned that as a crazy extreme example that no one I play with would actually do but thought that it would be possible if someone were actually tfg enough to do it.
I totally agree with you though about playing a terrible game. I think much could be done with adding a lil common sense to such items as we are discussing here. it wouldnt solve many of the issues but it would make a lot more of us happier about it. I've been playing since the very beginning and stick around for the fluff and the "world" along with the imagery and models. Would love to see new blood infused into the company and a willingness to change for the better. They claim to be a miniatures company and they have that down pat. Now is the time to elp market their models by making us and new players want to play the games that use them (well, well past time for it IMHO).

We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

I shake my head and face palm real hard. This is why wh40k is so poorly written.

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

The RAW absolutely are broken. Which is why I tend to use whatever FAQ fits my whimsy for the next upcoming large tournament event, as they tend to take most of the stupid out of the rules (even if they do enforce their own artificial meta in doing so). It works quite fine for me and my group (and FWIW I can't think of a major event that doesn't say "if you roll high enough, you make the assault")

 megatrons2nd wrote:
If the model can not stand in the location, no.

If there is enough space to physically place the model there, and it will stand, however precariously without assistance, yes(then put it where it is safe and agree to it's actual location per WMS).

Kriswall stated it more eloquently.

yeah either the model fits or it doesnt.

both sides have some merit, but things like IKs and super heavies shouldnt be on top of ruins,

GW used to rule that bikes and other units as well couldnt go up there, but now RAW is that anything that fits can, anything that cannot, cannot.

it makes sense, as it denies crazy big stuff from getting up on top of ruins, but it has side effects that are odd too, IE hiding tyrants and so on on top of ruins.

I understand not having a knight "go to the second floor".
My point is, when you pick up a can of soda from the kitchen table, do you climb up on top of the table and stand on it to pick the can up? Or do you just reach out and pick it up.
It is the same thing if your swinging a sword at something the same height.

Dont get me wrong, i'm not advocating or claiming one should be "the way", only pointing out which way I would like it to be with the understanding that what I would like may not be what goes and that others disagree. This is why I was asking.

I started a series of questions and suggestions like this on my gaming groups facebook page so that we can as a group come up with our own "FAQ" for us. Only have a start but already getting positive feedback and counter ideas.

 Kriswall wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

They aren't even remotely invincible...

Shoot them. Seriously. If they can see you, you can see them. They just get a simple cover save.

A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

No, but maybe that demon player should try a different lore other than the make more demons one. There are several ranged attacks in the pyromancy chart that have ignores cover attacks in it, including the primaris because it is a template attack, and all template attacks have ignores cover standard. Not my fault that you don't choose it, and the rules make you pay for your choice. Sadly, I agree with the Knight example, but I can justify it as a He can't hit what he can't see, and the added cover will sometimes totally block it's line of sight to the target models once he actually gets there. And the added protection of the ruin could also deflect the attacks, if not stop it entirely.

I pretty much do the same thing as this:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

The reasoning behind that is because if you can plant something in a ruin, knowingly place models to prevent an assault, and then argue about the legalities of WMS or charging or what-have-you, you are immediately THAT GUY.

The point of the game is to have fun. How fun is it to make something neigh on invincible? For those poor melee oriented armies with less than ideal shooting, simply shooting at said enemies isn't exactly an option. Having been on both sides, I just don't think that it's fair if you can use placement of models on terrain to prevent assault.

I know I'm not alone when I say that it should all be fair. Maybe in a tournament you can do that nonsense, but casual games shouldn't make you want to choke someone out.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

No, but maybe that demon player should try a different lore other than the make more demons one. There are several ranged attacks in the pyromancy chart that have ignores cover attacks in it, including the primaris because it is a template attack, and all template attacks have ignores cover standard. Not my fault that you don't choose it, and the rules make you pay for your choice. Sadly, I agree with the Knight example, but I can justify it as a He can't hit what he can't see, and the added cover will sometimes totally block it's line of sight to the target models once he actually gets there. And the added protection of the ruin could also deflect the attacks, if not stop it entirely.

Unless they cast invisibility on themselves and then you can't hit them with template weapons. and you can't charge them because they're standing on that crate and it's like half an inch off the ground and the same size as their base. Practically invincible.

OR, you could just charge them, claim WMS, and stop the shenanigans.

I not only prefer the latter, but think it makes much more sense - both logically and from an ease of game play perspective.

Isn't this edition all about forging the narrative?

IKs don't need to be in base to base on the second floor. If they rolled the charge range and could make it wouldn't it be safe to assume that it's already the height of the building and is swinging its huge chain weapon through the building to attack enemies. Same goes for other super heavies.

If we combine Wobbly model syndrome with forging the narrative this shouldn't be that tough of a decision.

 anticitizen013 wrote:
I pretty much do the same thing as this:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

The reasoning behind that is because if you can plant something in a ruin, knowingly place models to prevent an assault, and then argue about the legalities of WMS or charging or what-have-you, you are immediately THAT GUY.

The point of the game is to have fun. How fun is it to make something neigh on invincible? For those poor melee oriented armies with less than ideal shooting, simply shooting at said enemies isn't exactly an option. Having been on both sides, I just don't think that it's fair if you can use placement of models on terrain to prevent assault.

I know I'm not alone when I say that it should all be fair. Maybe in a tournament you can do that nonsense, but casual games shouldn't make you want to choke someone out.

I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

I'll stick with the idea that if you can't assault them, shoot them until you make room. If your army has no shooting, you're out of luck. Maybe make a more balanced army list next time?

Also, in the real world, if I'm standing on a small platform with room for only myself that requires climbing a ladder to access... you're going to have a real hard time climbing up there and instigating a fist fight. Is it so crazy that the rules seem to mirror real world activities in this case?

If someone is being "that guy" and positioning his models in the ruins so you can't fit then you just be "that guy" and be extremely stringent on the models LOS from the ruins. Since they are holding to the back of the ruin platform rather than by the window, many of them won't be able to draw proper LOS since the wall will be in the way even though in reality they would just lean to the window.

If your opponents being a dick with the rules just be a dick right back, fair is fair both are following the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

I'll stick with the idea that if you can't assault them, shoot them until you make room. If your army has no shooting, you're out of luck. Maybe make a more balanced army list next time?

Also, in the real world, if I'm standing on a small platform with room for only myself that requires climbing a ladder to access... you're going to have a real hard time climbing up there and instigating a fist fight. Is it so crazy that the rules seem to mirror real world activities in this case?

Kriswall, if I threw a banana at you and you ran at me to punch me in the face, I don't think jumping up on a bucket that's only big enough for me to stand on would protect me. I want you to know, that I would NEVER throw a banana at you, I'm just saying, if I did.

Likewise, a dude perched precariously on a ledge that used to be the second floor of a now ruined building is very unlikely to share that small ledge with a 25 foot tall metal death machine designed for close combat, bristling with chainsaws and lightning swords. But when that squishy little dude is sitting exposed right at meat-blendering level for the big robot's big chainsaw covered meat-blendering claw hands, he's getting meat-blendered. He just is. Just because the giant robot can't climb up the rickety ruin to sit next to the dude first is not going to stop him.

It seems even more silly when you realize that ruins aren't even impassible terrain. They're just difficult. They slow you down but you can move right through them. So that giant robot could walk right through the ruined building with the squishy dude perched on the tiny ledge that used to be the second floor. If dude wasn't there, that robot could stop halfway through and stand with his base right where the middle of the ruins are, but I'd have to claim WMS and we'd both know that he's there.

So to say that you can't assault guys because there's not room to put your terminator or larger base on that ledge just doesn't seem to fit with the intent of the rules, and the rules as written aren't very clear.

I say that ultimately it will come down to a HIWPI, and if that's the case, your opinion is honestly just as valid as mine is. If we ever get the chance to play, I'll role you for it.

 NightHowler wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
A lot of sniper/scout type units get bonuses to cover saves, and can easily hit 2+ inside ruins. That's about as close to invincible as you can get on a low point infantry model. Also, what if you're playing something like orks, nids or daemons? Is a Daemon player seriously supposed to sit there and hope for the right result on the warp storm table (and then hope that it actually hits that unit?)

CC is already hooked up to an iron lung in the intensive care unit. I just don't understand why people would want to kick it around even more by making spots where units can be totally immune to CC while still performing just fine.

It becomes especially stupid when the unit trying to get to them is something like a knight that could just swing and hit them at normal arm height, or winged/jump pack fighters who would be perfectly willing to slam into them with some hammer of wraiths to MAKE room for themselves.

No, but maybe that demon player should try a different lore other than the make more demons one. There are several ranged attacks in the pyromancy chart that have ignores cover attacks in it, including the primaris because it is a template attack, and all template attacks have ignores cover standard. Not my fault that you don't choose it, and the rules make you pay for your choice. Sadly, I agree with the Knight example, but I can justify it as a He can't hit what he can't see, and the added cover will sometimes totally block it's line of sight to the target models once he actually gets there. And the added protection of the ruin could also deflect the attacks, if not stop it entirely.

Unless they cast invisibility on themselves and then you can't hit them with template weapons. and you can't charge them because they're standing on that crate and it's like half an inch off the ground and the same size as their base. Practically invincible.

OR, you could just charge them, claim WMS, and stop the shenanigans.

I not only prefer the latter, but think it makes much more sense - both logically and from an ease of game play perspective.

Invisibility is entirely another discussion, and is almost universally agreed upon to be overpowered.

Sunburst still auto hits them, as does molten beam. even with invisibility. And being on a crate does not give you a cover save, being behind it does.

If you were wondering about the "Crate" argument, and being on top of the crate, rather than behind it:

 BlackTalos wrote:


Here is an example of the most simplistic form:
A Space marine is 1.5" away from a 2" high Box, this box is about 0.5" x 0.5". The marine can easily reach and climb this box.
An ork moves past the marine, and gets on the box.
The marine now declares a charge against the ork, but cannot in any way reach B2B with this Ork (he is 2" higher after all).

By RaW, that Ork is untouchable (Nonchargeable) by the Marine who could (fluff) literally chain-sword his feet with ease

Also, this is a clear example of Ork Cunning !

 Kriswall wrote:

 anticitizen013 wrote:
I pretty much do the same thing as this:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

The reasoning behind that is because if you can plant something in a ruin, knowingly place models to prevent an assault, and then argue about the legalities of WMS or charging or what-have-you, you are immediately THAT GUY.

The point of the game is to have fun. How fun is it to make something neigh on invincible? For those poor melee oriented armies with less than ideal shooting, simply shooting at said enemies isn't exactly an option. Having been on both sides, I just don't think that it's fair if you can use placement of models on terrain to prevent assault.

I know I'm not alone when I say that it should all be fair. Maybe in a tournament you can do that nonsense, but casual games shouldn't make you want to choke someone out.

I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

I'll stick with the idea that if you can't assault them, shoot them until you make room. If your army has no shooting, you're out of luck. Maybe make a more balanced army list next time?

Also, in the real world, if I'm standing on a small platform with room for only myself that requires climbing a ladder to access... you're going to have a real hard time climbing up there and instigating a fist fight. Is it so crazy that the rules seem to mirror real world activities in this case?

I can't help but immediately notice the tau title on your profile. Your stance on the issue makes a lot more sense now.

And on the subject of a small platform with a ladder, what about a guy with a jump pack or wings that just wants to jump boost straight to you and hammer of wrath you regardless of terrain. Your stance is "sorry but you can't land after your attack so you can't make one"?

Yeah, if you play a shooting army and try to claim spots give you "invincible to melee" special rule, you are most certainly TFG.

Should we remember Tenet number 5?

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 anticitizen013 wrote:
I pretty much do the same thing as this:

niv-mizzet wrote:
We use the "measure distance and claim WMS" to allow charges, because otherwise we end up with invincible snipers on ruins etc.

The reasoning behind that is because if you can plant something in a ruin, knowingly place models to prevent an assault, and then argue about the legalities of WMS or charging or what-have-you, you are immediately THAT GUY.

The point of the game is to have fun. How fun is it to make something neigh on invincible? For those poor melee oriented armies with less than ideal shooting, simply shooting at said enemies isn't exactly an option. Having been on both sides, I just don't think that it's fair if you can use placement of models on terrain to prevent assault.

I know I'm not alone when I say that it should all be fair. Maybe in a tournament you can do that nonsense, but casual games shouldn't make you want to choke someone out.

I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

I'll stick with the idea that if you can't assault them, shoot them until you make room. If your army has no shooting, you're out of luck. Maybe make a more balanced army list next time?

Also, in the real world, if I'm standing on a small platform with room for only myself that requires climbing a ladder to access... you're going to have a real hard time climbing up there and instigating a fist fight. Is it so crazy that the rules seem to mirror real world activities in this case?

I can't help but immediately notice the tau title on your profile. Your stance on the issue makes a lot more sense now.

And on the subject of a small platform with a ladder, what about a guy with a jump pack or wings that just wants to jump boost straight to you and hammer of wrath you regardless of terrain. Your stance is "sorry but you can't land after your attack so you can't make one"?

Yeah, if you play a shooting army and try to claim spots give you "invincible to melee" special rule, you are most certainly TFG.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm anything less than an absolute paragon of sportsmanship while playing this game.

And if you must know, my primary army these days is Necrons. I haven't actually played a game with Tau Empire in about a year or so. So, yeah, the assumptions you based your personal attack on are a little off.

We're debating how the rules work. The rules require that you be able to reach the target in order to declare a charge. Reach is not defined in the rules, but given that the first movement related step of resolving a charge requires moving the closest model into base to base contact, it's reasonable to assume that reach means "is able to move into base to base contact". There will be situations where this is not possible. The majority of these situations can be resolved by simply shooting and killing at least one model before charging. In the few instances where the charging model is very large (Imperial Knight is a good example) and is trying to charge into a very tight space (a small platform on the second level of a ruin is a good example)... well, sometimes big things just don't fit in small spaces.

Allowing an Imperial Knight to hover in space next to a platform he's too small to stand on to complete a charge probably isn't the best solution. Rewriting the ruins rules to count them as a type of "Open-Topped Building" that can be shot at and ultimately destroyed... hurting those inside, might be a better solution. TO BE CLEAR, I'm not suggesting this is the answer. Just that there are other answers if we're wanting to "fix" the rules.

How are "unassaultable" units in a ruin any different from "unassaultable" units in a building or vehicle? The building or vehicle can be shot at/assaulted. In my mind, the issue isn't that the models "hiding" in the ruins are "invincible". It's that the ruins themselves are "invincible".

I do like the budding idea, though, that Imperial Knights are Vehicles, and most vehicles do not have a base (I'm looking at you, Defiler)

As one then measures "from the hull", having an imperial Knight charge a lvl 2 Building by making sure his Weapon is in contact with the enemy Base does not sound extremely far-fetched !

 BlackTalos wrote:
I do like the budding idea, though, that Imperial Knights are Vehicles, and most vehicles do not have a base (I'm looking at you, Defiler)

As one then measures "from the hull", having an imperial Knight charge a lvl 2 Building by making sure his Weapon is in contact with the enemy Base does not sound extremely far-fetched !

This would work, except that... Imperial Knights DO have a base. Also... "for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements." Swords aren't specifically covered (did any vehicles have swords at the start of 7th?), but given that gun barrels aren't considered part of a model's hull, I think it's pretty unlikely that a sword would be considered part of a model's hull either. You'd need to have the actual hull touch an enemy base... not sword to model, but hull to base. If you can pull that off, I'd totally allow it. BUT... not for Imperial Knights... "If a Walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as for an Infantry model. If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles."

First quote is from the Vehicles section. Second is from the Walkers section.

Since I think most of us agree that the rules are a little unclear on how it's played, let me ask a hypothetical.

There's a three level ruin with no stairs, just two walls making a corner, a base (ground level), a second level, and a third level. Your standard 40k ruins.

On the ground level is a unit of beasts.

How do they get to the second level? Remember that there are no stairs.

They climb up the walls. Measure vertical distance?

I'm going to raise this with my opponent soon, as we had a situation recently where his models couldn't possibly fit on a floor I was occupying (but we counted them as in base contact for assault).

 NightHowler wrote:
Since I think most of us agree that the rules are a little unclear on how it's played, let me ask a hypothetical.

There's a three level ruin with no stairs, just two walls making a corner, a base (ground level), a second level, and a third level. Your standard 40k ruins.

On the ground level is a unit of beasts.

How do they get to the second level? Remember that there are no stairs.

Movement Phase/Moving Vertically section... "The Space Marine has a move of 6". He move 3" horizontally to get beneath th e floor of the ruined building, and then moves 3" verticaly, ending the move one floor up as shown in the photograph." There is then a photograph showing a ruins with the first floor being 3" off the ground and the Space Marine starting 3" away from the wall.

If the Beasts start out on the ground floor and you want to move them vertically, you simply measure the distance and move them. There is not an actual, in game requirement that stairs or ladders be present. If the first floor is 9" off the ground, it would be inaccessible to normal Infantry (6" max move), but fine for Beasts (12" max move). Beasts could "climb" the 9" and have 3" left over.

 Kriswall wrote:
Movement Phase/Moving Vertically section... "The Space Marine has a move of 6". He move 3" horizontally to get beneath th e floor of the ruined building, and then moves 3" verticaly, ending the move one floor up as shown in the photograph." There is then a photograph showing a ruins with the first floor being 3" off the ground and the Space Marine starting 3" away from the wall.

If the Beasts start out on the ground floor and you want to move them vertically, you simply measure the distance and move them. There is not an actual, in game requirement that stairs or ladders be present. If the first floor is 9" off the ground, it would be inaccessible to normal Infantry (6" max move), but fine for Beasts (12" max move). Beasts could "climb" the 9" and have 3" left over.

Right.

And the rules for movement say that you can never come within 1" of an enemy model unless you're charging it.

So if the beasts are on the ground floor and the second floor was covered with infantry, the beasts would, as I understand it, be prevented from moving to the third floor unless there was someplace on the second floor where the base of the infantry models left more than 1" of space.

Would you agree with this?

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Movement Phase/Moving Vertically section... "The Space Marine has a move of 6". He move 3" horizontally to get beneath th e floor of the ruined building, and then moves 3" verticaly, ending the move one floor up as shown in the photograph." There is then a photograph showing a ruins with the first floor being 3" off the ground and the Space Marine starting 3" away from the wall.

If the Beasts start out on the ground floor and you want to move them vertically, you simply measure the distance and move them. There is not an actual, in game requirement that stairs or ladders be present. If the first floor is 9" off the ground, it would be inaccessible to normal Infantry (6" max move), but fine for Beasts (12" max move). Beasts could "climb" the 9" and have 3" left over.

Right.

And the rules for movement say that you can never come within 1" of an enemy model unless you're charging it.

So if the beasts are on the ground floor and the second floor was covered with infantry, the beasts would, as I understand it, be prevented from moving to the third floor unless there was someplace on the second floor where the base of the infantry models left more than 1" of space.

Would you agree with this?

To be clear, you're saying that the Beasts are on the Ground/First floor and want to move to the Third Floor by moving THROUGH the enemy models on the Second Floor? I agree that they would be unable to move through the enemy models. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I would assume that in a real life scenario, a person climbing a ruined building would have trouble getting to the third floor if the second floor was completely choked with enemy combatants.

I'm curious to see where you're going with this. You, sir, have intrigued me.

 Kriswall wrote:
To be clear, you're saying that the Beasts are on the Ground/First floor and want to move to the Third Floor by moving THROUGH the enemy models on the Second Floor? I agree that they would be unable to move through the enemy models. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I would assume that in a real life scenario, a person climbing a ruined building would have trouble getting to the third floor if the second floor was completely choked with enemy combatants.

I'm curious to see where you're going with this. You, sir, have intrigued me.

My point isn't so much about how they couldn't unless there was 1" of space as it was that they could if there was at least 1" of space.

I'm trying to illustrate why I believe you can charge units on the second floor by showing how movement happens in a ruins. It's pretty abstract. It's not impassable and there are no stairs, your model just floats up the number of inches you're going to move.

So lets call it premise 1 that if my beasts on the ground floor and infantry on the second floor but there is one corner of that floor where there is 1.000001" of space, then my beasts could move to the third floor because of the abstract way in which movement happens between levels of a ruin.

Because I hold premise 1 to be true I also hold it to be true that the same unit of beasts could move into base to base with the models on the second floor except that they would fall - and that I could use wobbly model syndrome to call it a successful charge.

It just doesn't make sense that a unit can move past another unit but not attack it.

Edited to add that its kind of fun to imagine a whole pack of vicious beasts hissing menacingly at the infantry as they climb past to get to the third floor but never attacking them.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
To be clear, you're saying that the Beasts are on the Ground/First floor and want to move to the Third Floor by moving THROUGH the enemy models on the Second Floor? I agree that they would be unable to move through the enemy models. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I would assume that in a real life scenario, a person climbing a ruined building would have trouble getting to the third floor if the second floor was completely choked with enemy combatants.

I'm curious to see where you're going with this. You, sir, have intrigued me.

My point isn't so much about how they couldn't unless there was 1" of space as it was that they could if there was at least 1" of space.

I'm trying to illustrate why I believe you can charge units on the second floor by showing how movement happens in a ruins. It's pretty abstract. It's not impassable and there are no stairs, your model just floats up the number of inches you're going to move.

So lets call it premise 1 that if my beasts on the ground floor and infantry on the second floor but there is one corner of that floor where there is 1.000001" of space, then my beasts could move to the third floor because of the abstract way in which movement happens between levels of a ruin.

Because I hold premise 1 to be true I also hold it to be true that the same unit of beasts could move into base to base with the models on the second floor except that they would fall - and that I could use wobbly model syndrome to call it a successful charge.

I definitely see what you're getting at. However, it's important to realize that the Beasts could never choose to finish their movement between floors... "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood." This is from the Moving Through Terrain section.

I would agree with your stance that the Beast could move to the third floor by "skirting" the models on the second floor. In your example, if the Beast are mounted on a small enough base (25, 32 or 40mm most likely) to be able to be stood in the available space, the target can be reached and thus the charge may be declared. In your same example, I would say that the Beasts wouldn't be able to stop on the second floor as no amount of precarious balancing would allow them to be stood on that .00001" of floor while staying 1" away from the enemy.

I think the WMS is always going to be a sticking point. For me, WMS requires that you can place, however precariously, the model and have it stay there. I believe that WMS is intended to protect your models from the damaged incurred if they fall over and not to place a model in an otherwise untenable location. In other words, no amount of precarious balancing will allow me to place a Space Marine on a .00001" wide sliver of floor, so WMS should never kick in.

RAW is actually quite clear,

you cannot charge models you cannot reach,

and thinngs like IK's will have a difficult/impossible time reaching top levels in ruins.

so they by RAW cannot do it most of the time, you might not like this, but its not "unclear" rules wise, and there have been rules in place to prevent this kind of thing for several editions now, so RAI can also be said to support this.


As far as "you are that guy" assertions, while its not fun to have your big super heavy have a *gasp* weakness like it being so big it cannot go some places that smaller models can go,

it is RAW, and quite likely RAI as for the last two editions there are rules that allow things like IK to be blocked from assaulting on top of ruins.

one could easily say that someone is "that guy" for trying to put a super heavy on top of ruins, its fething HUGE its should play like a huge model.

after all, maybe for other people, its not fun to have nothing they can do against a big super heavy that should belong in apoc games, let alone someone who wants such a big, powerful model, to also be elf like in its grace and be able to run like legolas up the falling bricks of a ruin that cannot support its weight.


small models in hordes get bottle necked by terrain all the time and have disadvantages, why people think there should be no disadvantages to taking large models is beyond me, why people think using the terrain to a tactical advantage (as is done in real life) isnt "realistic" is a bit off.

if you want to bring realism into it, realistically things like IKs cannot just walk up ruins, realistically ground troops *should* have things like caves, sewers, and tall buildings to hide in.

I mean, its a staple scene to see the little hobbits/people or whatever run into a cave and have the big bad dragon uselessly try to reach into the cave, but be thwarted by its ginormous size, with none of that power helping it get into a small cave.

 Kriswall wrote:
I definitely see what you're getting at. However, it's important to realize that the Beasts could never choose to finish their movement between floors... "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood." This is from the Moving Through Terrain section.

I would agree with your stance that the Beast could move to the third floor by "skirting" the models on the second floor. In your example, if the Beast are mounted on a small enough base (25, 32 or 40mm most likely) to be able to be stood in the available space, the target can be reached and thus the charge may be declared. In your same example, I would say that the Beasts wouldn't be able to stop on the second floor as no amount of precarious balancing would allow them to be stood on that .00001" of floor while staying 1" away from the enemy.

I think the WMS is always going to be a sticking point. For me, WMS requires that you can place, however precariously, the model and have it stay there. I believe that WMS is intended to protect your models from the damaged incurred if they fall over and not to place a model in an otherwise untenable location. In other words, no amount of precarious balancing will allow me to place a Space Marine on a .00001" wide sliver of floor, so WMS should never kick in.

Well, I didn't expect that we'd agree, I just wanted to share my thoughts.

It's unlikely GW will ever give us a useful FAQ for this, but they should. In the meantime everyone will just need to work out how they would play it with their respective groups.

I think that there needs to be some sort of common sense middle ground. I see a lot of eople trying to shoehorn in the "melee is dead" campaign but aside from being wrong, it has no basis on THIS issue. It doesnt matter if it is an uber carnifex or a weakling grot, the issue is the same. If your having problems with that, discuss terraign placement and tactics in a different section of the forums.
I can see using the base size to cover enough floor space to keep an enemy from climbing up as that would represent kickig peole in the head as they climbed up the ladder and stuff like that. Likewise it is obvious that if there is a model hiding in the back corner of a lower level ruin out of LOS of a knights head where the knight couldnt see it. Obviously, the knight couldnt attack it. But that isnt what we are talking about. We are talking about models standing on the edge of a ruin in plain sight without even trying to hide behind something.
The ules evidently dont cover this contingency (no game is perfect and covers everything that could happen. This is why my group is discussing ways to alleviate it or lessen it.

I think the actual question has been answered. There is no official ruling. I think leaving the thread open would only lead into proposed rules which would belong in a different section or other discussion which would not be productive.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I definitely see what you're getting at. However, it's important to realize that the Beasts could never choose to finish their movement between floors... "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood." This is from the Moving Through Terrain section.

I would agree with your stance that the Beast could move to the third floor by "skirting" the models on the second floor. In your example, if the Beast are mounted on a small enough base (25, 32 or 40mm most likely) to be able to be stood in the available space, the target can be reached and thus the charge may be declared. In your same example, I would say that the Beasts wouldn't be able to stop on the second floor as no amount of precarious balancing would allow them to be stood on that .00001" of floor while staying 1" away from the enemy.

I think the WMS is always going to be a sticking point. For me, WMS requires that you can place, however precariously, the model and have it stay there. I believe that WMS is intended to protect your models from the damaged incurred if they fall over and not to place a model in an otherwise untenable location. In other words, no amount of precarious balancing will allow me to place a Space Marine on a .00001" wide sliver of floor, so WMS should never kick in.

Well, I didn't expect that we'd agree, I just wanted to share my thoughts.

It's unlikely GW will ever give us a useful FAQ for this, but they should. In the meantime everyone will just need to work out how they would play it with their respective groups.

Yeah, waiting for an FAQ isn't really the best option. My gaming group house rules all ruins floors to be 3" apart and that charges can be declared if you can get to a spot immediately below or above a model on an adjacent floor and still have 3" of movement left. While this is clearly not RaW, everyone seems happy with it.

I'd honestly love to see ruins treated like buildings, but with an "Open-Topped" designation that makes them easier to hurt. Models inside would be embarked and would potentially take damage if the ruins is destroyed. Or maybe keep them as is, but require a Dangerous Terrain test each turn regardless of whether or not the unit moved. Sure, you get cover, but the floor might fall out beneath you at any moment. Especially if you're 8 feet tall and clad in ceramite power armour. A Techmarine's Bolster Ruins special rule could allow a 4+ to ignore the Dangerous Terrain requirement or something instead of adding +1 to cover.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. The current rules just aren't that great.

Agreed

 easysauce wrote:
RAW is actually quite clear,

you cannot charge models you cannot reach,

and thinngs like IK's will have a difficult/impossible time reaching top levels in ruins.

But if the rule intends to prevent you from charging models you cannot physically get into base contact with, why then does it have this:

Models that are in base contact with a barricade or wall are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that barricade or wall. Units charging an enemy that is behind a barricade or wall count as charging through difficult terrain.

And this:

Models that are in base contact with a defence line are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that defence line. Units charging an enemy that is behind a defence line count as charging through difficult terrain.

And this:

If a challenge has been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. Note that these moves cannot be used to move a character out of unit coherency. If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact, ‘swap’ the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight.

It seems as if in every single case where GW explicitly talks about a case where they think you might have issues physically moving the models in base to base contact, they provide you with a solution, without mentioning an exception to the "reach" rule.


So what do you guys think ?

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

Which is exactly why the 5th ed solution was better... he doesn't have to move up into the ruin, you just assume he's standing beside it and whacking the models at convenient chest height...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:
It seems as if in every single case where GW explicitly talks about a case where they think you might have issues physically moving the models in base to base contact, they provide you with a solution, without mentioning an exception to the "reach" rule.


So what do you guys think ?

I think there are certain specific situations where GW allowed for models to count as being in base contact when they are not, and different levels in ruins are not one of those situations... as odd as that is, given that the situation was dealt with in previous editions.

So as the rules stand, unless you allow WMS to apply in this situation, models on a floor in a ruin that you can't move onto are unassaultable without a house rule saying otherwise.

der soulstealer wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
RAW is actually quite clear,

you cannot charge models you cannot reach,

and thinngs like IK's will have a difficult/impossible time reaching top levels in ruins.

But if the rule intends to prevent you from charging models you cannot physically get into base contact with, why then does it have this:

Models that are in base contact with a barricade or wall are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that barricade or wall. Units charging an enemy that is behind a barricade or wall count as charging through difficult terrain.

And this:

Models that are in base contact with a defence line are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that defence line. Units charging an enemy that is behind a defence line count as charging through difficult terrain.

And this:

If a challenge has been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. Note that these moves cannot be used to move a character out of unit coherency. If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact, ‘swap’ the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight.

It seems as if in every single case where GW explicitly talks about a case where they think you might have issues physically moving the models in base to base contact, they provide you with a solution, without mentioning an exception to the "reach" rule.


So what do you guys think ?

all those are specific examples relating to things like aegis or walls,

none of them deal with ruins,

none of them are situations where its impossible for models to be placed anywhere,

none of them lend to allowing a 8" base to balance on a crumbling ruin where it cannot be placed.


if you are going to look at rules for context, you only need to look at the "cannot be placed" rules in the BRB that already disallow models that cannot be placed on ruins to charge up there.

If you are going to quote RAI, the fact that GW has previously, AND in this edition written rules that disallow many units from reaching top levels of ruins is just as much, and more, proof of RAI in 7th edition.

so while yes, you can bring up specific exceptions for walls/aegis/barricades,

there is a specific "you are not allowed charging on top of ruins if you cannot fit" rule in the book specifically for ruins, so while GW has written in an allowance for walls, they have explicitly written in a restriction for ruins.




most FAQ's and housrules allow for things to charge up on ruins, EXCEPT super heavies, gargantuans, and vehicles. which is still more then GW allowed before, as many units like bikes were banned by name from getting on top of ruins, the new edition GW wanted to further curtail the amount of crazy stuff you can put on ruins and wrote rules to that effect,

IE if it cannot fit, it cannot fit, no charge for you. You might not like it, but its clear what RAW is.


The ITC FAQ allows only regular vehicle walkers+ skimmers up on ruins, super heavies of all kinds and gargantuan creatures are no go's in ITC, which is basically the most used FAQ, and what most people use.

so yes, you want to charge me up top here with your bikes? ok sure, why not.

you want to put an IK or your super heavy tank on top of this? no fething way...

I understand that they specifically covered a few instances like with the barricades. My point is that if they saw that there would be issues, why did they not set something up that would cover a multitude of instances? I dont mean like they did in previous editions where you could jump to the 15th floor from ground level, I mean a concrete something that can be referenced.
Going back to previous editions is no more helpfull than pulling in rules from different games. I understand axes need to be ground but we are looking for something to help us in the here and now of the current edition of this game.
There is no concrete current rule that can be referenced so that leaves us with options....
1. go back to previous editions which would bring ing in a host of new issues.
2. bring in a rule from a different game. Again, bringing in new issues
3. roll off for it in a set manner (before the game or for the first instance it comes up and then either reroll each additional time or keep the first result)
4. Sit and work amongst the members of your group to come up with a house rule that you can agree on.
I prefer the #3 method for when an issue FIRST turns up to keep the game going and then afterwards, go to #4.

Here is what we have so far followed by a few issues with it that I have no introduced yet....

1. Ruins and rubble and so forth in terms of assault distance (not vision as thats a different topic) being measured horizontally. This means that a eldar guardian standing in a tight alley between 2 ruins could still be assaulted by a hive tyrant even though the tyrant's base wont fit into the alley, so long as the tryant rolls (and makes) the needed distance and the tryant model is assumed to be in base contact. Of course any follow up or further movement afterwards would be measured from the "assumed" position as that is where it "really is".
2. Model spacing. on a level of a ruin or building where a squad is, it is possible to space the models to prevent an enemy unit from assaulting. I feel this is a viable tactic. however, it can be disrupted by killing one of the models in order to make room for at least one model from an assaulting unit to make contact and initiate the assault. I feel this is ok. However...
many models are a little on the huge side of life. take for example an imperial knight, a stompa or a wraithknight. Obviously, they will not fit into the upper floors of many ruins yet the upper levels are withing "swinging distance. How do we address this? I suggest this...
- only monstrous creatures or larger would have this apply to them.
- large assaulter needing to be in base contact with the ruin or straight down from any exposed levels.
-unit being assaulted need to have a model within 2" of the "edge".
-assaulter not able to assault higher than head height (use top of the head almost said "eye level" till realized wraightknights have no eyes lol). This because it would be harder for them to reach. Of course, this will mean different ones like the wraightknight could reach higher than other units but oh well .
- I'd say this could work the other way as well as units on an upper floor attacked a giant critter standing right there so long as the reversed requirements are met.

I'm thinking the guys on the higher stories should need to be on the edge to launch an assault instead of ithin 2" as they would need to be to be swung at.

 easysauce wrote:
if you are going to look at rules for context, you only need to look at the "cannot be placed" rules in the BRB that already disallow models that cannot be placed on ruins to charge up there.

I'm not questioning that it exists, I'd just like a page number or a quote so that I can read up on this "cannot be placed" rule you're referencing. Can you help me out with this one?

 easysauce wrote:
there is a specific "you are not allowed charging on top of ruins if you cannot fit" rule in the book specifically for ruins, so while GW has written in an allowance for walls, they have explicitly written in a restriction for ruins.

Again, not doubting you here, I'd just really like to read up on the explicit restriction on assaulting in ruins. Can you provide a page number or a direct quote for me please?

 easysauce wrote:
IE if it cannot fit, it cannot fit, no charge for you. You might not like it, but its clear what RAW is.

Finally, if you could quote the rule or provide the page number for the crystal clear rules that prevent this, it would be helpful. I really want to stress that it's not that I'm doubting you, it's just that It's always seemed less than crystal to me, but you seem to feel like there are explicit rules directly prohibiting assaulting units in ruins and I want to understand this.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm "THAT GUY" if I think the following is a little silly... using WMS to allow an Imperial Knight to climb a rickety ladder in a ruins and then end his movement by hovering in mid air next to a small platform he'd be too large to stand on even if it was unoccupied? There are those who would argue that the person wanting to do it is "THAT GUY" instead.

I'll stick with the idea that if you can't assault them, shoot them until you make room. If your army has no shooting, you're out of luck. Maybe make a more balanced army list next time?

Also, in the real world, if I'm standing on a small platform with room for only myself that requires climbing a ladder to access... you're going to have a real hard time climbing up there and instigating a fist fight. Is it so crazy that the rules seem to mirror real world activities in this case?

My apologies, I didn't intend on directing that at you (if that's how you took it. Damn internets).

You must admit, however, the standing on a box thing is a little ridiculous but if we're going by that then would be untouchable.

With that said, we seriously shouldn't bring "real world activities" into this. There are no robots, super humans, giant aliens, evil daemons etc in real life (that I know of).

Most ruins are the GW ones, and have a wee walkway as a floor. Next time I see a ruined building I'll look for that! Plus moving through solid walls doesn't seem to make sense either, but it's there for gameplay purposes. I know we were talking about large things being able to assault when a group of infantry is holed up in the ruins. But what if it's another group of infantry? With guns? Are we to assume they all just stand there dumbfounded instead of providing cover fire while other members move in? I mean in gameplay terms, they are already striking at I1. If they have grenades, maybe not... but also how does realism play in to that? I'm not sure if you've ever seen a grenade explode in real life but the blast is pretty significant (and in the game it just allows you to strike at Initiative order... another gameplay adjustment). Shoddy floors with no cover probably wouldn't save you from a grenade (and I'm just using a standard fragmentation grenade here) whose kill radius is 5m, with a significant injury radius of 15m and a danger radius of up to 200m. That's only scratching the surface of 'real world' applications as well...

Honestly it is up to you and your gaming group how you end up playing it. What one random dude on the interwebs thinks is highly inconsequential and my views are just my views. Don't take them to heart! I just personally don't think it's fair.

I don't believe there's an explicit restriction.

A quick reminder before we dive into this one:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

The only thing there is in that book is:

can you reach (are you in range) ?
overwatch
roll for distance
if distance is enough, you move models in base contact


Never is there a discussion that maybe it would be impossible to put them in base contact, the rules don't address that point, one way or another.

And when the rules do not give us a clear answer, it's better to look at clues, as in the case of the Hemlock Wraithfighter, where the Dominion clue from the Swarmlord (or Broodlord? ) confirmed us that out of two possible conclusions, the one with the Primaris was correct.

in this case, there are two possible conclusions, and I believe that the clues left for Aegis, Barricades and Challenges are enough to tip the balance in favor of "yes you can charge through ruins, and you will be considered in base contact, as in every other case where physical base contact is not possible".

der soulstealer wrote:
I don't believe there's an explicit restriction.

A quick reminder before we dive into this one:

A quick reminder of the Tenets of YMDC:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

No worries, its on page 45 in the SRB has the "cannot charge what it cannot reach" rule in it, the next couple pages go over how things have to be in BTB contact to fight and so on.



so by GW rules, if the ruin has enough space for say the IK and the unit it is charging to both be placed, and be in BTB contact, you are good to go for the charge.

its just that this rarely happens what with ruins having small 2nd/3rd floors, and most tournaments will FAQ it to be as it is with ITC events where super heavies are banned by name (which is fair IMO, it does away with silly things like IKs and super heavies being on top of ruins, but allows the little guys to still assault even if there is no room)

 easysauce wrote:
No worries, its on page 45 in the SRB has the "cannot charge what it cannot reach" rule in it, the next couple pages go over how things have to be in BTB contact to fight and so on.



so by GW rules, if the ruin has enough space for say the IK and the unit it is charging to both be placed, and be in BTB contact, you are good to go for the charge.

its just that this rarely happens what with ruins having small 2nd/3rd floors, and most tournaments will FAQ it to be as it is with ITC events where super heavies are banned by name (which is fair IMO, it does away with silly things like IKs and super heavies being on top of ruins, but allows the little guys to still assault even if there is no room)

There's the rule I thought you might be quoting. It's funny, because if you quote the whole rule it goes on to say:

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

Extrapolating that this implies that you must be able to physically fit on the ledge with the unit that is only 3" away from your unit from the explicit rule that says you must be in range - meaning 12" or less - seems like a logical leap to me rather than a "crystal clear RAW GW says you can't do it" to me.

There is other stuff about being in base to base, but strangely enough, the only rule we're given for when a charge fails is this one, on page 47:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

So maybe it would be best to first admit that it's actually not crystal clear and that HIWPI might be the best we could hope for.

Edited because I realized that I was being really snarky and my Doctor recommended that I cut down on my snark...

A note about my earlier post I was not trying to be snarky about using earlier editions as examples of rules that might work better and i apologize if I came across that way. In this particuler instance as that specific rule might come closer to what is needed than what we currently have while still not being perfect itself. My point was we could also use the war machine versio or some other game's version as well but all of them including the earlier edition would not be in the current rulebook and thus on equal footing. As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

On "reaching", the imperial knight is a tad bit taller than normal models. looking at it realistically (I know thats a dirty word around here lol) it would be easier to 'reach" an enemy on the second floor if the knight remained on the ground. I'll use a funny example that does relate a little bit. I'm 6'11" and find kissing really short women to be difficult. Put her on a chair (2nd floor of a ruin) and its a lot easier.
i am also of the mind that super heavies should have been left to apoc or really large games (2k+) but we deal and work with what we have.
What did you guys think of the suggested house rule my group has so far?

 EVIL INC wrote:
What did you guys think of the suggested house rule my group has so far?

I think any house rule that makes as many people happy to play the game as possible is great. If it clears up the muddy waters created by the BRB, that's even better.

right and that section also talks about how things have to be in BTB contact, you have to be in range, and reach BTB contact. Im not quoting a sentence out of those pages by itself, because you need to apply the whole sections rules, and it takes up multiple pages.

All of which has to be taken into account.

what happens when a charger cannot be placed in BTB contact with the target?

what rules allow you to fight combat with no engaged models?

the rules are indeed clear about what models can or cannot fight in close combat.




Ive already admitted there are two sides to this, but RAW is pretty clear about this if you look at how the rules all work together, you have to reach the target, and be in BTB to fight. WHen you cannot physically be placed in BTB with the target, you cannot reach them or fight them.




We do have a FAQ/errata for 99% of intents and purposes (ITC) that spells it out, and it conforms with most peoples HIWPI which is that if you are within your rolled range, you are good to charge, but super heavies and the like cannot charge or go up on top of ruins still.

I suggest you use that until GW has an official ruling on this.

 easysauce wrote:
right and that section also talks about how things have to be in BTB contact, you have to be in range, and reach BTB contact. Im not quoting a sentence out of those pages by itself, because you need to apply the whole sections rules, and it takes up multiple pages.

All of which has to be taken into account.

what happens when a charger cannot be placed in BTB contact with the target?

what rules allow you to fight combat with no engaged models?

the rules are indeed clear about what models can or cannot fight in close combat.




Ive already admitted there are two sides to this, but RAW is pretty clear about this if you look at how the rules all work together, you have to reach the target, and be in BTB to fight. WHen you cannot physically be placed in BTB with the target, you cannot reach them or fight them.




We do have a FAQ/errata for 99% of intents and purposes (ITC) that spells it out, and it conforms with most peoples HIWPI which is that if you are within your rolled range, you are good to charge, but super heavies and the like cannot charge or go up on top of ruins still.

I suggest you use that until GW has an official ruling on this.

If you assume that you can't use the WMS rule, then I can see how it would all seem very clear to you.

I assume that you can use the WMS rule.

That's why I said that a HIWPI agreement should be reached by each group playing in their area instead of claiming that RAW my side was correct and everyone else was wrong. Because the truth is that it isn't clear cut, and some civility is necessary.

 EVIL INC wrote:
As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

And so, once again, nobody has an axe to grind. The only person making an issue of the '5th edition was better' thing in this thread so far is you.

I mentioned how it used to be handled solely because it was a quick and simple resolution to the current rules issue, and so would be an acceptable and sensible house rule. The fact that the rule comes from 5th edition is completely secondary to what it does.

night howler

WMS only works if the model "can be placed" in that position to start with.

if you cannot place it, you cannot use WMS. WMS even says in its rule that *both* players must agree to use WMS to use it.

WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with.

not sure why you bring civility into it, none of my posts have been snarky or uncivil... ive seen some edits from others that might fit this, but not my posts.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

And so, once again, nobody has an axe to grind. The only person making an issue of the '5th edition was better' thing in this thread so far is you.

I mentioned how it used to be handled solely because it was a quick and simple resolution to the current rules issue, and so would be an acceptable and sensible house rule. The fact that the rule comes from 5th edition is completely secondary to what it does.

Read the entire thread. My last post cleared that up before you posted this. No problems though. You likely just hadnt made it that far before replying.

 easysauce wrote:
night howler

WMS only works if the model "can be placed" in that position to start with.

if you cannot place it, you cannot use WMS.

WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with.

not sure why you bring civility into it, none of my posts have been snarky or uncivil... ive seen some edits from others that might fit this, but not my posts.

I wasn't accusing you of being uncivil. I said some civility is required in this situation since the rules aren't clear.

The truth is that some civility is always required.

I'm glad to know that you use the WMS rule differently than I do, and your understanding of the rule certainly explains why you would assume that it doesn't work when declaring a charge in ruins.

However, as I interpret the rule, it works just fine for declaring a charge when my initial charger is in charge range and the only thing obstacle is that my model would fall if I tried to place it there.

We disagree. The rule is unclear. It's ok.

 easysauce wrote:
WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with..

And that's where the disagreement starts. You see a requirement to physically place the model. Others take the WMS rule as simply meaning that the location is somewhere that the entity the model represents would realistically be able to move to, but is unable to due to the fact that it is a static model mounted on a rigid plastic disc.

That latter interpretation is the one being used to allow assaulting between levels. It's arguably not strict RAW, but it is an easy solution to something that many players see as a problem in the current rules.

look at WMS rules,

BOTH players must agree the model can be placed there to use WMS.

you guys might want to re read WMS rules.

you cannot unilaterally enact WMS whenever you feel like it, the model must be placeable, and both players must agree that it is such.

the rule clearly just allows you to not leave a model in a dangerous position, it does not let you put models in places they cannot fit, or be placed on.



you might use the WMS or play it differently then how GW words it, and you are welcome to make up houserules as you see fit,

but the rules say both players have to agree that WMS is to be used, and the rules say the models still has to be placable at the location for WMS to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
model represents would realistically be able to move to, .

tahts pretty subjective, and again, both players have to agree on this according to WMS.

even with your interpretation,
WMS still doesnt allow for a model to be placed somewhere it realistically cannot go, and physically cannot go.

realistically can or cannot go is outside of the realm of RAW too, your idea of realistic may not be mine, and in a world of magic warp dust fiends, really doesnt matter either way


again,

we have a FAQ, that the community as a whole has a part in, look at ITC FAQ, it has the answer to this question/thread, and this is how almost every tournament or game will be played.

 easysauce wrote:
look at WMS rules,

BOTH players must agree the model can be placed there to use WMS.

you guys might want to re read WMS rules.

you cannot unilaterally enact WMS whenever you feel like it, the model must be placeable, and both players must agree that it is such.

the rule clearly just allows you to not leave a model in a dangerous position, it does not let you put models in places they cannot fit, or be placed on.



you might use the WMS or play it differently then how GW words it, and you are welcome to make up houserules as you see fit,

but the rules say both players have to agree that WMS is to be used, and the rules say the models still has to be placable at the location for WMS to be used.

Again, it's nice that you have one way of interpreting the rule, but let me quote the whole rule for you and help you understand why it's not as clearcut as you imagine it to be.

Wobbly Model Syndrome
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

So sure, we could read that sentence to mean that we both have to agree to use the rule, or we could read that sentence to mean that we both have to agree where the model actually is.

Not super clear anymore is it?

I don't mind disagreeing. It's a big part of a game with such poorly written rules. I find it much more frustrating when someone decides that their interpretation of a hotly contested rule is the one and only crystal clear RAW. Especially when it is so obvious that the rule are in fact very poorly written.

Wobbly Model Syndrome

"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place as he can check line of sight."

Sure sound like the model must be able to actually be left in place without support, and slide or tip from poor balance. There is no possible way that your interpretation could include difficulty in balancing it, and people nudging the table to make it fall.

How does your interpretation include "Delicately balance" in it? Hoe can you "Delicately Balance" something in a location that it is physically impossible to set it? Maybe, you will let me WMS my Swooping Hawks 12" off the top of the table? Hey they are jump troops, so it makes sense that they can do this.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Wobbly Model Syndrome

"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place as he can check line of sight."

Sure sound like the model must be able to actually be left in place without support, and slide or tip from poor balance. There is no possible way that your interpretation could include difficulty in balancing it, and people nudging the table to make it fall.

And I'm saying that I don't need my interpretation to include the only example they give of a model falling over to use the rule. One example given does not exclude all other possible examples or scenarios.

I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm just saying that it's not clear cut.

Note the "hard" in that first sentence. How does "impossible" equal "hard"?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Note the "hard" in that first sentence. How does "impossible" equal "hard"?

Let me help you out here with a visual:

Wobbly Model Syndrome
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. Example of one way in which it may be hard to place your model where you want it. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

" If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table" is no analogous of "falls over the second you let go of the model"






As far as a solution, I've got one that's RAW


This edition allows you to literally writ your own terrain rules and present them to your opponent. Copy and paste the 6th edition terrain rules into a data slate, title it "less crappy ruin rules" and you're done.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

The problem with your interpretation is with it I could literally move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

The problem with your interpretation is with it I could literally move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms.

That's actually not a fair comparison. If said you could move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms to leave him perched on a 1" ledge, that would be a fair comparison and I would say that you can do that.

I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

 easysauce wrote:
realistically can or cannot go is outside of the realm of RAW too, your idea of realistic may not be mine, and in a world of magic warp dust fiends, really doesnt matter either way

Hence the stipulation for both players to agree on the model's placement.


I'm not saying that one player should be able to just say 'Yup, my model is perched on this ridiculously small piece of terrain, because WMS, yeah!'... The terrain rules in this edition are ridiculously vague, and require a certain amount of co-operation from both players.

Sadly, all miniatures games have issues such as this. i've seen players keep a notepad at the table to take note of items as they come up to address them between games whether its to check the FAQ or go online or to try to come up with solutions to be discussed between players before the next game where it may come up again.

I know talking it out with your opponent befoe the game is a nice pat answer but it doesnt take an important thing into account.
As we see here, different players interpret the rules differently. You can have players see a rule as being 'as clear as the nose on your face" and be coming at it from different directions with two totally different answers. if you sat and pored over the rulebook before the game discussing each and every possible scenerio that MAY come up during a game that the rules are unclear on or does not specifically cover, you will never get to play (regardless of what game or edition your going to play).
This is why we need to understand its just a game.Find a fast solution to get you through the rest of the game your in when an issue comes up (rolling for it works fairly well) and then search for something official or work something out that satisfies eall involved.
My own group is going to start a living FAQ to put just such things in. With the understanding of course, that other groups likely do things differently.
But that leads us back towards something official because gaming groups take the place of individuals in terms of scale when they meet to play.....

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

You do realize that if there is greater than 1" for a model to move past them, then there is enough room to balance at least 1 beast, biker, Terminator/Wraithguard sized model, right?

Next question, do you honestly want to allow a squad of 7 models to fit on that tiny little 2" square of a top floor, thus stopping the assault anyway? I will gladly deploy my Firewarriors, rangers, and what have you all on that top floor. Thus still blocking an assault because you still can't get to the top floor, and I WMS an entire squad filling the entire floor with a single squad. I end up being able to protect more models with your interpretation, and make it even more difficult to get the assault off, example you can't place the squad in thin air.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

You do realize that if there is greater than 1" for a model to move past them, then there is enough room to balance at least 1 beast, biker, Terminator/Wraithguard sized model, right?

Next question, do you honestly want to allow a squad of 7 models to fit on that tiny little 2" square of a top floor, thus stopping the assault anyway? I will gladly deploy my Firewarriors, rangers, and what have you all on that top floor. Thus still blocking an assault because you still can't get to the top floor, and I WMS an entire squad filling the entire floor with a single squad. I end up being able to protect more models with your interpretation, and make it even more difficult to get the assault off, example you can't place the squad in thin air.

To the first point that if there's 1" inch then there's enough room to balance at least 1 biker - not if it's a 1" long but 0.3" wide ledge. Remember that the infantry models on the second floor have round bases and are standing on an irregularly shaped floor with jagged edges. It is a ruin after all.

To the second point, I would say that you can't wms the models to cover the entire floor because again, round bases on an irregularly shaped floor. There will always be at least a sliver of floor that is not covered by the round bases because round bases shoved together leave triangles of space between them at the edges.

Edited to add that you're getting very literal about an abstract rule system. It's just my opinion, but I feel like if you attempt to game the system to prevent an opponent from being able to use any of his assault troops through a rules loophole, it feels very unsportsmanlike.

The problem is there is no RAW awnser to this. You need to house rule it.

Step 1) Declare a charge from the Knight to the Eldar in the ruins.
Step 2) The Eldar fire overwatch.
Step 3) Assuming the Knight was not removed, the Knight rolls its charge distance.
Step 4) Measure the distance from the Knight to the Eldar. If this is greater then the charge distance rolled (including any modifiers) the charge is failed, otherwise continue to step 5.
Step 5) Move the Knight using the movement phase rules along the shortest route until it is in base contact with an enemy model.

Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact. The charge only fails in the measurable distance between the initial charger and the enemy model is greater then the charge distance rolled. We are instructed to do something impossible here so the game falls apart on a pure RAW level. One opinion is to declare the charge failed on move no models. Another would be to move the initial charger along the shortest possible route until it cannot get any closer and move on to step 6.

Step 6.) Move additional chargers (not applicable here) and the units are now locked in combat.
Step 7) During the fight sub-phase, if the Knight and Eldar are more then 3" apart the fight concludes otherwise move on to step 8)
Step 8) The Eldar and Knight make pile in moves at the appropriate initiatives bringing them into base contact. (The Knight's pile in move will be 0" but the Eldar's 3" will be enough to close the gap).

This might result in the Knight not getting any attacks in the 1st round of combat if it has a higher initiative, because until the Eldar come out to fight him he will be locked in combat but un-engaged.,

edit: I should add that the HIWPI for my group is basically option 2. We attempt to move the initial charger along the shortest route in step 5. but declare the charge a failure if that movement can't get him 3" or closer to the enemy. if the charge fails in step 5 the charger is put back where he started.

That "little sliver of floor" is specifically not allowed by the rules, as you can't end your move on top of an enemy model, so is not allowed, and assaults does not remove that particular restriction. If that little sliver is all you need to allow you to assault, why can't I use it to block you? A little unfair of an interpretation, me thinks.

As to stopping assault troops. I play using Wyches, Incubi, Striking Scorpions, and/or Howling Banshees. I use my tactics, and abilities to overcome this situation. I also no longer play "tournament" style stuff, because it is just completely unfun, and the rules are so horribly written, and armies so horribly balanced, that it isn't worth the effort to play that way anymore.


@DJGietzen
The assault rules still tell you to use the movement rules. ie if a model can't be placed there it can't make it there.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact.

Yes, they do. The charge rules stipulate that if the model is unable to reach his target, the charge fails.

If you are unable to move the model to a position where it is in base contact, then it is unable to reach its target.


If you allow WMS to apply to this situation, the the charge would still succeed so long as you have sufficient movement distance to reach the target. If you don't, then the charge fails.

its not about letting WMS apply or not,

its about whether you interpret WMS to let you put things where you cannot put them,

or as just a way to safely put things where you can precariously, but still actually, put them.

the rules do say *hard* to place models, not impossible to place models, if I can use WMS to place things impossibly, then I can use it to place things in mid air and other rediculousness.

Is there a difference between base to base contact and base contact? What I have read in the BRB states base contact, not base to base. I ask this because if one just need to be able to show that the charging model can make contact with the charged model's base then it would not matter what size base my model has. I'm not looking to twist the wording here, it's just I have seen that this thread has used base to base and the BRB does not.

So this seems more than relevant to the discussion.



Take it from experience, you don't want to open the can of worms. Just house rule that tall/large models can use hull or body in lieu of base to base. Much simpler.

It's no more relevant now than it has been any other time you have posted it. You're still fundamentally misunderstanding the argument.

Nobody is interpreting WMS to suggest that models should be able to stand on top of trees. Just that it should be used where the entity the model represents could move to somewhere that the static model can't stand... Because your troops aren't actually (in universe) moving around the battlefield in a fixed pose with a large disc attached to their feet.

 insaniak wrote:
It's no more relevant now than it has been any other time you have posted it. You're still fundamentally misunderstanding the argument.

Nobody is interpreting WMS to suggest that models should be able to stand on top of trees. Just that it should be used where the entity the model represents could move to somewhere that the static model can't stand... Because your troops aren't actually (in universe) moving around the battlefield in a fixed pose with a large disc attached to their feet.

Except the rules are written assuming static models.

Of course they are. Because that's what we're using.

And that's why WMS exists.

serious inquiry. I preface it stating it is dumb, but from a RAW standpoint a serious question:

Are we allowed to move a model so its base is still touching the table, but is turned up 90 degrees so it is also touching a models base on a different level.

As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction,

doesn't seem to limit you to turning to face in the x,y direction.

so can we turn in the z direction?

 insaniak wrote:
Of course they are. Because that's what we're using.

And that's why WMS exists.

No, WMS exists to prevent models that might fall do to the location they end to be moved to a safer location, not so a model can hover in place because 1/10000000000000000000000000000 of an inch are present for it to squeeze into a location. It also does not allow for a model to be placed on an upper level of a ruin, say the second floor, or even under the second floor if it is not possible to physically place the model there. See the vertical movement rule I quoted on the first page that says as much.

There is nothing in the rulebook that says the base of the mel has to be in on the bottom in a horizonatal position (unless someone can cite where that is exactly and specifically spelled out.) this means you could lay the model on it's side that way. it also means that you can glue the bases to the tops of the model's heads instead of under their feet or glue the bases on normally and having the models stand on their heads and without the other player doing something similar.
However, we are beyond the actual rules for the last few pages and have been proposing rules to fill in a gap that has always existed. We arent even talking about infantry assaulting from one level of a building to another and worrying about floor space, we are talking about huge models, monstrous sized and larger (dont think even all the monstrous sized critters could do it) who can literally walk up o the 2nd floor of a building and from a model's eye view attack what is on the second floor much MUCH easier than what is on the ground.

This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in. A simple standing in base contact and swinging at an enemy model within 1-2" of the edge but still within eyesight would have solved this. Heck, it could mean that it could not assault the guys on the ground floor out of LOS cause it couldnt see them. That would make a lot more sense to me.
but hey, we have been in the realm of proposed rules for a few pages now.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in..

There have been models that could reach 2nd or higher floors of ruins in the game since Rogue Trader.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The problem is there is no RAW awnser to this. You need to house rule it.

Step 1) Declare a charge from the Knight to the Eldar in the ruins.
Step 2) The Eldar fire overwatch.
Step 3) Assuming the Knight was not removed, the Knight rolls its charge distance.
Step 4) Measure the distance from the Knight to the Eldar. If this is greater then the charge distance rolled (including any modifiers) the charge is failed, otherwise continue to step 5.
Step 5) Move the Knight using the movement phase rules along the shortest route until it is in base contact with an enemy model.

Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact. The charge only fails in the measurable distance between the initial charger and the enemy model is greater then the charge distance rolled. We are instructed to do something impossible here so the game falls apart on a pure RAW level. One opinion is to declare the charge failed on move no models. Another would be to move the initial charger along the shortest possible route until it cannot get any closer and move on to step 6.

Step 6.) Move additional chargers (not applicable here) and the units are now locked in combat.
Step 7) During the fight sub-phase, if the Knight and Eldar are more then 3" apart the fight concludes otherwise move on to step 8)
Step 8) The Eldar and Knight make pile in moves at the appropriate initiatives bringing them into base contact. (The Knight's pile in move will be 0" but the Eldar's 3" will be enough to close the gap).

This might result in the Knight not getting any attacks in the 1st round of combat if it has a higher initiative, because until the Eldar come out to fight him he will be locked in combat but un-engaged.,

edit: I should add that the HIWPI for my group is basically option 2. We attempt to move the initial charger along the shortest route in step 5. but declare the charge a failure if that movement can't get him 3" or closer to the enemy. if the charge fails in step 5 the charger is put back where he started.

The rules actually deal with this situation just fine. In your example, you should never have gotten to step 1. If you can't reach the target, you can't declare a charge. If you can't move forward to achieve base to base, how do you propose you are able to reach the target? Being able to reach isn't simply an issue of distance. It's also an issue of placement.

If enemy unit A is entirely circled by enemy unit B, it may not be charged. You might be within 12", but you can't reach it. Just one example that has nothing to do with ruins.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in..

There have been models that could reach 2nd or higher floors of ruins in the game since Rogue Trader.

I'm aware of this. i have been playing since then. the point is how many of them did you see in games? Not that many. likewise, there is a difference between a model standing on it's toes to see the second floor and an imperial warhound titan having to bend down to see the second floor (or riptides, knights and such that also have to stoop to see.Nitpicking about a few odd models that were in existence then does not change the fact that it has never been addressed.
but as we have just been proposing possible house rules for the majority of the thread, we have seen a variety of different interesting options.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I'm aware of this. i have been playing since then. the point is how many of them did you see in games?

Pretty much every Eldar army I played against in 2nd edition had at least one dreadnought in it.

.Nitpicking about a few odd models that were in existence then does not change the fact that it has never been addressed.

It wasn't supposed to.

Rules as written, I think the wobbly model lets you charge side is wrong. I think you have to be able to place the model, in base contact, in order to charge.

With that said, I don't like that the rule works like that. I think there should be exceptions/clarification written into the rules to allow charging up into ruins event when you cannot place a model in base contact, as the lack of such exceptions allows for exploitative gameplay that weakens the already weak CC phase.

I also don't like that I can position my Trygon such that he has a marine on a ruins head in his mouth, roll double 6's on the charge, but not be allowed to be in CC with the marine.

I would argue that you need to follow "what makes sense" in a cinematic way. If you have a 2 story mech standing next to/just bellow the second floor then it doesn't mater that they are not actually in base to base contact. You make the "3 inch charge" once, place him right against the floor he doesn't fit on, and consider that it's arms are big enough to assault that floor above it.

In the Flyrant example if the smaller units cannot climb up to reach it and use their melee weapons then it makes sense that they have no footing to make an assault.

Bikes... how the hell would the bike get up a floor anyway?

rigeld2 wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
I don't believe there's an explicit restriction.

A quick reminder before we dive into this one:

A quick reminder of the Tenets of YMDC:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I've seen this tenet twice and here's my take:

First, one should make sure they understand the text of the rule properly. In that a dictionary definition can be immensely valuable. Indeed, sometimes it is not a reliable source of information, but most of the time it is a lot more reliable than "I think this means something else than what's written".

And in this case, I believe a poster (or more than one) was using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner.

And it seems to me that the same posters are still perfectly convinced that "being able to reach" somehow includes "being able to place a model in base to base contact within maximum charge distance".

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And it seems that even the BRB thought it necessary to insist on the meaning of reach, giving us an example of a unit 12" away, insisting on the fact that being able to reach means being within maximum charge range.


As a summary, I think the theory that such charges don't work RAW because reach means something else than just reach has been proven wrong.

 Kriswall wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I definitely see what you're getting at. However, it's important to realize that the Beasts could never choose to finish their movement between floors... "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood." This is from the Moving Through Terrain section.

I would agree with your stance that the Beast could move to the third floor by "skirting" the models on the second floor. In your example, if the Beast are mounted on a small enough base (25, 32 or 40mm most likely) to be able to be stood in the available space, the target can be reached and thus the charge may be declared. In your same example, I would say that the Beasts wouldn't be able to stop on the second floor as no amount of precarious balancing would allow them to be stood on that .00001" of floor while staying 1" away from the enemy.

I think the WMS is always going to be a sticking point. For me, WMS requires that you can place, however precariously, the model and have it stay there. I believe that WMS is intended to protect your models from the damaged incurred if they fall over and not to place a model in an otherwise untenable location. In other words, no amount of precarious balancing will allow me to place a Space Marine on a .00001" wide sliver of floor, so WMS should never kick in.

Well, I didn't expect that we'd agree, I just wanted to share my thoughts.

It's unlikely GW will ever give us a useful FAQ for this, but they should. In the meantime everyone will just need to work out how they would play it with their respective groups.

Yeah, waiting for an FAQ isn't really the best option. My gaming group house rules all ruins floors to be 3" apart and that charges can be declared if you can get to a spot immediately below or above a model on an adjacent floor and still have 3" of movement left. While this is clearly not RaW, everyone seems happy with it.

I'd honestly love to see ruins treated like buildings, but with an "Open-Topped" designation that makes them easier to hurt. Models inside would be embarked and would potentially take damage if the ruins is destroyed. Or maybe keep them as is, but require a Dangerous Terrain test each turn regardless of whether or not the unit moved. Sure, you get cover, but the floor might fall out beneath you at any moment. Especially if you're 8 feet tall and clad in ceramite power armour. A Techmarine's Bolster Ruins special rule could allow a 4+ to ignore the Dangerous Terrain requirement or something instead of adding +1 to cover.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. The current rules just aren't that great.

Great study!

In terms of RaW V Hypothetical, there one simple assumption as to why everyone wants the charge to succeed, but the RaW is clear on failing the charge:
- Access

Back to the Ork on the Box or the beasts running up the Ruin:
Every situation this will arise in, the Unit that 'got there first', such as the Ork or the unnamed infantry above, must have had a completely 'valid' path in order to get there. Moving from the floor up onto the Box was a very simple move.
Why, then, are the other models suddenly disallowed to repeat the same process due to 'lack of space' ?

Sure, that is RaW: Cannot declare a charge against an enemy you cannot reach. Even if he is 1.1" in front of you, stood on a Box.
I would definitely house-rule (HIWPI) that if 1 Unit got up there, the other should be able to reach the space just as well.

If you need an example of "unreachable but should be able to":
Think of an entire board made out of 1" steps (an entire staircase of a board). Your models and the enemy models would never be able to reach B2B contact, as there would always be a height difference between the Bases. But the board is technically flat (especially if the steps are slanted). What then? a board completely devoid of CC?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In case you needed it as an example: (by RaW, this board would completely disallow any Charges to be declared)

der soulstealer wrote:

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

.

Well, that quite effectively proves your argument wrong, right there.

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them. So by the definition you have provided, you can not reach them.

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

.

Well, that quite effectively proves your argument wrong, right there.

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them. So by the definition you have provided, you can not reach them.

On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things.

And there's the precision from GW themselves in the next sentence that insists on the meaning of reach to refer to charge range.

der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

Here's the difference: the rule book says "reach", you say "move alongside".

If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

You are perfectly correct that the model cannot be put in base contact. That's a fact.

But that fact does not prevent another model from reaching it. From being within maximum charge distance of it, as the rule book says.

A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

They go through the trouble of telling us "This means that a charge...." so why should we disregard that ?

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

I can understand the view though.

You make no distinction between:
- "cannot reach" because of distance
- "cannot reach" because of *positioning*

Whereas i keep thinking there should be, as the Rules only refer to distance, and not feasibility.
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared. There is no reference but assumption that "cannot reach" would also encompass positioning.

der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

They go through the trouble of telling us "This means that a charge...." so why should we disregard that ?

That rule doesn't give you permission to charge anything within 12" regardless of whether or not you can actually reach them. It just means that 12" is going to be the maximum distance most units can charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared.

No, it can't. Because no matter how far you roll for your charge distance, you will never be able to move into base contact before you run out of movement.

You do not have enough movement distance to reach your target.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared.

No, it can't. Because no matter how far you roll for your charge distance, you will never be able to move into base contact before you run out of movement.

You do not have enough movement distance to reach your target.

And that is only because the direct path (by RaW you need to take) is unavailable, completely. That path is still there (the same path the enemy model took to get up there), and completely unblocked apart from the target model himself.

So it ends up being a situation where the charge distance is blocked by a model from the Unit you are targeting. I don't know if this sounds just as wrong to you by RaW as it does to me.

I can agree that "cannot reach" means "no path available", but it just does not sit well with me at all when the path did exist.

No, I completely agree that is a stupid situation.

Which is why I go with either applying WMS, or following the old rule of just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough.

 insaniak wrote:
No, I completely agree that is a stupid situation.

Which is why I go with either applying WMS, or following the old rule of just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough.

The weird thing is, i would be completely against claiming WMS, as explained before about how you have to place the model first, and then claim....

The rules for vertical "good enough" were really the best option, although probably abused...

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.


This is what reach means in the dictionary:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

der soulstealer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.


This is what reach means in the dictionary:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

You are ignoring the word usually. Distance is USUALLY the only element that would prevent a model being able to reach another model. Other things (intervening models, terrain features, etc) can also cause problems.

"This means that a charge can USUALLY only be declared on a unit up to 12" away"

der soulstealer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Contact is what happens after the dices are rolled and the distance is confirmed to be sufficient as the rule you've quoted points out.

Here are the relevant bits from the book:

To resolve a charge, use the following procedure:

• First, pick one of your units, and declare which enemy unit it wishes to charge.
• Then, the target enemy unit gets to make a special kind of shooting attack called Overwatch (see below).
• Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

Once this has been done, you can either choose to declare a charge with another unit, or proceed to the Fight sub-phase.

Then there is the rule you think could prevent a charge on a busy level of a ruin:

Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

Also, as Kriswall kindly pointed out, "Usually" means that in the case when you cannot come to B2B, you cannot declare the charge

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also, as Kriswall kindly pointed out, "Usually" means that in the case when you cannot come to B2B, you cannot declare the charge

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

der soulstealer wrote:
And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

"The rules for vertical "good enough" were really the best option, although probably abused..."
They were. Not bothering to measure the distances because it was "good enough" or assaulting floors that were more than the charge distance away, or balancing a trygon on aledge 1/100 of a millimeter in size, so on and so forth. That specific rule out of that specific rulebook may have been closer than what we have now, but it was by no means perfect.
But again, we are off topic, The question is specifically the larger monsters such as the trygon or knight fighting guys standing out in the open on a ledge where realisticly (yeah, I know that has no place in wargaming lol) itwould be easy to fight and likely easier to fight without moving the bases together. The marine head in the trygon's mouth is a good example.of course in those situations, stomps would be out of the question I would think.

der soulstealer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The actual rules (unlike your assertions) do require that contact is made. Multiple times.
You've asserted that all that is required is that distance rolled is high enough. That's demonstrably false - the rules require contact.

If you cannot make contact, you cannot make the charge.

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

But from our previous discussion of the beasts on the ground floor of a 3 story ruins you admitted that the beasts could make a path past the infantry on the second floor to the third floor.

I know that people hate to admit that the rules ever fail to completely describe a situation, but this is one example where that happens.

Ruins.

The rules for ruins are now 2 sentences long and tell us only 2 things: They're difficult terrain. They give a 4+ cover save.

The rules for assault completely ignore the existence of ruins and in doing so create this situation where the rules fail to completely describe the situation of assaulting units on the upper floors of ruins. To say that they do, either explicitly or implicitly, is a fallacy.

The rules for assault say that you roll your charge range and if you're in range your charge succeeds. Yes. It also says you must move your model into base to base - in the context of a flat table ignoring the existence of ruins.

So we have a choice. We can interpret these incomplete and broken rules to say that 4 feeble guardsmen on the second floor of a ruined building can prevent a pack of demons from thundering through the spindley ramshackle remains of wood and stone, or we can say that common sense prevails and they engage in desperate hand to hand combat to defend themselves.

Both of these options are fine and both are up to the people playing since the rules do not provide enough guidelines to prevent this kind of debate.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

But from our previous discussion of the beasts on the ground floor of a 3 story ruins you admitted that the beasts could make a path past the infantry on the second floor to the third floor.

In that scenario, the Beasts weren't actually stopping on the 2nd floor. They wouldn't have been able to as there was no room to place the model, or have the model "be stood", as the rules call it

I know that people hate to admit that the rules ever fail to completely describe a situation, but this is one example where that happens.

Ruins.

The rules for ruins are now 2 sentences long and tell us only 2 things: They're difficult terrain. They give a 4+ cover save.

The rules for assault completely ignore the existence of ruins and in doing so create this situation where the rules fail to completely describe the situation of assaulting units on the upper floors of ruins. To say that they do, either explicitly or implicitly, is a fallacy.

The rules for assault say that you roll your charge range and if you're in range your charge succeeds. Yes. It also says you must move your model into base to base - in the context of a flat table ignoring the existence of ruins.

This is an incomplete reading of the rules. The rules first tell you that you must be able to reach your target to be able to declare an assault. Assuming you follow this rule, then yes, rolling a sufficient charge range will result in a successful charge. Declaring an assault when you have no viable way to reach your target violates the first part of the rules on declaring an assault.

So we have a choice. We can interpret these incomplete and broken rules to say that 4 feeble guardsmen on the second floor of a ruined building can prevent a pack of demons from thundering through the spindley ramshackle remains of wood and stone, or we can say that common sense prevails and they engage in desperate hand to hand combat to defend themselves.

The rules are neither incomplete, nor broken. The only way they break is if you choose to interpret "can reach" as anything other than "can achieve base to base contact with". Given that the first movement related component of an assault is to achieve base to base contact with the intended target, "can reach" seems like it's talking about base to base.

If you take "can reach" to mean "can achieve base to base contact with", then the rules work just fine. You're just always going to have scenarios where narrow or confined terrain spaces can impact a unit's ability to reach another unit. I fall back on the example of two piece of impassable terrain positioned such that the space between is a 30mm wide corridor of open terrain. A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target. He's simply too large to fit down the corridor. Tightly confined spaces in a ruins would work the same way and could just as easily "block" an assault. From a tactical standpoint, you rejoice that your opponent is locked in place and shoot them. If you have no shooting capabilities at all, you shake your fist in impotent rage and go off to kill something else or claim an objective. Maybe learn your lesson and bring some friends with guns to the next fight. If your opponent's are always hiding in cover, maybe bring some friends with flame throwers or some other gun that ignores cover.

Also, it seems like you're using fluff reasons to justify your RaW argument. This is a representative rule set and will always have scenarios that would seem silly in "real life".

Both of these options are fine and both are up to the people playing since the rules do not provide enough guidelines to prevent this kind of debate.

As has been demonstrated, the rules work just fine as is. They just create situations where you can't declare a charge against a target that is physically within 12". You may not like that this is possible, but it is. The rules don't really care what you or I think. They are what they are.

Making a house rule is certainly always an option, but isn't required for the rules to function.

If the rules worked just fine you wouldn't have debates about them between two groups of completely level headed individuals who understand the rules so differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target.

While this is a beautiful example and illustrates your point very well, it assumes that ruins are impassable.

Unfortunately for your example, we know that ruins are only difficult terrain.

So if I wanted to completely annihilate an assault based army, I could simply play on a table with little circles bored into the table that my shooty minis could slide down into nicely, then base to base would always be impossible forever and nobody could ever assault them.

Even better, I could have these little circular divots bored out of the table in groups roughly 6 inches apart so that they could move to knew "un-assaultable" hidey-holes if they needed to move to claim objectives or whatever, then I wouldn't need "un-assaultable" ruins to hide in and I could move my shooty minis around the table with impunity.

As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

I've got more simple than boring holes in your table:

Just fight on some large corugated Card-board

 BlackTalos wrote:

Great study!

In terms of RaW V Hypothetical, there one simple assumption as to why everyone wants the charge to succeed, but the RaW is clear on failing the charge:
- Access

Back to the Ork on the Box or the beasts running up the Ruin:
Every situation this will arise in, the Unit that 'got there first', such as the Ork or the unnamed infantry above, must have had a completely 'valid' path in order to get there. Moving from the floor up onto the Box was a very simple move.
Why, then, are the other models suddenly disallowed to repeat the same process due to 'lack of space' ?

Sure, that is RaW: Cannot declare a charge against an enemy you cannot reach. Even if he is 1.1" in front of you, stood on a Box.
I would definitely house-rule (HIWPI) that if 1 Unit got up there, the other should be able to reach the space just as well.

If you need an example of "unreachable but should be able to":
Think of an entire board made out of 1" steps (an entire staircase of a board). Your models and the enemy models would never be able to reach B2B contact, as there would always be a height difference between the Bases. But the board is technically flat (especially if the steps are slanted). What then? a board completely devoid of CC?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In case you needed it as an example: (by RaW, this board would completely disallow any Charges to be declared)

 NightHowler wrote:
As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

Yes, that's correct. By the rules, that's what happens.

Saying that means there's a flaw in the argument is incorrect, however.

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules worked just fine you wouldn't have debates about them between two groups of completely level headed individuals who understand the rules so differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target.

While this is a beautiful example and illustrates your point very well, it assumes that ruins are impassable.

Unfortunately for your example, we know that ruins are only difficult terrain.

So if I wanted to completely annihilate an assault based army, I could simply play on a table with little circles bored into the table that my shooty minis could slide down into nicely, then base to base would always be impossible forever and nobody could ever assault them.

Even better, I could have these little circular divots bored out of the table in groups roughly 6 inches apart so that they could move to knew "un-assaultable" hidey-holes if they needed to move to claim objectives or whatever, then I wouldn't need "un-assaultable" ruins to hide in and I could move my shooty minis around the table with impunity.

As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

This is the problem with the "un-assaultable" argument. It's reading into the rules and creating scenarios that don't exist.

Ruins are not impassable. They are difficult terrain.

Meaning that movement through them is an abstraction. Your models don't magically phase through the walls of a ruin, and they don't leap over it. You pick them up, put them on the other side, measure the distance between where they started and where they ended.

So that small model in that narrow alleyway is in the same path that the larger model uses abstractly to move from point A to point B. To say that he can't assault it is to read that abstract rule literally.

Likewise, saying that it's impossible to assault a unit on the second floor of a ruin because you can't place the model on that thin sliver of ledge remaining is like saying that you can't move your models through the ruin unless you crush them through a door or punch physical holes in the walls of the ruin - it's taking an abstraction and placing literal limitations on it.

Moreover, those literal limitations are based on one of two possible interpretations of those abstract rules.

To claim that it's the only possible one is incorrect and where my fault with the "un-assaultable" group's argument lies.

I'm not saying that assaulting is possible and I'm not saying that it's impossible. I'm saying that these rules can be interpreted either way quite easily and dismissing the use of wms to explain how an assault IS NOT possible is just as wrong as saying that wms clearly means that it IS possible. Taking either stance as firm RAW requires that you read into the abstraction.

rigeld2 wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The actual rules (unlike your assertions) do require that contact is made. Multiple times.
You've asserted that all that is required is that distance rolled is high enough. That's demonstrably false - the rules require contact.

If you cannot make contact, you cannot make the charge.

Please use quotes from the BRB when implying that it contains something.

Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.
However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

The only thing that has been put forward so far is this:

A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

Which clearly talks about charge distance and charge range and line of sight, nothing else.

A note on the corrugated table. The issue is not whether or not a person will do it. It is a matter of it being possible. Whether or not you will play on it is up to you. You could also say "I wont play unless you give my guys a 20" movement rate and always hits on 1+ rule" and it would be just as valid. of course, should you show up and find that table at a tourney (however unlikely), you dont have a choice beyond forfieting the game or not participating.
Despite the claims of some, the rules are incomplete and broken just as they have been in all previous versions) in that they just do not take into account all possibilities. Thus creating situations as we are discussing (the knight swinging his weapon at a guy on a ledge right in front of it or the trygon not being allowed to close it's jaws on the marine head.
This is why we as players are forced to come up with solutions of our own working on proposed rules (or house rules) as we have been doing since page one here. Of course, many oppose that because it allows for greater loopholes to be exploited.
Waiting to see a tau army standing on their feet wearing their 30 mm bases as hats in order to be unassailable onless an opponent is able to lay their models onthei sides and get their bases to maintainconstant contact with the tau hats, because the RAW allow for that loophole.

der soulstealer wrote:
Please use quotes from the BRB when implying that it contains something.

I did, in a post you quoted. Repeating a rules quote benefits no one. In addition, was I incorrect in anything I said?

Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.

In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

If in the process of attempting an action you cannot follow a rule, do you have permission to complete the action? Simple question - it seems you're asserting the answer is yes.

Which clearly talks about charge distance and charge range and line of sight, nothing else.

No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

This is the problem with the "un-assaultable" argument. It's reading into the rules and creating scenarios that don't exist.

Ruins are not impassable. They are difficult terrain.

Meaning that movement through them is an abstraction. Your models don't magically phase through the walls of a ruin, and they don't leap over it. You pick them up, put them on the other side, measure the distance between where they started and where they ended.

So that small model in that narrow alleyway is in the same path that the larger model uses abstractly to move from point A to point B. To say that he can't assault it is to read that abstract rule literally.

Likewise, saying that it's impossible to assault a unit on the second floor of a ruin because you can't place the model on that thin sliver of ledge remaining is like saying that you can't move your models through the ruin unless you crush them through a door or punch physical holes in the walls of the ruin - it's taking an abstraction and placing literal limitations on it.

Moreover, those literal limitations are based on one of two possible interpretations of those abstract rules.

To claim that it's the only possible one is incorrect and where my fault with the "un-assaultable" group's argument lies.

I'm not saying that assaulting is possible and I'm not saying that it's impossible. I'm saying that these rules can be interpreted either way quite easily and dismissing the use of wms to explain how an assault IS NOT possible is just as wrong as saying that wms clearly means that it IS possible. Taking either stance as firm RAW requires that you read into the abstraction.

I agree that movement is somewhat abstract. The endpoints, however, have the requirement that a model can "be stood", i.e. placed. Sure, a model can move through a wall in a ruins, but he can't end his movement such that he would be inside that wall. In that sense, there are places within a ruins that a model can't move to.

This is what I meant. I wasn't implying that portions of a ruins are impassable. I mean to say that portions of a ruins are not viable spots that a model can move to. Examples would include inside a wall, somewhere another model is standing, mid-air and ledges that are too small for the model to be successfully placed on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:
The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.
However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

The rules also say that if you can't reach the target, you can't declare a charge.

The rules don't need anything telling us that inability to make base to base contact results in a failed charge as the requirement to be able to reach the target to declare an assault in the first place ensures that ALL declared charges can get into base to base.

You only run into an issue if you ignore the requirement that you be able to reach the target and declare a charge anyways.

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Again. It's pretty easy to defend either side.

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect. I get that. But in this case there's a loophole - and a big one - and you can either use that loophole to say, "your models in that ruin can never be assaulted by anyone ever and if your opponent didn't bring a shooty army with him, well tough luck for him, he should go buy a different army." Or you can say, "my assault army can go anywhere and you can't stop me." Or you can say, "the rules aren't very clear, but I think this is how it should be played, if you disagree we should roll for it."

Of these three examples only the third one is appropriate until a clarifying FAQ is released. And that may be a while.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

I must be missing something. Where is it "pretty clear" that distance is the most important part? I don't see that in this sentence. I see a statement about something that usually happens, but that's not a declaration that the only thing that matters is distance, as you've asserted.

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Did I say range is unimportant? Anywhere? Please quote me saying so - you'll find I never have and so you're arguing against something I've literally never said.

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect.

Oh god no - that's easy. The rules are extremely horribly written and full of horribleness.
I'm not saying - and have never said - that the rules are perfect and should be followed to the letter. I don't always argue the way I would play it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

I must be missing something. Where is it "pretty clear" that distance is the most important part? I don't see that in this sentence. I see a statement about something that usually happens, but that's not a declaration that the only thing that matters is distance, as you've asserted.

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Did I say range is unimportant? Anywhere? Please quote me saying so - you'll find I never have and so you're arguing against something I've literally never said.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect.

Oh god no - that's easy. The rules are extremely horribly written and full of horribleness.
I'm not saying - and have never said - that the rules are perfect and should be followed to the letter. I don't always argue the way I would play it.

I'm glad we agree at least on this much.

Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to, that boils down to interpretation f rules that wee left open for to interpret on our own instead of spelling out the possibilities. Watch some of the studio games and read their battle reports and you'll find they have no issues of getting into combat in those situations. But thats how those particuler players in the studio interpret the rules. You could likely find them playing in a tournament interpreting them in a different manny to avoid getting assaulted as well. It is not well worded and are left vague for this very reason it seems, for us to interpret them as we wish to get maximum fun out of it and encourage player communication.

I honestly had no idea the thread would turn into this sort of argument over proposed rules. I had just asked if there was a specific rule that pointed out the ability or not of knights to attack a guy stand out in the open on a ledge. Had I known it would turn into 5 pages now of fighting, i woulda just asked somewhere else. lol

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

Okay, so you do admit base contact is required - awesome. Thanks for that.

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

I see that it says "usually" and doesn't limit the unusual options to range. So any assertions that "range is the most important" have no basis in fact.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

Yes. Does that mean that range is not important at all? No. It just means that there might be (and, according to the rules, is) something at least as important - base contact.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

Okay, so you do admit base contact is required - awesome. Thanks for that.

Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

rigeld2 wrote:

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

I see that it says "usually" and doesn't limit the unusual options to range. So any assertions that "range is the most important" have no basis in fact.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

Yes. Does that mean that range is not important at all? No. It just means that there might be (and, according to the rules, is) something at least as important - base contact.

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

 NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

That is probably the most likely interpretation i'd go by, right after the "cannot reach" not including 'range only' RaW. It follows the issue i have with the "Path" interpretation. There is nothing blocking the path of the charging model but the enemy model you are trying to charge. Which should technically result in a successful charge:
-The enemy moved to his current location
-You are trying to reach the same location
-Only the positioning of the enemy "denies" B2B.

If your base (50mm) is larger than the enemy's base (25mm), or another Unit moved "in the way", or even if the Terrain changed in any way (from difficult to impassable) then sure, i'd agree with all the examples above meaning the charge would fail for another reason than distance.
However the "Path" between your position A, and the enemy at B has not been changed in any way, and it sits ill with me that we would conclude it "blocked".

The above is definitely HIWPI though.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

That is probably the most likely interpretation i'd go by, right after the "cannot reach" not including 'range only' RaW. It follows the issue i have with the "Path" interpretation. There is nothing blocking the path of the charging model but the enemy model you are trying to charge. Which should technically result in a successful charge:
-The enemy moved to his current location
-You are trying to reach the same location
-Only the positioning of the enemy "denies" B2B.

If your base (50mm) is larger than the enemy's base (25mm), or another Unit moved "in the way", or even if the Terrain changed in any way (from difficult to impassable) then sure, i'd agree with all the examples above meaning the charge would fail for another reason than distance.
However the "Path" between your position A, and the enemy at B has not been changed in any way, and it sits ill with me that we would conclude it "blocked".

The above is definitely HIWPI though.

Agreed.

And to be perfectly clear - HIWPI is all I'm arguing.

My first premise is that the rules as written are inadequate and that everyone should discuss the terrain with their opponent before they begin a game because it's not clear. I'm only arguing the rules to illustrate that there is more than one equally valid position that can be held with the two primary ways of interpreting this situation.

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

It's not a logical leap, it's a consequence of the rules. If you have a 24" range weapon and are 30.5" away from a model you want to shoot it's not a "logical leap" to make the statement that you can't shoot that model with a unit that moves 6" a turn.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

Wow. Then you completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. In all fairness to you, it was some pretty high level stuff. If you go back and read it closely you might find some gems in there, but it will take some effort

rigeld2 wrote:

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

It's not a logical leap, it's a consequence of the rules. If you have a 24" range weapon and are 30.5" away from a model you want to shoot it's not a "logical leap" to make the statement that you can't shoot that model with a unit that moves 6" a turn.

MmmHmmm. But we're not talking about shooting. We're not even talking about a 24" charge against models that are 30.5" away. We're talking about a 3" charge against models that are 3" away with nothing blocking the path between charger and chargee. But then, I don't see the world in the harsh contrast of black and white, so I guess it's easier for me to understand how abstract rules work.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

Wow. Then you completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. In all fairness to you, it was some pretty high level stuff. If you go back and read it closely you might find some gems in there, but it will take some effort

Wow. Could you be more patronizing/insulting?

No, I didn't completely fail to comprehend what you wrote. I don't see the permission to be that abstract when the rule requires base contact. You're pretending to have base contact. Pretending and actual are not the same thing.

MmmHmmm. But we're not talking about shooting. We're not even talking about a 24" charge against models that are 30.5" away. We're talking about a 3" charge against models that are 3" away with nothing blocking the path between charger and chargee. But then, I don't see the world in the harsh contrast of black and white, so I guess it's easier for me to understand how abstract rules work.

If literally all the charge move rules cared about was an unblocked path, you'd be right.
It's not, however. Demonstrably so, unlike your assertions.

It's not an abstract rule, even if you keep insisting it is. Just like you can't abstractly measure 3".

rigeld2 wrote:
If literally all the charge move rules cared about was an unblocked path, you'd be right.
It's not, however. Demonstrably so, unlike your assertions.

It's not an abstract rule, even if you keep insisting it is. Just like you can't abstractly measure 3".

Demonstrably so? And can you demonstrate the assault rule that stops me from assaulting a unit in ruins? (demonstrate means quote in this case).

its been quoted night... you cant get base contact, then you cannot assault. THere are several pages in the assault section of the rule book, and the requirement for BTB is re stated numerous times in them.

you would have to provide a rule allowing you to assault/participate in combat while not having BTB contact.

please provide that rule.


You are also unilaterally invoking wobbly model for "impossible" to place models, when that rule only allows for exceptions for "hard" to place models, and even then, only when both players agree.

when words are changed, and rules ignored, while it can still be your interpretation of the rules, it makes it an incorrect, non factual, and non rules based interpretation.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If literally all the charge move rules cared about was an unblocked path, you'd be right.
It's not, however. Demonstrably so, unlike your assertions.

It's not an abstract rule, even if you keep insisting it is. Just like you can't abstractly measure 3".

Demonstrably so? And can you demonstrate the assault rule that stops me from assaulting a unit in ruins? (demonstrate means quote in this case).

If you can't make base contact, you can't fulfill a rule required to move the initial charger (as I've quoted).
If you can't follow the "Move initial charger" rule, how are you able to make the charge without breaking any rules?
Until you can show why you're allowed to break this rule (because, per your agreement, base contact is required) "pretending" isn't enough (except as a HYWPI argument).

No, the rules don't cover what happens when you break a rule. That'd be stupid to include in a rule set.

Charge Move pg 46 of the hardback, Moving Charging Models section about the middle of the Paragraph, in bold. "-following the rules as in the movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models."

Then under Move The Initial Charger, "Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

So including the part quoted earlier for moving up terrain you must be able to be placed where you want the model to end its move, and you must be in base contact to achieve the charge.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

Wow. Then you completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. In all fairness to you, it was some pretty high level stuff. If you go back and read it closely you might find some gems in there, but it will take some effort

rigeld2 wrote:

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

It's not a logical leap, it's a consequence of the rules. If you have a 24" range weapon and are 30.5" away from a model you want to shoot it's not a "logical leap" to make the statement that you can't shoot that model with a unit that moves 6" a turn.

MmmHmmm. But we're not talking about shooting. We're not even talking about a 24" charge against models that are 30.5" away. We're talking about a 3" charge against models that are 3" away with nothing blocking the path between charger and chargee. But then, I don't see the world in the harsh contrast of black and white, so I guess it's easier for me to understand how abstract rules work.

Remembering that if you can't reach the target, for literally whatever reason (that reason most commonly, or "usually", being that the target is more than 12" away), you can't declare the charge in the first place. You keep ignoring this. The rules work perfectly fine in every instance if you interpret "can reach" as "can achieve base to base contact with". It you interpret "can reach" as "within 12 inches"... well, then... you'll have unresolvable rules situation. I honestly think you're making a mistake when you say "A model can reach the target, but can't move such that it gets into base to base with that target". I don't think it's possible to be able to reach but not hit base to base. Again, the rules don't seem to support reaching as only being distance based.

This seems to have made a sufficient number of revolutions by this point. Time to move on...