Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all,

Maybe this is the wrong place for this, I'm not so sure. If I am mistaken then I appolgise. Onto my question.
Am I reading this right? Does it honestly say that monsterous creatures cannot climb buildings? If that is so, this means that they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.
I must be missing something. That would mean that a Trygon, who is at least as tall as a 3 story building, cannot attack models who are one floor up.

Am I missing something, or is this honeslty the short and skinny of it? Do Nids get defeated by being at least 10 feet off the groun (hyperboly intended for effect, not honest tactical opinion).

I think that only applies to intact building and not ruins.
The MC can assault the building and destroy it and damage the units inside. Next turn the MC should be able to get inside and assault the occupants directly since now its a Ruin.
At least that is how I read it. But Ima 'Noob so I could be wrong.

Disregard the above statements. I did read that incorrectly.

You can still attack the building though and try to hurt the occupants that way.

ZombieJoe wrote:Does it honestly say that monsterous creatures cannot climb buildings?

If that is so, this means that they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Yes you are reading that correctly.

Yes it means they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Unless both players agree otherwise.

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Does it honestly say that monsterous creatures cannot climb buildings?

If that is so, this means that they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Yes you are reading that correctly.

Yes it means they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Unless both players agree otherwise.

Say it isn't so!!! I CANNOT HANDLE THIS TRUTH!

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:Does it honestly say that monsterous creatures cannot climb buildings?

If that is so, this means that they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Yes you are reading that correctly.

Yes it means they cannot assault models who are not touching the first floor.

Unless both players agree otherwise.

This is correct. Unless both you and an opponet say it is large enough MCs can not climb and FMCs can not land on them.

So that means Mephiston's big butt can't climb ruins or land on the top floor with his jump move.

Gloomfang wrote:So that means Mephiston's big butt can't climb ruins or land on the top floor with his jump move.

Incorrect.

Mephiston is not an MC.

So he may move up ruins as normal.

He has MC stats, but none of the downsides..

Annoying little sod - best when cooked well..

Ascalam wrote:He has MC stats, but none of the downsides..

Annoying little sod - best when cooked well..

Well I would call his AP3 Force weapon a downside for a single model unit, and his lack of Smash and Fear Etc.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:So that means Mephiston's big butt can't climb ruins or land on the top floor with his jump move.

Incorrect.

Mephiston is not an MC.

So he may move up ruins as normal.

Thought he was an MC. My mistake. I don't use him in my BA army. I might be thinking of an earlier edition or some other IC.

Well I don't seem myself touching competitive tournys anymore. And if I find myself in a game with someone who is going to argue with me about MC's attacking men in buildngs that they are as tall as, then I don't forsee myself playing with them. In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

Which is dumb cause that means that MC's cannot attack models who are not on the ground floor. I hope you can see how stupid that is.

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

Which is dumb cause that means that MC's cannot attack models who are not on the ground floor. I hope you can see how stupid that is.

Nid players are used to it. Until 6th Raveners could not do up stairs. They were Beasts and beasts could not climb.

Gloomfang wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

Which is dumb cause that means that MC's cannot attack models who are not on the ground floor. I hope you can see how stupid that is.

Nid players are used to it. Until 6th Raveners could not do up stairs. They were Beasts and beasts could not climb.

Lol, true. But, maybe it's just me, but there is a big difference between beast not climbing, and MC's not climbing.
When it was beasts, what did we lose access too? Raveners?

Now we lose:

Hive Tyrants, Tervigons, Harpies, Carnifex, Mawlocs (Who Btw Still Hurt Models in Buildings When He comes up?!?!?!), Trygons, Carnifexes, Tyrannofex...
That list is a bit longer.


Wait...isn't there a rule in assualts that you are considered in melee if you are within one floor? or like 3" inches from the head of your model to the base of theres? I need to reread that bit. Maybe there is a rules lawyer thing in there. Eitherway, I wanna call the GW rule support line and see what kind of excuse I can get out of them.

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

Which is dumb cause that means that MC's cannot attack models who are not on the ground floor. I hope you can see how stupid that is.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

ZombieJoe wrote:Well I don't seem myself touching competitive tournys anymore. And if I find myself in a game with someone who is going to argue with me about MC's attacking men in buildngs that they are as tall as, then I don't forsee myself playing with them. In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

Sounds like a case of taking your ball and going home.

It's the rules, it's not meant to be realistic and someone shouldn't ignore a rule that benefits them and hinders you so that it helps you and hurts them.

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:In a friendly game, it's really kind of a dumb thing to argue over.

True, since the rules explicitly state that MC's can not move on the upper levels of ruins.

Which is dumb cause that means that MC's cannot attack models who are not on the ground floor. I hope you can see how stupid that is.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that there is enough ruines on the table. Just saying, how you feel as a Blood Angels player if the suddenly said, ok, jump pack marines cannot climb ruins! And be honest, cause I'll know if your lying. It's an a**hat rule that does nothing for game balance or fluff.

ZombieJoe wrote:That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that there is enough ruins on the table.

Just limit ruins to two pieces and you will not have many problems.

Or send other units to climb the ruins.

My Allied Thunderwolf Cavalry can not climb ruins either. so i send other units to do that job.

ZombieJoe wrote:Just saying, how you feel as a Blood Angels player if the suddenly said, ok, jump pack marines cannot climb ruins! And be honest, cause I'll know if your lying. It's an a**hat rule that does nothing for game balance or fluff.

I would be fine with the rules if they stated that "jump pack marines cannot climb ruins"

My vehicles can not climb ruins either.

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

says the man whose army didn't lose almost half of thier close combat units to buildings.

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

says the man whose army didn't lose almost half of thier close combat units to buildings.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I recommend you don't play at all.

Wait for 7th, I'm sure it will be perfect and there will nothing to complain about then.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

says the man whose army didn't lose almost half of thier close combat units to buildings.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I recommend you don't play at all.

Wait for 7th, I'm sure it will be perfect and there will nothing to complain about then.

DoW

Ooo! Sassy! You sure showed me! How wrong I was to disagree with a senseless rule that buggers (pun) my army slightly. I bet you play GK.

There is always something to complain about. Hey it's a dumb rule, I don't have to like it. It's not going to stop me from playing, but I will try and avoid WAAC guys. I play this game for the thematic gameplay and fluff. I imagine a trygon thrashing a ruin to get the guys inside. Not, a trygon standing out in the rain, looking forlorn because he's not allowed to play.

You obviously missed the "if both players agree" part ot the rules that were quoted at you.

It isnt "WAAC" to play by a very very clear and unambiguous rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You obviously missed the "if both players agree" part ot the rules that were quoted at you.

It isnt "WAAC" to play by a very very clear and unambiguous rule.

I might have forgotten, but I thought that those rules applied to flying MC's, not the regular kind. Otherwise, you are right, I did miss that part. If it does apply, then it's really no worry. If it's in the ruleset that players can discuss it, then it's not a big deal. Worst case scenario it's a roll of. I like the roll for it system, best rules dispute stopper ever!

ZombieJoe wrote:Ooo! Sassy! You sure showed me! How wrong I was to disagree with a senseless rule that buggers (pun) my army slightly. I bet you play GK.

There is always something to complain about. Hey it's a dumb rule, I don't have to like it. It's not going to stop me from playing, but I will try and avoid WAAC guys. I play this game for the thematic gameplay and fluff. I imagine a trygon thrashing a ruin to get the guys inside. Not, a trygon standing out in the rain, looking forlorn because he's not allowed to play.

Doesn't stop you whining about it either, apparently.

It's interesting that you seemed to use me playing GK as a disparaging remark. Due to the 10 or so active Tyranid players at my FLGS, I've always associated 'Nid players as excellent sports and genuinely enjoyable opponents, despite the obvious rules difficulties with their respective armies. Shame this is evidently not always the case.

Seriously, take Deathreaper's advice and deal with it. Write to an Agony Aunt if you want sympathy. YMDC is for rules issues, not gamer tissues.

DoW

Sounds like your problem is your list. If the MC's in your army are the only things that can eat guys in ruins, there's definitely something wrong. Mass Termagents backed by Tervigon buffs can rip through a lot of things. 20 Gargoyles on the charge with a PE Tyrant are NUTS.

The rest of us are adapting to 6th. You should too.

if you charge into a unit that is split between ground and uper levels the guys on the upper levels will be forced to pile in to the first level. If you break them and they run, they will have to take jump down damage which is pretty bad.

DeathReaper wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:That has very little to do with game balance. I dont' care how abstract the rules are. That one little rule negates half an armies means of playing the game, provided that Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

says the man whose army didn't lose almost half of thier close combat units to buildings.

I would appreciate it if you did not misquote me.

Thanks

P.S. It is Monstrous, not Monsterous.

DogOfWar wrote:YMDC is for rules issues, not gamer tissues.

Sigged.

ZombieJoe wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You obviously missed the "if both players agree" part ot the rules that were quoted at you.

It isnt "WAAC" to play by a very very clear and unambiguous rule.

I might have forgotten, but I thought that those rules applied to flying MC's, not the regular kind. Otherwise, you are right, I did miss that part. If it does apply, then it's really no worry. If it's in the ruleset that players can discuss it, then it's not a big deal. Worst case scenario it's a roll of. I like the roll for it system, best rules dispute stopper ever!

Applies to All MCs

Additionally, that isn't how tmir works. It is only used when you cant agree what a rule means - here, the meaning is clear and unambiguous.

But still kind of dumb.