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.

My son and I are new to 40K so we are trying to work our way through the rules and learn them correctly. Recently, in a Necron v. Tau battle, all that we had left was a trio of Stealth Suits(mine) vs. six Flayed Ones(his). I jumped my guys atop a tall structure(fuel container-about 5 inches tall) and he couldn't reach me while I blasted away. If we were in a building he could simply go up a floor, but in this situation it only made sense that jet-pack troops could go atop the structure. Did I miss something in the rules or was it just "tough noogies" for my son?

If it's impassible no. If it was difficult, yes.

I'm pretty sure you phased out, though.

The rules say that jump infantry may land on impassible terrain, if it is possible to physically place the models on top, with dangerous terrain tests.

If you guys had declared the structure impassible terrain, then the flayed ones had nothing they could do but die or run away.

Youre allowed to climb the side of buildings to get on top. (Edit: Unless you say its impassable, but generally people do not).

However, you should reread the Necron codex, because there is no way your son didnt get phased out (unless you chose to ignore it).

well if you and your opponent (son) agree that it was permissable for your jump troops to land on the structure then that is cool.

I tink there are rules for vertical walls...

baring that possibility, you could say that the terrain is difficult/dangerous and have your son roll 2d6 and scale the structure risking a tumble to their demise.

Impassible terrain may be landed on by Jump Infantry if it is possible to actually place them there. Otherwise, there is no way to get onto or through impassible terrain (because it is impassible)

Lets do this gent a favor and keep the discussion to real rules, ok?

So, the structure that you mentioned could have been considered one of three types of terrain, and should have been clarified as this type of terrain at the beginning of the battle:

1) Ruins. Ruins block LoS via TLoS, provide a cover save to units in their area, are difficult terrain for units moving through them (dangerous for jump infantry), and if they have multiple levels may be climbed.

2) A building. Buildings are not ruins but are intact structures that in many ways act like an immobile transport vehicle. Infantry may inhabit a building, and if the building has multiple stories they may climb it, but only from the inside. An interesting aside is that jump infantry, jetbikes, and skimmers may not land on top of an occupied building. There are no rules for climbing the outside of a building.

2a) Impassible buildings (this sounds like what
you've described the best. The rules for this
is found on page 78, and includes structures
that infantry models would have no reason to
enter such as "storage tanks, vast solid
monuments and the like." These buildings
are treated as impassible terrain in all respects
including the ability for jump infantry to land on
top if they may be physically placed there.

My advice (since you are both new and no one has outright said it): go over the terrain on the board with your opponent before you start the game. eg. This tower over here is impassible, this is a ruin, that is area terrain with trees so grants 4+ cover, etc etc. It also doesn't hurt to cover some of the issues that may arise from such a ruling (like say, this is diffiuclt terrain, but does it provide a cover save? I can get up here with my jet pack units, does that mean I am unassaultable? etc)

Also, you can feel free to come up with some extra rules that are agreeable to you both and makes sense for that particular terrain piece. Sometimes the general rules just aren't adequate (or as fun IMHO) when it comes to terrain. Note however that at the end of the day, you have to be willing to just play by the rules (which willydstyle covers well).

I have played where a tower like that was impassible. I have also played that it was only accessible by jump infantry and the like if they can all fit on top of it. If there were ladders or pipes or something that was climb-able, I have played that assaults were still doable to be fair to an all assault army. Like say in your example, a difficult terrain test is required and a 5" or 6" result allows an assault, even if they can't physically get base to base with their target.

Somewhat related.

If it was a building that could be entered, would the troops be allowed to actually enter it?

Wouldn't the Jump troops on the top stop enemy models from embarking?

kirsanth wrote:Somewhat related.

If it was a building that could be entered, would the troops be allowed to actually enter it?

Wouldn't the Jump troops on the top stop enemy models from embarking?

That's an interesting question. The rule just says that jump infantry/skimmers/jet bikes can't land on top of an occupied building, but the other scenario is not covered.

So, RAW as I read it is that the models may enter the building, and the jumpy models have no requirement to exit the top of the building, but once they do exit the top they may not land on top again until the building is unoccupied or destroyed.

Thanks for all of the insights, everyone- I think I have it now. I did fail to take a terrain test on the jump so I won't miss that in the future. You were all right about the Necron phase out too- my son and I have suspended that rule for his Necrons as we are playing small 600pt skirmish games, and I didn't think it would be fair to invoke that rule against him with such small forces in play.

This is something that can happen with terrain spaces (in this case the top of the tanks) that can only be reached by certain troops.

It doesn't have to be a problem but it is something which need to be kept in mind when designing scenery and when laying out the board as it can be extremely powerful.

Also, bear in mind that spaces like that can be deployed onto by any troops, even if they're not capable of getting up there or getting off. So, you could deploy broadsides on there even though they have no way of getting up or down.

For that reason, I now tend to avoid pieces of scenery like that. I would suggest adding some catwalks and ladders so that it can be climbed like a ruin. Or, add a tangle of barbed wire or similar to the top (so no-one can go there).

Scott-S6 wrote:This is something that can happen with terrain spaces (in this case the top of the tanks) that can only be reached by certain troops.

It doesn't have to be a problem but it is something which need to be kept in mind when designing scenery and when laying out the board as it can be extremely powerful.

Also, bear in mind that spaces like that can be deployed onto by any troops, even if they're not capable of getting up there or getting off. So, you could deploy broadsides on there even though they have no way of getting up or down.

For that reason, I now tend to avoid pieces of scenery like that. I would suggest adding some catwalks and ladders so that it can be climbed like a ruin. Or, add a tangle of barbed wire or similar to the top (so no-one can go there).

Actually, you can't deploy in impassible terrain. The terrain is still classed as impassible, even if jump infantry can land on it.

Also keep in mind that there is a strong argument that 40k is 3d, with an active z-axis for moving, making a jump to the top of a 5" structure tough going to Tau jet packs.

Secondly, it's not like you couldn't have just move/shot/moved the rest of the game to stay out of charge range.

Polonius wrote:Also keep in mind that there is a strong argument that 40k is 3d, with an active z-axis for moving, making a jump to the top of a 5" structure tough going to Tau jet packs.

Secondly, it's not like you couldn't have just move/shot/moved the rest of the game to stay out of charge range.

I'd assumed that the OP had started at the base of the building and then jumped to the top.

Polonius wrote:Also keep in mind that there is a strong argument that 40k is 3d, with an active z-axis for moving, making a jump to the top of a 5" structure tough going to Tau jet packs.

Secondly, it's not like you couldn't have just move/shot/moved the rest of the game to stay out of charge range.

I don't know that I agree with you on having to move 5 inches up first before moving onto the terrain piece. For normal troops that may be climbing up it's true, but I believe troops with jump/jet packs are assumed to be moving above the field when jumping and thus only would have to measure distance along one axis.

For example, when moving over a forest terrain piece or over a building jump infantry don't have to measure their distance moved in an arc but in a straight line. The terrain only has an effect on their movement if they land in it, forcing dangerous terrain tests.

augustus5 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Also keep in mind that there is a strong argument that 40k is 3d, with an active z-axis for moving, making a jump to the top of a 5" structure tough going to Tau jet packs.

Secondly, it's not like you couldn't have just move/shot/moved the rest of the game to stay out of charge range.

I don't know that I agree with you on having to move 5 inches up first before moving onto the terrain piece. For normal troops that may be climbing up it's true, but I believe troops with jump/jet packs are assumed to be moving above the field when jumping and thus only would have to measure distance along one axis.

For example, when moving over a forest terrain piece or over a building jump infantry don't have to measure their distance moved in an arc but in a straight line. The terrain only has an effect on their movement if they land in it, forcing dangerous terrain tests.

The rules don't tell you to measure along any axis, they simply say to measure from the starting point of the base to the end point of a base, so you measure in a straight line, but it may be at an angle to the plane of the table if you end at an elevated position.

I disagree that jump infantry have to measure distances moved up of down since they move above the field.

Are you telling me that you think if I am to move a squad of assault marines with jump packs over a terrain feature that you think I need to measure my distance in an arc over the feature? Even with a twelve inch move that won't get you over many buildings or forest pieces.

augustus5 wrote:I disagree that jump infantry have to measure distances moved up of down since they move above the field.

Are you telling me that you think if I am to move a squad of assault marines with jump packs over a terrain feature that you think I need to measure my distance in an arc over the feature? Even with a twelve inch move that won't get you over many buildings or forest pieces.

That's not what I wrote. What I wrote is that you measure in a straight line, that sometimes will be diagonal to the plane of the table surface, if the unit ends at a different vertical movement.

So, if a jump infantry squad goes over the hill to land at another table-top-level point, then you'll be measuring along the plane. If the jump infantry squad lands on a 3" hill, you measure diagonally to that point. There's a picture showing a jetbike moving into ruins in the BRB that supports this as well.

I see what you are saying willydstyle, but if I don't have to measure my distance over a terrain feature in an arc, then why would I ever have to measure at an angle with jump infantry?

If I can move high enough above the field that vertical features don't hinder my movement over them then wouldn't you agree that if I chose to land on top of a vertical feature then I would not have to measure distance up or down as I already am assumed to be traveling well enough above it and dropping down onto it?

augustus5 wrote:I see what you are saying willydstyle, but if I don't have to measure my distance over a terrain feature in an arc, then why would I ever have to measure at an angle with jump infantry?

If I can move high enough above the field that vertical features don't hinder my movement over them then wouldn't you agree that if I chose to land on top of a vertical feature then I would not have to measure distance up or down as I already am assumed to be traveling well enough above it and dropping down onto it?

Because the rules tell you to measure from the initial point to the end point. How you physically move the models, or how the models move between two places from a "fluff" point of view has no impact on how you measure. Measuring from point A to point B in a straight line that happens in three dimensions is how you do it.

I think that RAI is very strong that a unit that moves above the field does not ever measure distance up or down as they are always moving up above the field and dropping down, unless you choose towalk them of course.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people to agree that jump troops must measure distance vertically.

Augustus5 - I suggest you read the rules before declaring "intent", as Willydstyle is 100% correct - there is a very specific example on p83 of a jetbike measuring the hypotenuse of the right angle triangle described by the movement.

You do not measure the ARC, you measure from start point to end point. When this doesnt end up back on the same plane as you started you will, by definition, be moving along a diagonal line and that is the line you measure.

@Augustus: I am not "hard pressed" to find people who measure diagonally when moving at an angle to the plane of the battlefield. It's how I do it, and how most of the people I play against do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Augustus5 - I suggest you read the rules before declaring "intent", as Willydstyle is 100% correct - there is a very specific example on p83 of a jetbike measuring the hypotenuse of the right angle triangle described by the movement.

You do not measure the ARC, you measure from start point to end point. When this doesnt end up back on the same plane as you started you will, by definition, be moving along a diagonal line and that is the line you measure.

Well then if you have to measure along a diagonal line to move up onto something then one should assume that when moving over something that you must measure up and over and then down onto the other side.

Errm... What? No, you measure in a straight line from start to finish. The only reason you measure diagonally is because you ended up higher or lower than when you started.

Gwar! wrote:Errm... What? No, you measure in a straight line from start to finish. The only reason you measure diagonally is because you ended up higher or lower than when you started.

Which is exactly what I've been saying, but with less "complicated" words. Thanks Gwar.

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Errm... What? No, you measure in a straight line from start to finish. The only reason you measure diagonally is because you ended up higher or lower than when you started.

Which is exactly what I've been saying, but with less "complicated" words. Thanks Gwar.

*Oh Snap* You are most welcome.

Gwar! wrote:

willydstyle wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Errm... What? No, you measure in a straight line from start to finish. The only reason you measure diagonally is because you ended up higher or lower than when you started.

Which is exactly what I've been saying, but with less "complicated" words. Thanks Gwar.

*Oh Snap* You are most welcome.

Maybe if I dumbed down my message more people would understand

Gwar! wrote:Errm... What? No, you measure in a straight line from start to finish. The only reason you measure diagonally is because you ended up higher or lower than when you started.

Look do you measure in a straight line or do you measure three diminsionally?

If you must measure distance when moving up onto something with jump infantry then you must also measure that distance up when moving clear over it wouldn't you think?