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.

bagtagger wrote:so you guys are saying that I should model my rhinos with terrain gear that sticks out from the hull on all sides making my vehicle unassaultable?

Since that would most likely make it part of the hull...

That and what pretre said.

Couldn't you just angle the model with the slope of the hull to get you in to base to base contact? Or lay the model on its side?

Dodgywop wrote:Couldn't you just angle the model with the slope of the hull to get you in to base to base contact? Or lay the model on its side?

There's no rules allowance to do so, so no.

rigeld2 wrote:

bagtagger wrote:so you guys are saying that I should model my rhinos with terrain gear that sticks out from the hull on all sides making my vehicle unassaultable?

Since that would most likely make it part of the hull...

That and what pretre said.

it would be part of the hull but far enough off the ground that the base can't touch it so you would not be able to get base to base and therefore not assault. That is what you guys are arguing for btw.

bagtagger wrote:it would be part of the hull but far enough off the ground that the base can't touch it so you would not be able to get base to base and therefore not assault. That is what you guys are arguing for btw.

Yes, and we've said RAW that's 100% correct. I'm not sure what your point is.

Is it dumb? Yes. Do people play like that? No.
YMDC is about discussing RAW. Saying we're wrong because the rule is dumb is counter-productive.

Actually YMDC is for discussing the implementation of the rules. RAW plays a big part of it but RAI can also play a big part in it. In this case implementing the discussed rule purely by RAW would be a waste of time since it clearly is not used that way.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Actually YMDC is for discussing the implementation of the rules. RAW plays a big part of it but RAI can also play a big part in it. In this case implementing the discussed rule purely by RAW would be a waste of time since it clearly is not used that way.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

Multiple times it was said what the RAW rules were.

rigeld2 wrote:YMDC is about discussing RAW. Saying we're wrong because the rule is dumb is counter-productive.

I'm just responding to this.

Right guys, i got it slightly wrong. the terminator which was in range could move to the top hull of the rear of the land raider, though the terminator was not touching the land raider in any shape or form. can the terminator attack the land raider?

mercer wrote:Right guys, i got it slightly wrong. the terminator which was in range could move to the top hull of the rear of the land raider, though the terminator was not touching the land raider in any shape or form. can the terminator attack the land raider?

Wait, what? So the terminator was not in contact with the hull in any way? Then no, he can't assault.

Or am I missing something? I don't get what you're asking...

If the base was in range I would say yes if I saw him make the measurment but im not sure other wise. If he could have made it like to the middle of the Landraider say he was only 3" away when he made the assault then I would allow it.

Prete, assault range was measured to the back of the land raider, the upper part and just in range. terminator moved up so base was directly under upper land raider hull, though no part of the model was touching the land raider at all. if the terminator moved up say another inch then he would be in contact. way it was the terminator was just underneath the hull and touching nothing at all, a clear gap.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

If the model is damn near close enough, count it and don't be a dick. If the model is holding a homemade
5' pole arm straight out and trying to count it, call shenanigans. Issue Solved. There is a reason people don't play rule-nazis twice.

Lunchmonkey wrote:If the model is damn near close enough, count it and don't be a dick. If the model is holding a homemade
5' pole arm straight out and trying to count it, call shenanigans. Issue Solved. There is a reason people don't play rule-nazis twice.

(image redacted to not add too much scrolling)
Yeah, if the model is a couple inches away, it's cool to move it on in to CC. No big deal.
Or, you know, you could follow the rules. Whatev.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

So from what I gather the OP is explaining the following (please excuse the crudeness, I'm by no means an artist )



If this is the case, then I would say no. He could not assault since the base couldn't make it far enough to make contact with the hull.

Now if it was like it was originally explained where the bulk of the terminator armor prevented him from getting the base into contact with the hull due to the slope of the model, it would be a different story.

Increase the angle so that the point in the front hull is touching the termie's head. That's how I read the initial post. And personally, I'm gonna give him the assault against my Leman Russ in this situation.

Doggywoo, that's exactly how it was.

Don mondo, it was explained different to me at the time, though i ruled no as the termie wasn't in contact, like in the above example image. sorry for changing things, though I've had things explained to me again and differently now.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Dodgywop wrote:So from what I gather the OP is explaining the following (please excuse the crudeness, I'm by no means an artist )



If this is the case, then I would say no. He could not assault since the base couldn't make it far enough to make contact with the hull.

Now if it was like it was originally explained where the bulk of the terminator armor prevented him from getting the base into contact with the hull due to the slope of the model, it would be a different story.

Personally, I'd say yes to that. IMO the most sensible way of dealing with this is to look top down and if any part of the units base is obscured by the hull of the vehicle - as would be the case in your image - then you are OK to attack.

I'd still give him the assault. If we were measuring how far an embarked Sanguinary priest grants FND, we would use that point by his head, right? So by reaching that area of ground covered by that portion of the hull, he has reached the 'hull', even if there is no base to base contact.

But that's just my personal opinion and how I would play it.

- Removed by insaniak. Please review Dakka's rules, particularly Rule #1: Be polite!

If you have nothing to add to the thread beyond insulting those participating in it, without actually reading it properly to begin with, feel free to find something els to do instead.

Thanks for the insults. I you read the thread you'd see that the terminators didn't have the charge range.

This is kinda a weird situation.
You check assault range before you move. Since the Terminators moved, you already accepted the fact they can assault. If they couldn't have assaulted, they wouldn't have moved.

You should move them as close as possible, knowing that they would be in base-to-base. At least, that's how I see it.

The point was that they didn't have the range. The base was just short of the hull (see the crappy picture above).

The argument that I can see happening is that the overhang of the LR does cover the base (if you were to look from an overhead perspective, also notated by the vertical line) - but IMO, the base would need the range to contact the bottom part of the LR hull in order for the assault to be successful, which from what I gather was just shy.

I'd allow that, on the basis that model would be close enough to actually strike a blow against the vehicle - physically, he is directly next to the LR - even under it! so, I think it should be allowed. Really, IT's up to the players, this is a grey area in the game. my question is, couldn't one of the guys wrap around and touch base with the track about an inch away?

I asked the two players about touching the track and they said it would be out of assault range.

Horst wrote:I'd rule that if you have the charge range to do it, then you can make the assault. Otherwise, this sets a very bad president. I could see someone putting a 1" high bumper around a vehicle, calling it a rough terrain modification, and saying the vehicle can't be assaulted.

I couldn't have said this better myself. Agree 100%

I'm certain I've used my termis to assault the front and rear of all codex tanks, and no one has brought this up. I've also had models attack my tanks from the rear, and never said this. I think the consensus opinion would be to allow it, and that's what you'd see in most situations.

This rule might just be your typical vehicle rule you can't get 100% with RAW.