Charging and intervening terrain.

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.

**Fragile**

rigeld2 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
This would be the same as saying "I have no space to put my model, or no arms to pick it up, therefore i cannot remove this casualty." The model would remain in play because you have a physical un-resolvable issue?
There are many more example i could think up, but the baseline is that the Rules have to be followed.
Not doing so is breaking said rules and simply not playing the game properly.

2 walls with a 1.5" gap. There's a Hive Tyrant on one side, 3" from the walls. There's a Chapter Master 1" away from the walls - he got there by moving through the gap.
Assuming the Hive Tyrant rolls a 12 for his charge distance, and the walls are 10" wide, 1" deep, would the Tyrant be allowed to complete the charge?

Allowing him to do so means he somehow squeezes through a gap significantly smaller than his base - because he obviously can't go around.
Your argument means he'd be allowed to make the charge.

Unless the terrain is impassable he would be allowed to make the charge

**MrJog**

It's really a moot argument until GW releases more comprehensive rules on it.

Someone on here must have seen how tournament organizers have been handling it by now though.

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
This would be the same as saying "I have no space to put my model, or no arms to pick it up, therefore i cannot remove this casualty." The model would remain in play because you have a physical un-resolvable issue?
There are many more example i could think up, but the baseline is that the Rules have to be followed.
Not doing so is breaking said rules and simply not playing the game properly.

2 walls with a 1.5" gap. There's a Hive Tyrant on one side, 3" from the walls. There's a Chapter Master 1" away from the walls - he got there by moving through the gap.
Assuming the Hive Tyrant rolls a 12 for his charge distance, and the walls are 10" wide, 1" deep, would the Tyrant be allowed to complete the charge?

Allowing him to do so means he somehow squeezes through a gap significantly smaller than his base - because he obviously can't go around.
Your argument means he'd be allowed to make the charge.

Unless the terrain is impassable he would be allowed to make the charge

Yes, the assumption was that "walls" are impassable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrJog wrote:
It's really a moot argument until GW releases more comprehensive rules on it.

It's not moot - the current rules address it just fine.

Someone on here must have seen how tournament organizers have been handling it by now though.

I've seen it ruled both ways... why is that relevant again?

**Nem**

It's unlikely we'll get rules on such, rules on charging are quite liner, it's a measurement between bases and an assumption there's not going to be terrain on the board limiting the ability to physically place the models in b2b after a charge.

Best places where terrain rules have noted this is with defence lines and ruins rules (maybe only 6ed ones). We treat it like any of those, if the charge roll is successful but terrain is a issue, we pretend they are b2b.

**insaniak**

Nem wrote:
Best places where terrain rules have noted this is with defence lines and ruins rules (maybe only 6ed ones). ...

GIven the example in the question that started this thread, if the Ruin rules still addressed this situation we wouldn't be having the discussion...

**MrJog**

rigeld2 wrote:

MrJog wrote:
It's really a moot argument until GW releases more comprehensive rules on it.

It's not moot - the current rules address it just fine.

Are you being serious right now?

rigeld2 wrote:

MrJog wrote:
Someone on here must have seen how tournament organizers have been handling it by now though.

I've seen it ruled both ways... why is that relevant again?

I'm interested in knowing. Thank's for answering and attaching your own obnoxious question though!

insaniak wrote:
Nem wrote:
Best places where terrain rules have noted this is with defence lines and ruins rules (maybe only 6ed ones). ...

GIven the example in the question that started this thread, if the Ruin rules still addressed this situation we wouldn't be having the discussion...

I agree. I think we need more info, otherwise this will stay debatable.

**rigeld2**

MrJog wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

MrJog wrote:
It's really a moot argument until GW releases more comprehensive rules on it.

It's not moot - the current rules address it just fine.

Are you being serious right now?

Yes. Read the thread. It's actually answered, RAW.

I agree. I think we need more info, otherwise this will stay debatable.

How is it debatable, RAW? Please, elaborate. Read the thread and respond.

**MrJog**

I would elaborate if I didn't think you were just trying to be obnoxious.

**insaniak**

MrJog wrote:
I would elaborate if I didn't think you were just trying to be obnoxious.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I think we're done here.