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.

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".