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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A lot of spam here to wade through.

It's not spam, it's a legitimate post, regardless of your opinion.

Actually, i do read the rules. You might try to be a little polite sometime or at least read the post your quoting.

You asked him for a citation after asserting something that wasn't true. That's the rude thing.

Asking someone to site a source is not saying that the source does not exist.

"The sky is purple." "Um... no it's not." "YES IT IS FIND SOMETHING TO PROVE OTHERWISE."
Yeah, perfectly polite discussion there. Pro played.

You also conveniently "forgot" the part about players who make scenic bases for their non-walker units.

No, I didn't. The rules don't cover that because it's not allowed by the rules.

Again, your best bet is attempting to find a concrete answer to the question that covers all possibilities. In cases where this is not the case such as this, it is best to work with your actual gaming group you see and play with every day. As you can see going online for opinions will just get you words on a screen from faceless names. As you can obviously see here, often with their own agendas that are personal and have nothing to do with your original question. with the disclaimer that that describes anyone in this thread, of course.

Again with the perfect politeness. You're an amazing gentleman, I can tell.

Everyone... let's try to keep this polite. If you find yourself getting snarky, maybe take a 30min break or something. Get some fresh air.

And Evil Inc... I don't believe there are any rules regarding non-Walker Vehicles with scenic bases. If you mount a Rhino on a scenic base, you still measure to and from the hull. I mount my Tau Skimmers on scenic bases, but measure to and from the hull when playing games.

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

Doesn't look like it, no...

If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any
reason), then it is locked in combat.

The rules then go on to mention that locked units fight in close combat. There are no rules that would allow a unit that is in contact with another but not locked in combat to fight in the close combat phase.


So the only thing you would achieve (by RAW) with this approach is a free move in the assault phase.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Although the only thing I pointed out is that it is possible for models to come into contact without the bases touching.

No, you also stated that they could be considered engaged, by RAW, in that situation.

Which, as per the rules I quoted, is not actually true.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A lot of spam here to wade through.

Someone pointing out the relevant rules to you after you have made an incorrect assertion based on those rules is not 'spam'.

- Removed by insaniak. Can we all please return to the actual topic, and drop the attempts at creating pointless drama?

So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

Same level and in base contact.

 Whacked wrote:
So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

According to strict RAW, yes, they fizzle if they cannot be in contact at the end of the charge and your better off not attempting the assault to begin with if you know beforehand that your guy cant fit because that would prevent you taking overwatch shots attempting an impossible assault.
This is a tactic that is often used by games to prevent just such assaults
However, that is something you can discuss with your gaming group. it might be that no one in the group agrees with it and the group as a whole might want to house rule it differently (but that would be a conversation between you and them of course).

 Whacked wrote:
So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

Not quite. If you can't end your move such that you're in contact with the Oblits (would generally mean same level, base to base in your example), then you can't declare a charge in the first place. The assault doesn't "fizzle" because it never happens. You never declare an assault, Overwatch doesn't happen and you never roll dice. You're free to assault someone else instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Whacked wrote:
So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

According to strict RAW, yes, they fizzle if they cannot be in contact at the end of the charge and your better off not attempting the assault to begin with if you know beforehand that your guy cant fit because that would prevent you taking overwatch shots attempting an impossible assault.
This is a tactic that is often used by games to prevent just such assaults
However, that is something you can discuss with your gaming group. it might be that no one in the group agrees with it and the group as a whole might want to house rule it differently (but that would be a conversation between you and them of course).

You understanding of the rules is a little off. As above, if the Destroyer Lord can't reach the Oblits, he can't declare an assault. There is no threat of Overwatch in this situation as you're literally not allowed to declare an "impossible assault" where you can't reach the target.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Whacked wrote:
So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

Not quite. If you can't end your move such that you're in contact with the Oblits (would generally mean same level, base to base in your example), then you can't declare a charge in the first place. The assault doesn't "fizzle" because it never happens. You never declare an assault, Overwatch doesn't happen and you never roll dice. You're free to assault someone else instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Whacked wrote:
So my understanding is, if I have a Destroyer Lord at the base of a ruin, and there are three Obliterators above me in the ruins, I roll 12 inches to charge, if I can end my move on the same level of ruin as them, I can assault them? However if I cannot end my move on the ruin, the assault fizzles?

According to strict RAW, yes, they fizzle if they cannot be in contact at the end of the charge and your better off not attempting the assault to begin with if you know beforehand that your guy cant fit because that would prevent you taking overwatch shots attempting an impossible assault.
This is a tactic that is often used by games to prevent just such assaults
However, that is something you can discuss with your gaming group. it might be that no one in the group agrees with it and the group as a whole might want to house rule it differently (but that would be a conversation between you and them of course).

You understanding of the rules is a little off. As above, if the Destroyer Lord can't reach the Oblits, he can't declare an assault. There is no threat of Overwatch in this situation as you're literally not allowed to declare an "impossible assault" where you can't reach the target.

My bad. Had thought you coul declare if you were in range.
Now, dead horse beating time lol... As before, I'm not making assertions, just putting of arguments that could be made in order to talk it out. Some could make claims or twist to have swords touching and so forth and not be in base contact.
However, my own assertion was that you could declare if you could reach but not engage because unable to meet all requirements. Thus you would be taking shots when you wouldnt otherwise need to for nothing. In that I was wrong and am happy to have been wrong in that it would save me from taking hits. Now if only everyone were as willing to admit when they were wrong as i am, these threads wouldnt drag out for so long.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Now if only everyone were as willing to admit when they were wrong as i am, these threads wouldnt drag out for so long.

On that, we agree. I'm always happy to be proven wrong (please don't tell my wife). Unfortunately, most of the debate tactics here involve ever louder opinions and not actual rules citations or reasoned evidence.

This particular issue is always going to be a point of contention because of the ambiguity of "can reach". A certain amount of interpretation will always be needed.

And the Ruins/Vertical movement situation isn't even remotely the only time this can happen. You can be within 12", but unable to "reach" a unit for a variety of reasons. If your proposed target is completely encircled by another enemy unit, you'll be unable to reach it. If your proposed target is 2 inches away, is situated in a 26mm wide alley between two pieces of impassable terrain and you want to charge with an Imperial Knight, you'll be unable to reach it. No amount of Wobbly Model Syndrome will help in either of these scenarios. If you can't reach, you can't declare an assault. Overwatch never happens and no dice are rolled.

The Ruins thing just seems cheap because a unit can become temporarily "immune" to assault without any other models being in the way... at least until they take a wound or two from shooting and you make some space. You only need to make enough room for a single model to make it into contact to be able to declare a charge. After that, your other guys just need to be within 6" vertically and 2" horizontally to be considered as engaged.

In this situation, charging up levels, its best to treat portions of a level where there is no ground as impassible terrain (you and your opponent should be declaring what terrain types are where before the start of the game). Also best to remember that the rules give you permission to move from one level to the next, but no rule gives you permission to stop between levels. Keeping those fact in mind you can make a clear RAW case that you cannot charge the obliterates because they are surrounded by impassible terrain and the chargers would be unable to reach them.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you can't end your move such that you're in contact with the Oblits (would generally mean same level, base to base in your example), then you can't declare a charge in the first place..

I don't recall seeing that rule. i remember one that says chargers must be able to reach the unit they want to declare a charge on, but that has nothing to do with being able to actually be put in base contact because every aspect of model movement only concerns itself with distance.

All of the movement rule in the book presume you are moving the model to a position where it can physically stand unaided on its own. There is zero direction to tell us what to do in the event we cannot psychically place the model in position because of the terrain. In these situations there is no RAW solution, and you need to house rule it.

 DJGietzen wrote:
... i remember one that says chargers must be able to reach the unit they want to declare a charge on, but that has nothing to do with being able to actually be put in base contact because every aspect of model movement only concerns itself with distance.

There is no distance the model can move in order to finish in base contact. Ergo, it can not reach its target.

And thats where it is a good idea to talk with your gaming group about possibilities that can/could happen or how different people may argue it. Not that you have to agree with those argueiments, just possible ones that could be made (this is where I got jumped on here because people incorrectly assumed I was supporting them).
Different ones could be.....
1. being able to stand the model on the level where it can stay on it's own precariously. then the defending player "accidentally bumping the table so it falls off and them when you try to put it back, it suddenly 'mysteriously" will not stay on it's own. hmmmmm...
2.does the rulebook say the models must be standing or does it say it must be standing on it's feet with the base on the bottom specifically? otherwise, a model could "stand" on it's side or even on it's head with base sticking up.
3. How lenient is your group on conversions? would it be considered MFA to glue the base onto the head lite it was a hat?
4. Positioning outthrusting weapons such as the example of the dark reapers missile launchers wfacing the enemy so that an assaulting enemy model cant move in a straight line and come into base contact despite rolling high enough because the thrusting weapons keep the bases from touching. Circling the so that this is the case regardless of direction
5. ect and so on...

Again, dont accuse me of supporting those ideas, just brainstorming a few ways a player could twist it. right or wrong and are an example of things that should be discussed.
As an example, I'll tell you an actual event that happened in my last game...
There was an enemy setting up assault one of my units. To prevent it or make it harder, I zoomed a vendetta forward so that my opponent would have to circle around the base in order to reach my unit. My opponent, argued that he should be able to assault straight across the base under my flyer without having to go around. This ended up in an argument. Had we discussed lists of such possibilities before the game and kept track of them, we could have avoided it. personally, I agree it would be more realistic to go across but I also understand how it could be abused to allow people to cheat as well by having models overlap over turns......

The distance the model must move has no requirement that it finish in base contact. Only that the distance be sufficient to reach the enemy. This 'reach' is the sticking point. You've assumed the model can't reach the enemy if it can't finish its move in base contact with the enemy. Nothing in the rules supports that assumption and that was my point. The movement rules in the game presume that there will be sufficient clear space to place the model after moving it a given distance and going around impassible terrain and other models and only concern themselves with distance. Being able to 'reach' the enemy can also mean the distance between the enemy model and the charging model, accounting for avoiding other models and impassible terrain, cannot exceed the charge range. This means it could be possible to be able to reach an enemy, but not be able to be in base contact with that enemy.

Anyway you cut it, the RAW is insufficient to handle all situations and requires you to house rule it every now and then. Deciding that the 'reach' means ending in base contact is a perfectly reasonable house rule based on the context of the statement, but it is in no way RAW.

 DJGietzen wrote:
The distance the model must move has no requirement that it finish in base contact. Only that the distance be sufficient to reach the enemy. This 'reach' is the sticking point. You've assumed the model can't reach the enemy if it can't finish its move in base contact with the enemy. Nothing in the rules supports that assumption and that was my point. The movement rules in the game presume that there will be sufficient clear space to place the model after moving it a given distance and going around impassible terrain and other models and only concern themselves with distance. Being able to 'reach' the enemy can also mean the distance between the enemy model and the charging model, accounting for avoiding other models and impassible terrain, cannot exceed the charge range. This means it could be possible to be able to reach an enemy, but not be able to be in base contact with that enemy.

Anyway you cut it, the RAW is insufficient to handle all situations and requires you to house rule it every now and then. Deciding that the 'reach' means ending in base contact is a perfectly reasonable house rule based on the context of the statement, but it is in no way RAW.

The assault rules still state you must follow all(except the within 1" of an enemy model part) movement rules. So, you still are required to have a place for the model to end it's movement. Thus you can not reach the model as there is no legal place to put the model.

 DJGietzen wrote:
This 'reach' is the sticking point. You've assumed the model can't reach the enemy if it can't finish its move in base contact with the enemy.

Yes, I've 'assumed' that when the book says you have to be able to reach you target, that means you have to be able to reach your target.

If there is nowhere to place the model beside the target, there is no way that your movement will be sufficient to reach that target.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
The assault rules still state you must follow all(except the within 1" of an enemy model part) movement rules. So, you still are required to have a place for the model to end it's movement. Thus you can not reach the model as there is no legal place to put the model.

Nothing in the movement rules addresses a situation where a model is moved to a position where it is both unable to stand up unaided and not within impassible terrain.

It is possible, following all the rules for movement, to find yourself in that situation.

insaniak wrote:Yes, I've 'assumed' that when the book says you have to be able to reach you target, that means you have to be able to reach your target.

There is no need to be snide. I provided a perfectly reasonable alternative to what being able to reach the enemy means and in doing so provided a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how one might be able to reach the enemy but not be place a model beside the enemy. You should not continue to assert your OPINION as FACT. The fact is that the rules as written are insufficient. They don'y account for this very real possibility. House rules must be made to correct this.

 DJGietzen wrote:
There is no need to be snide. I provided a perfectly reasonable alternative to what being able to reach the enemy means and in doing so provided a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how one might be able to reach the enemy but not be place a model beside the enemy.

And I disagreed because I don't think that it's a reasonable alternative at all, since it relies on assuming that the charger can reach the enemy even though it can't reach them.

That's not me being snide. That's me not being able to see any clearer way to explain that the statement 'the sky is blue' means that the sky is blue.

You should not continue to assert your OPINION as FACT.

I never have. I've presented my opinion as my opinion. I disagree with your opinion because I think that the statement you are making is factually incorrect.

We don't as a general rule require posters to preface every statement they make with a 'In my opinion...' style disclaimer... you can generally take it as written that when someone offers an opinion, they're just offering their opinion.

 insaniak wrote:
s...since it relies on assuming that the charger can reach the enemy even though it can't reach them.

You're suggesting that a model can only reach the enemy if it can reach the enemy. We are discussing what being able to reach the enemy means. I have suggested that it means the distance between the model and the enemy, while avoiding other models and impassible terrain must not be greater then the charge range. What is unreasonable about that?

 DJGietzen wrote:

Nothing in the movement rules addresses a situation where a model is moved to a position where it is both unable to stand up unaided and not within impassible terrain.

It is possible, following all the rules for movement, to find yourself in that situation.

Yes there is. The portion on vertical movement. The part the quite plainly states "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."

The 'unreasonable' part is the end result. If, despite the distance between the models being less than the charger's movement distance, the model doesn't actually manage to move up alongside the enemy model, then it hasn't reached them. If there is something preventing them from doing so, then they can not reach them.

The distance between the models and the distance that the charger needs to move to reach the target are not automatically the same, because movement distance isn't just measured in a straight line regardless of obstacles. You measure the actual path taken by the model..

The reason that you can't put the charger in base contact with the target is irrelevant... if they can't move in such a way as to make it into contact before using up their alloted movement distance, then they can't reach their target.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Yes there is. The portion on vertical movement. The part the quite plainly states "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."

I apologize, but I had gotten a bit of topic and was speaking of charges in general. Yes, in a vertical assault you would be correct, but un a horizontal assault the problem, as i described it, would still exist.

@insaniak, that seems like an appropriate rebuttal.