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.

 doctortom wrote:

 JinxDragon wrote:
Your argument involves discarding a Answer provided by the Authors, an answer concerning Vertical Movement that also directly quoted hills as an example, in favor of... what, some person on the internet said so?
Sorry... the Authors have more input into their game then you do and I think I have made this point well enough that those reading this thread will also see clearly the problem with us needing to combine Vertical and Horizontal motion.


Less then I do as a player though, nothing stops me bringing up the stupid nature of this answer and having an opponent agree it is stupid... and to ignore it entirely!
Cause that is how we do it, we acknowledge the Rules are leading to a situation that clearly is stupid... and then we agree not to play using those Rules.

You have a built in assumption here, that a sloped hill is an obstacle. I think you'll find that 99% of the people think that a sloped hill is not an obstacle, so you don't have to use their vertical + horizontal movement. That means that the quote that JohnnyHell gave from the rules about "moving in any direction" would cover the direction "up the sloped hill, without having to try to measure the vertical distance. That isn't "discarding an Answer", it is ignoring a statement that does not apply to the situation.

For GW's hills that have steps, the steps themselves would be obstacles in the way that barricades, walls, etc. would be obstacles, so taking vertical as well as horizontal movement into account there makes sense. You go horizontally until you hit the step, then you have to go vertically, then you go horizontally again once you hit the stop of the step. You don't deal with that with a sloped hill, however. There are no obstacles, and when you trace the line that the model takes, it goes up the incline. You don't figure horizontal then vertical movement distance for it; in both cases you are measuring the distance of the path that the model would take if it were actually walking that distance.

YES. Glad someone else gets it.

Yes, it is an obstacle... or do you let Models simply move and shoot through Hills as if they where not there?

Besides, as I have pointed out, slopped hills are not the only piece of terrain that will have inclined surfaces!
Even if we where to conclude that sloped hills are somehow uniquely immune to the 'Vertical + Horizontal' Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, there are is still an issue of having to apply this answer to other pieces of sloped Terrain!

Or are you going to say that only vertical pieces of terrain are 'obstacles' too?
Maybe you can quote the Authors informing us how to determine if X is an obstacle or not?

An obstacle to movement and an obstacle to shooting can be different. Don't argue by changing the example, it illuminates nothing. We aren't talking about shooting (where LOS rules would apply, not Movement ones). Let's disregard that.

It's been demonstrated by two people that the core Movement rules cover moving along an incline. The FAQ covers obstacles to movement. What else is there to cover?

 JinxDragon wrote:
Yes, it is an obstacle... or do you let Models simply move and shoot through Hills as if they where not there?

As JohnnyHell points out, an obstacle to movement is not the same as an obstacle to shooting. Strawman argument here.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Besides, as I have pointed out, slopped hills are not the only piece of terrain that will have inclined surfaces!
Even if we where to conclude that sloped hills are somehow uniquely immune to the 'Vertical + Horizontal' Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, there are is still an issue of having to apply this answer to other pieces of sloped Terrain!

If it's sloped and they're walking up it, measure the path they move, not the horizontal + vertical. It's still being consistent with EVERY" SINGLE OTHER TIME IN THE GAME when you are measuring the distance along the path the model takes to move.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Or are you going to say that only vertical pieces of terrain are 'obstacles' too?

Obviously no. A river would be a horizontal obstacle to movement, as would a lava pool. This isn't even a strawman argument here; all it does is show you don't have comprehension of what we are saying or are too set in your argument to consider anything else.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Maybe you can quote the Authors informing us how to determine if X is an obstacle or not?

I figure we'd leave that for you. If you were able to quote the authors about what's an obstacle to try to refute us, you would have done it before now. If you're going to go down that level of RAW, then you have to demonstrate by quotations what the authors have defined as an obstacle so that we can determine what is and what isn't an obstacle. Or maybe they figured it was obvious. They're not expecting people go go "oh, this board is raised 2" from one of the long ends to the other, we have to take into account the vertical disance for every single unit on the table." Does that mean that if you shorten the legs of the table on one side and the whole board's at an angle, you have to account for the vertical distance on every move? Don't forget the table will be the hypotenuse of the distance, so you have to determine what the actual horizonatl and vertical distances are whenever you move on the table. Changing direction of movement will change the angle, so you'll have to do the calculations every time. Good luck convincing someone to play Geometryhammer. with you.

Focus on the shooting if you want, but I also asked if you would allow Models to freely move through a Hill....
If it costs you additional "Inches" to go over something, how is that Object not an Obstacle?


I have also noticed you are getting hyper focused on a single word, Obstacle... I must really ask:
If you have to hyper-define a single word in order to nullify an Frequently Asked Question answer that you do not like, is that really a correct assumption to make?

The question asked was addressing how vertical distances work for all movement and measuring purposes. While it uses Moving over a Hills and Scaling Walls as examples, it is still an answer provided for how we go about determining if a Model has exceeded it's Maximum Movement Characteristic. So even if you able to prove the hill was not an obstacle for movement, which to mean would mean moving through it freely as it wouldn't obstruct motion in any way, I am still left with instructions telling me to calculate the motion by adding Vertical and Horizontals together. All people have told me to counter these instructions is 'you do not apply them to sloped terrain' and nothing from the Authors explaining why. Now they demand that I provide something that 'tell us what the Authors consider to be an obstacle then?'

Nothing - so just what situations would this Answer ever apply to?
Why did the Authors provide it if they never intended for it's use?

I would be more then willing to only apply this answer to the straight 'Vertical surfaces...' I just would have like it if the Author didn't inevitably revive some stupid hack-and-pasted Rule that I figured was long dead till reading that answer.
6th Edition Ruins - Shoe-horned into 7th Edition Movement to explain 'Vertical movement' - Removed from 8th Edition in favour of a 'follow the path' system - Shoe-horned back in by a stupid Answer that was likely ill thought out....


Doctortom,
Of course the answer goes against every other instruction telling us how to Measure Distances, who do you think I hate it so much?!

Q: How do vertical distances work for movement
and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if
a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal
distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed
its Movement characteristic. This means that in order
to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the
top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move
down it

You keep changing what is discussed, its wilfully difficult and not arguing in good faith.

A model can move up an incline without impediment. That is what obstacle would mean here - something in the way of that movement. Like, say, a GW stepped hill. Of course it doesn't mean you can move through it. That's another strawman from you.

I agree, a sloped hill (or e.g. a ramp) isn't an obstacle and the hypotenuse is fair game.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Focus on the shooting if you want, but I also asked if you would allow Models to freely move through a Hill....
If it costs you additional "Inches" to go over something, how is that Object not an Obstacle?


I have also noticed you are getting hyper focused on a single word, Obstacle... I must really ask:
If you have to hyper-define a single word in order to nullify an Frequently Asked Question answer that you do not like, is that really a correct assumption to make?

You should realize the answer from your quote later in your post:
" This means that in order to traverse across an obstacle[u], you must move up to the top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move down it"

They're the one who emphasized obstacle here. The sloping hill we're talking about (not the stepped hills GW sells) aren't an obstacle.

I hope your gaming table is perfectly level. If not, by your statements you need to account for any vertical disance differences.

It is your side trying to ignore instructions based on questioning exactly what an 'obstacle' is....

So I ask again:
How is an object that costs us 'Movement' crossing it not an Obstacle?
If you want to be the side claiming we only apply this to things the Authors describe as 'obstacles' can you please provide me with that list now?

How is it costing you movement? You travel along its surface using your movement, and it hasn't :"cost you" anything you're not spending normally.

Unless a flat table with no terrain is an obstacle, an uninterrupted incline is not an obstacle. Distances are measured in three dimensions, we're told this precisely to avoid the kind of Pythagoras craziness you're positing. You measure along the slope.

If something does get in the way, measure up, across, then down again.

Here's the list of obstacles:

* defense lines
* walls & barricades
* steps on stepped hills
* Authors

The rulebook says that models with the FLY keyword keyword move across models and terrain as if they are not there. That would mean that would ignore vertical distances as terrain is the only thing that can make vertical distances on the battlefield, would it not?

So...

AutocannonSidearm wrote:
So...

That's how I play it, but it can be argued the bottom left for Fly is incorrect and you only measure the horizontal distance.

AutocannonSidearm wrote:
Here's the list of obstacles:

* defense lines
* walls & barricades
* steps on stepped hills
* Authors
* mid-game rules lawyers

Fixed that for you

Doctortom,
A hypothetical Model has a Maximum Movement of 6 inches
If the Model crosses a flat surface it will end it's movement with a straight 6 inch line from where it begun
Now, if you placed a tiny hill representing a berried pipe in the way, that same line will be decreased by either:
1) This ridiculous Vertical + Horizontal instructions
B) By following the Model going up and then down this small hill, measuring along the slope

Either way, it had to pay a cost in how far it could move horizontally in order to move over that tiny little obstacle

AutocannonSidearm,
With that answer, you win!
Authors Indeed!

Rest of Thread,
Thanks to AutocannonSidearms response I am just going to stop beating the dead horse here. I was going to list off a whole bunch of terrain and simply ask 'is this object a obstacle,' many which fall under 'ruins,' 'craters,' 'forests,' and a wide range of Hills with slope ranging from 75 degrees through to speed bumps that people probably ignore outright when measuring Horizontal Movement. I was going to do this to show how everyone has chosen to simply 'follow the motion of the Model,' in which the answer will NEVER apply to any situation in game... which can not be what the Authors intended. Considering the quality of the answer, a 6th Edition Ruin Rule that was forced onto all Terrain pieces, I really would have liked if we could ignore the answer entirely too....

For those who read over this thread without posting, I am sure they clearly see issue with a Frequently Asked Question answer instructions to combine the Horizontal and Vertical Movement together and do not need me to bring this out to 10 page just because a few people believe we can re-define our way out of this one. As Lurkers can easily see by the other posters here, many will choose to simply ignore these instructions in order to follow the more 'common sense' instructions originally provided in the Core Rules. I, myself, am one of these such people but I feel we should use this as a chance to prove why we sometimes choose to ignore the Authors instead of trying to delude ourselves into thinking this answer made any god-damned sense.

Seriously people, just add this to your 'Scratch Built' Datasheets:
Sloped surface - This piece of terrain ignores the 'Stepping into a New Edition' answer provided for Measuring Distances and Movement, for that answer was so very stupid....

Again: I'm not ignoring any instructions. Don't be disingenuous and paint those with opposing views as cheating, or try to minimise them as 'a few people'. Very poor form.

Despite what you think, I follow all the Movement rules when I play, including the QA you keep posting (that doesn't say what you think it does). The diagram Autocannon posted follows both the Core Rules and the QA, because the QA simply clarifies the Core Rules, it doesn't change them. The only difference is our group would play the Fly unit as ignoring the elevation of the hill, as per BCB's note.

That you don't think this is following the rules isn't on me.

At some point I expect to see GW market GW brand pieces of string with different lengths marks that you drape along the surface of the board to determine the distance you move. Or, they just fgive you a 40K brand roll of string and expect you to buy their 40K brand tape measure to measure and cut out different lengths of string for different distances (they'll be willing to sell you the GW brand knife to cut the GW brand string too)..