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.

To be fair, it's a problem that some of these rules are buried in the Stepping Into a New Edition FAQ, others are in the Designer's Commentary FAQ, while rules are in a FAQ (not necessarily the main rulebook FAQ, but one army gets a ruling that should be applicable to all armies as a whole). A lot of this should be consolidated together and compiled - Stepping into a New Edtion and Designer's Commentary should have been merged together in a document and included in Chapter Approved (actually a lot of it should have been in the main rulebook itself if not including some of it in the Primer).

As it is, on some of these issues you have to try and remember what document the rule is hiding in. It took me a while (and resorting to searching the forum to find a reference to this) to find out where this was hidden; I had thought it was in the Designer's Commentary or the FAQ but kept not finding it there; I had forgotten about the Stepping Into a New Edition document (and I'm sure many others have forgotten about it too). One master FAQ for the main rulebook to include all this would be best if they're not going to put it into Chapter Approved.

I really regret buying the rulebooks and codexes for this beta version of 8th ed. With so many different random FAQs, Designer commentaries, CA, updates the books I bought have more notes in the margins than some of my old textbooks...

And at this point just because I write it in my book doesn't make it gospel so I need to have all the sites favorited in my phone to show my opponent that I am indeed not making anything up or that they are doing it wrong...

Yep, 8th edition doing it's part to battle rule bloat (index for rifle dreads, sm book, another index for assassins, main rule book, CA, all the FAQs, Designer commentary, custodes codex...)

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
the faq says

What happens when an Infantry model cannot
completely end its move on a floor of ruins when
attempting to scale the walls?

A: If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move
to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome
guidelines in the core rules to identify with your
opponent where your model’s actual location is.

Core rules :

Moving

A model can be moved in any direction

So why not diagnolly?

*sigh*

It makes me sad this even needs to be explained/debated. There are some concepts in the rules that are just assumed, or convention, because they're obvious... like dudes who walk along the ground not being able to fly in a diagonal line (ditto treaded regular tanks etc. not flying through the air).

If that *really* needs to be spelt out in the rules then we have no hope.

If your answer is "somethings have to be assumed" you have lost the argument. The only thing that matters is what the rules say assumed is subjective and convention is location specific. Neither are relevant to a rules thread when the rules are clear and is this instance they are. Even if you don't like them or they don't make sense from a physics point of view- 40k is a simulation.

From Stepping In To a New Edition of Warhammer 40,000:

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.

So, you don't measure in a diagonal direction; you have to add the horizontal distance to the vertical distance for the move.

BRB obstacles are clearly defined on pg 249. ruins arn't obstacles and explicitly follow modified movement rules namely BRB pg 248 "infantry are assumed to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment."

You can therefore move diagnally through them useing the wobbly model rule quoted earlier

The question wasn't merely about obstacles, it was a general how to handle vertical movement. It's not merely about obstacles. They have you adding vertical distance to horizontal distance.

You don't get to have infantry flying like Superman through the air.

Thats because normally you cant move through walls so have to go up then along but in a ruin you just move through walls and floors

I hate it when someone is so desperate to be right on the internet that they change the example to fit what they were saying...

But yes, congrats, you found an edge case where that works - a ruin would technically allow you to move Infantry diagonally through it.

Of course, for all other situations that aren't specifically Infantry in Ruins, you can't move diagonally and should stop claiming that's what the rules say.

U02dah4 wrote:
You lost

Common sense isnt a rules argument:

unless you back your statement up and can quote me a rules passage indicateing the exact nature and role of common sense within the rules?

40k is a simulation many of its rules lack common sense. Common sense is Subjective. It would be common sense to me to play by the rules as written not manufacture rules because i didnt like them.

There is a proposed rule thread for manufacturing rules

DoctorTom just did.......

'From Stepping In To a New Edition of Warhammer 40,000:

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.

So, you don't measure in a diagonal direction; you have to add the horizontal distance to the vertical distance for the move.'

So some people are seriously arguing that because the rules do not specifically forbid models from floating in the air, they can in fact do that?

 Crimson wrote:
So some people are seriously arguing that because the rules do not specifically forbid models from floating in the air, they can in fact do that?

Yep. :-/

We discuss the movement required to traverse from one level of ruin to another before the game. If the ruin was 12" tall but only 3 levels including ground level, we say each level is worth 2" of movement, so to charge at the unit camping at the top level is only 4" from the ground.

It creates uniformity and speeds up the game significantly.

U02dah4 wrote:
Thats because normally you cant move through walls so have to go up then along but in a ruin you just move through walls and floors

This doesn't let you fly through the air to get into a ruin in the first place. Something outside a building or ruins wanting to assault a unit on top would need to measure horizontally to the edge of the building, then vertically measure the distance up to the unit. It doesn't get to make a bounding leap like the Hulk and draw a straight line to the unit on top,

Yes it does

"These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment"

It is quite specific.- infantry outside dont have to go up and along as I am not evadeing an obstacle they can jusy move through

OK, once they get inside a ruin you're correct, Infantry (only) can move diagonally. We've been over that.

But moving through walls and floors is different to moving through thin air. Until the unit gets into a ruin they cannot move diagonally through the air to get to said ruin! Why do you keep saying they can?

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes it does

"These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment"

It is quite specific.- infantry outside dont have to go up and along as I am not evadeing an obstacle they can jusy move through

You're not in the ruin yet. You're standing somewhere outside, at any random distance to the ruin itself. You do NOT get to fly through the air diagonally when you're outside the ruin to get to the top of the ruin. If you're inside the ruin somewhere, I can see you invoking that for moving around while you're in the ruin, but you don't get to invoke it before you're in the ruin itself.

I don't understand how "can traverse up walls, move through windows in ruins" is allegory to "can move diagonally through the air when in the presence of ruins".

I play mainly assault armies against mainly competitive minded players and no one has ever let this happen. Further more when playing in a competitive sense its not uncommon for the opponent to fully "game" this rule to deny the vast majority of charges.

The worst one honestly is that you measure base to base for deepstrike distance, then horizontal + vertical for charge. 9" diagonally from a unit 6" elevated is in fact a 12.7" charge by the current rules (Ie not even declarable)

The rules are either not sufficient, or are inteded to drastically impair fighting ip in buildings.

vladicov wrote:
I don't understand how "can traverse up walls, move through windows in ruins" is allegory to "can move diagonally through the air when in the presence of ruins".

I play mainly assault armies against mainly competitive minded players and no one has ever let this happen. Further more when playing in a competitive sense its not uncommon for the opponent to fully "game" this rule to deny the vast majority of charges.

The worst one honestly is that you measure base to base for deepstrike distance, then horizontal + vertical for charge. 9" diagonally from a unit 6" elevated is in fact a 12.7" charge by the current rules (Ie not even declarable)

The rules are either not sufficient, or are inteded to drastically impair fighting ip in buildings.

I feel like the cunning counter to that is charging with deepstriking flying unit that's a 6" charge onto any ledge that can be touched by your base as they ignore vertical movement and then can consolidate the unit behind the enemy in some cases.

It may not be proper but I'd prefer to play that models can move partways up walls counting the vertical + horizontal distances and marking the base location on the wall with tape or putty (much like faq'd). If within 1" of an enemy base on the ledge above after charging then attack. 2nd line of fighters I'd argue should also attack. Fliers should (but don't per rules) move diagonally. Shooting should be counted diagonally from any point on the models body or base (not aesthetic pieces) to the enemy models visible body or base. I'd even argue that vehicles should be able to move over small vertical distances like barricades so we don't get a baneblade stuck on a road that has a quarter inch curb. Not saying climbing trees and walls, though maybe felling them. That would need some fleshing out.

Still better than the opponent that said If i can charge the "wall your perched on I can attack you". I was 3" up and 6" over, he only rolled a 6.

Cpt. Icanus wrote:
Cheers!
Today i parked a wave serpent on top of a container. There was no more space on top to place models. My opponent declared to charge underneath the serpent and strike nevertheless "up three inches". No part of the enemy models was within 1" not even outstretched swords.
I let it slip to get the game on but find it fishy still, also i couldnt find a corresponding part of the rulebook on the quick. Pointers?

All you have to do is model your wave serpent high off the ground, and then you don't even need the container.

2 questions about vertical range.

1:
The Foul Blightspawn can see the flyer model. It is base to base more than 9 away. Foul Blightspawn model to base is less than 9, but but he cant see the base. Model to model is more than 9.
Can it shoot it with its 9 range weapon?

2:
Flyer/large model on top of a pillar/chimney, and covering the entire pillar with the flyers base. Bloodletter can't get within 1, and there is no place to claim wobbly model.
Can the bloodletter get it, or is it safe from harm?


(and yes, I have a degree in MicrosoftPaint... )

 Wibe wrote:

2:

Spoiler:

Flyer/large model on top of a pillar/chimney, and covering the entire pillar with the flyers base. Bloodletter can't get within 1, and there is no place to claim wobbly model.
Can the bloodletter get it, or is it safe from harm?


(and yes, I have a degree in MicrosoftPaint... )

People seem to forget that you can climb scenery and use wobbly model to simulate it, and that you do not have to end your climb on a horizontal surface. The Bloodletter could theoretically climb to a point just under the base of the flyer, allowing it to attack. Granted, this is reliant on player agreement as is all wobbly model syndrome use, but allowing the model to attack while hanging onto the column is the most sensible and balanced approach to this issue in my opinion.

I agree, but thereis the part about agreeing, and that that the "Wobbly model syndrome" also says ""If you delicately balance it in place...", making it even worse if you face of against "that guy",

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

vladicov wrote:
I don't understand how "can traverse up walls, move through windows in ruins" is allegory to "can move diagonally through the air when in the presence of ruins".

I play mainly assault armies against mainly competitive minded players and no one has ever let this happen. Further more when playing in a competitive sense its not uncommon for the opponent to fully "game" this rule to deny the vast majority of charges.

The worst one honestly is that you measure base to base for deepstrike distance, then horizontal + vertical for charge. 9" diagonally from a unit 6" elevated is in fact a 12.7" charge by the current rules (Ie not even declarable)

The rules are either not sufficient, or are inteded to drastically impair fighting ip in buildings.

I feel like the cunning counter to that is charging with deepstriking flying unit that's a 6" charge onto any ledge that can be touched by your base as they ignore vertical movement and then can consolidate the unit behind the enemy in some cases.

It may not be proper but I'd prefer to play that models can move partways up walls counting the vertical + horizontal distances and marking the base location on the wall with tape or putty (much like faq'd).

The problem is that U02dah4 isn't taking vertical + horizontal distance. He's having a regular infantry unit (supposedly having had a big lunch of beans so that he can use his emissions to propel him into the air) fly diagonally through the air to end up in the ruin and is only counting the straight line distance.

Moving partway up walls is fine if you count vertical + horizontal, and if you have a reasonable opponent. The models can be there due to wobbly model syndrome, but technically you have to have opponent's permission to be able to do that. I would say though that in any normal situation where you're climbing the wall, if the opponent doesn't want to give permission then you should probably just pack up the game right then.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
You lost

Common sense isnt a rules argument:

unless you back your statement up and can quote me a rules passage indicateing the exact nature and role of common sense within the rules?

40k is a simulation many of its rules lack common sense. Common sense is Subjective. It would be common sense to me to play by the rules as written not manufacture rules because i didnt like them.

There is a proposed rule thread for manufacturing rules

I thought it would be good to revisit this statement from you.

Nonsense is less of a rules argument than common sense, since "common sense" might actually touch upon RAI. You are not playing by the rules as written as the only quote you provided for the diagonal movement applies only within a ruin itself. It does not apply to getting to the ruin in the first place. You need to provide a quotation that states a regular infantry unit can fly diagonally through the air, not a quote that tells how you move once you're in the ruin itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wibe wrote:
I agree, but thereis the part about agreeing, and that that the "Wobbly model syndrome" also says ""If you delicately balance it in place...", making it even worse if you face of against "that guy",

Take blu tac with you and put it on the bottom of the base, then stick the model on the side wall. It worked for me back with the 3rd edition Craftworlds supplement for Eldar, when the Eldar Pathfinders could move in impassable terrain and I wanted them in a sniper position up the side of a rocky terrain piece with no good place to put on top. (Well, it would work for the delicately balance part...it probably won't do much for an unreasonable opponent )

I have been thinking about registering for a while as I have migrated from other sites. But this conversation finally prompted to do the deed and chip in.

My offering is an inference from the BRB and the special rules for Reivers Grapnel Launchers, but it might help.

"Moving" (BRB p 177).

"....can be moved vertically in order to climb...."

(no mention of diagonal)

"Reivers" data sheet:

"...do not count any vertical distance they move against the total they can move that turn (i.e moving vertically is free for these models)..."

By implication other models have to count the vertical distance moved.

In sum, my deduction is that movement is only considered in component form (horizontal and/or vertical) never diagonal.