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.

tneva82 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Does this even need to be FAQd?
Morkanauts are designed to do exactly this, I would imagine.
I think that it might even be better if we just stop reading GW's rules all together.

The actual model needs to mean something.
All that base bizniz is bunk.

Well unless GW changes rules by FAQ it won't be attacking. Models with base measurements are only done from base.

Does the Morkanaut not have the "measure to base or hull, whichever is closer"" rule. It seems oddly large not to have that rule.

I can see why a daemon prince, dreadnought, morkanaut, etc. might not be able to climb up there, because their heads would bonk the ceiling or their legs can't articulate up stairs. However, if they're so tall and the models are near enough the edge they could reach into the second floor and swipe at them, I don't see why that should stop them. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the assault rules so much as big stompy robots missing an instance of the vehicle rule.

This rule is a mess, it always has deen. This indeed was the logical conclusion if you didn't let the models to magically float via WMS, (which leads to other problems.) There should be some rule about letting models to fight one floor up or down from where they are.

 Crimson wrote:
This rule is a mess, it always has deen. This indeed was the logical conclusion if you didn't let the models to magically float via WMS, (which leads to other problems.) There should be some rule about letting models to fight one floor up or down from where they are.

It makes sense that you can't fight through the floors.

I also make sense that you can't charge up there if there's no space up there. If you're trying to rappel or climb up the broken edge of the floor, they'll kick your hands/ropes off and you won't be able to have the footing when you're on the narrow edge to do more than harmlessly swipe at them and they prod you off to your death, and if you're trying to charge up a ladder or a stairs then only the one guy on the stairs can fight, because everyone needs to go past him.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This rule is a mess, it always has deen. This indeed was the logical conclusion if you didn't let the models to magically float via WMS, (which leads to other problems.) There should be some rule about letting models to fight one floor up or down from where they are.

It makes sense that you can't fight through the floors.

Not if I have a Power Fist.

Personally, I feel like this ruling fails to acknowledge the fact that the charge phase, fight phase, and dice rolls are meant to be an abstraction of what is actually happening in the fiction of the game. To say that a unit's charge fails simply because the models won't fit on the next floor up makes it sound like the game's events are unfolding like some kind of comical fencing competition... units running up to their opponents, stopping, squaring off, then attacking one at a time. Surely my genestealers that are lunging up the surface of a toppling ruin and diving through windows to rip apart the guardsman squad desperately defending their position are capable of killing and moving forward in one fluid motion. Better yet, can that angry group of Khorne demons not leap from their perch above a terrified cadre of Firewarriors, delivering horrific wounds with the force of both strength and gravity, simply because there doesn't seem to be any good, safe spots to land amongst their tightly packed foes?

I get why this ruling happened: They needed to stay consistent with the core rules and this was the only answer that solved it. Still, I feel like its a stupidly flat answer that ignores everything about what makes the 40k universe cinematic and awesome. In an effort to simplify parts of the game, they've made some rules far too divergent from what we each see unfolding in the theaters of our minds.

This is their game of course. They probably are passionate about it and believe wholeheartedly that each change and ruling that they've made is the best choice possible to improve 8th edition 40k as it goes through its iterations. I just hope that they're worth their salt and realize that this aspect of the game could be so much cooler and more interesting than "The Charge Fails".

 lolman1c wrote:

 Continuity wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
I feel like this is one of those changes GW made without really putting in a lot of play testing because it sounded "fine" on paper. Reminds me of the whole 7th edition FAQ about drop pod doors being part of the vehicle when folded down so drop pods could take up huge areas of the board.

Absolutely, I have no intention of enforcing this rule in any of my future games. The idea that simply putting a bunch of models on a terrain in a specific way renders them essentially immune to close combat is same level of absurdity as carnifexes not being able to walk through/climb walls that a guardsman can. I can't imagine the amount of frustration and rage an ork or daemon player must feel if they have to deal with this ruling on a daily basis

The other week I tried to charge someone with my Morkanaut and they told me I couldn't because my Morkanaut was too large to bit on the 2nd floor (this was even before the FAQ). My Morkanaut was double the hight of where the guy was stood and would simply just crush the building in 1 swing.

This is going to sound rude... but those are kind of people I would say feth you to and go from there. Course I am someone prone to enjoy arguing. I understand the rule may say that but there are some common sense areas where if monsters without bases can do it, obviously the Morka/Gorkanaught who has a base for rule of cool (putting Gretchin under it to fix it or step on!) would be whacking those guys.

I can't stand people like that, it's a game with little plastic toy soldiers. Don't try to abuse rules when there's a clear intention of what they're trying to do.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:

This is going to sound rude... but those are kind of people I would say feth you to and go from there. Course I am someone prone to enjoy arguing. I understand the rule may say that but there are some common sense areas where if monsters without bases can do it, obviously the Morka/Gorkanaught who has a base for rule of cool (putting Gretchin under it to fix it or step on!) would be whacking those guys.

I can't stand people like that, it's a game with little plastic toy soldiers. Don't try to abuse rules when there's a clear intention of what they're trying to do.

I don't agree with them, but they're not trying to abuse rules. They're trying to play the rules as they understand them and unless you come to an agreement beforehand about each of your expectations you're 'gonna have a bad time'.

 lolman1c wrote:

The other week I tried to charge someone with my Morkanaut and they told me I couldn't because my Morkanaut was too large to bit on the 2nd floor (this was even before the FAQ). My Morkanaut was double the hight of where the guy was stood and would simply just crush the building in 1 swing.

The trouble is that if GW made a ruling saying something along the lines of "If your model can physically reach the enemy they can attack it" then you're going to get people basing for advantage. Suddenly putting your HQ on cork to look cool is going to be derided as "power gaming". I'm not saying I agree with GW's decision; I play Orks and it strikes me as ludicrous that my Nauts (or hell, a Stompa) can't attack stuff standing next to it. But I can understand why GW went the way they did with this.

A stompa has no issues hitting an assassin on top of a tower with his sword. It has no base and thus you measure to its hull.

Same for battlewagons and trukks, you can easily deff-rolla stuff that's on the second floor of a building because they are within 1" of your turret, but the gorkanaut can hit it because you must measure to its base.

 Jidmah wrote:
A stompa has no issues hitting an assassin on top of a tower with his sword. It has no base and thus you measure to its hull.

Same for battlewagons and trukks, you can easily deff-rolla stuff that's on the second floor of a building because they are within 1" of your turret, but the gorkanaut can hit it because you must measure to its base.

Maybe we need a way to cc terrain. XD I would love to see a deff rolla or morkanaut smash a building to peices. And then it works like transport. The units in the covermmudt roll 1s to see if they got out.

The vertical combat distance just needs to be longer (three inches) than the horizontal one. And then some really large models could have an extra rule making their horizontal combat distance even longer than usual (six inches.)

But no, I don't think the people who actually want to play it like the rules say are at all unreasonable. I think the rule is stupid, but that's how I'd still want to play it if no houserule was agreed on beforehand. Though this is an issue I'd certainly willingly houserule if it was brought up before the game.

This really just a part of 8th editions terrain rules being utterly terrible. Most of the problems in this otherwise excellent edition stem from the lacklustre terrain rules. They really need to do something about them in the next CA.

Breng77 wrote:
Even more reasons why terrain should be abstract and models and terrain should have a height stat.

I respectfully disagree. This problem seems to be largely CAUSED by abstraction - measuring distances only from the base of a three dimensional model. If distances were measured from any part of the model, the absurdity of titans (or other huge based models) being unable to swing at models stood 1.1" above the base of the titan would not occur.

while you could also solve the problem with increasingly abstracted terrain, that adds a pile of extra rules to replace the need for actual models and terrain (which we will be using anyway)

Mark.

Is there a rule that forces you to put a base on the ground? For example, can you place the model upside down or sideways so that the base gets lifted into the air?

Cheeslord wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Even more reasons why terrain should be abstract and models and terrain should have a height stat.

I respectfully disagree. This problem seems to be largely CAUSED by abstraction - measuring distances only from the base of a three dimensional model. If distances were measured from any part of the model, the absurdity of titans (or other huge based models) being unable to swing at models stood 1.1" above the base of the titan would not occur.

while you could also solve the problem with increasingly abstracted terrain, that adds a pile of extra rules to replace the need for actual models and terrain (which we will be using anyway)

Mark.

Titans don't come with base though.

But 8th ed terrain rules suck also due to no abstraction. Can't get LOS blocked by forest nor window. Gaming terrain simply isn't FEASIBLE to work with TLOS. By making it TLOS you either sacrifice sense or playability. Playable sensible terrain absolutely requires abstraction on rules.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
This rule is a mess, it always has deen. This indeed was the logical conclusion if you didn't let the models to magically float via WMS, (which leads to other problems.) There should be some rule about letting models to fight one floor up or down from where they are.

It makes sense that you can't fight through the floors.

I also make sense that you can't charge up there if there's no space up there. If you're trying to rappel or climb up the broken edge of the floor, they'll kick your hands/ropes off and you won't be able to have the footing when you're on the narrow edge to do more than harmlessly swipe at them and they prod you off to your death, and if you're trying to charge up a ladder or a stairs then only the one guy on the stairs can fight, because everyone needs to go past him.

Your thinking is way to static.

If Genestealers charge into a building do you think they'll respect your personal space? They'll run you over, a guardsman won't be able to block khorne berzerkers running into a building, who says they need to climb up? Deciding which guys reach your guys, that's what overwatch is for.

From a balancestandpoint it also doesn't make sense, terrain should be what keeps shooting armies in check, not buff them additionally.

If you set up a table with no terrain a shooting army will win just hands down, if you set up a table with enough 1 story buildings the shooting army will also have advantages, what's the point of playing melee armies then? hope the enemy runs big enough blobs of units so they don't fit into buildings? MEQs and even many GEQs are run in small squads to avoid morale damage in our local meta.

We've never had problems with this even though we've played it exactly like it's in the faq. Kep in mind that there's no rule preventing you from, say, gluing your model to a wall of a ruin or hanging onto the edges of terrain using spikey bits like choppas, or placing the model at odd angles. You can take your Naught and put it sideways so that it's base gets within 1" of someone on the 2-d floor. Just be creative.

By the way I played a game against a friend of mine who plays admech, she fields 2 armiger warglaives and we played by the "no attackerino units that are even 1 inch from the ground" rule.

I could exploit the hell out of it, my blightlords deepstriked in turn2 onto a building together with a chaoslord in a jumppack, destroyed her kastellan robots with overcharged plasma and basically were immun to the armigers and her electropriest because the unit was exactly enough to fill out the whole first floor. There was no way in hell she was able to kill them with anything but overcharged plasma, a orkplayer would've just been screwed at this point.

I shocked my typhus onto a tiny rock 3 inch above the ground and tried to charge the second armiger warglaive because why the hell not, yes it's a 12inch charge but she cannot charge me and next round I would just be able to go down and either flank her from the other side while my other units were convering or just wait out what she does with her biggest threats, yeah they have thermalspears for this situation but it's just D3 shots, that's not enough and going into 12inch melter range for the extra shot isn't worth a typhus with Putrescent Blades charging your armiger next turn.

I'm going to test out this rule further but I can already see the heavy exploit potential, at least in our store where we have tons of 1 story ruins where you can put up your stuff.

mungkorn88 wrote:
By the way I played a game against a friend of mine who plays admech, she fields 2 armiger warglaives and we played by the "no attackerino units that are even 1 inch from the ground" rule.

I could exploit the hell out of it, my blightlords deepstriked in turn2 onto a building together with a chaoslord in a jumppack, destroyed her kastellan robots with overcharged plasma and basically were immun to the armigers and her electropriest because the unit was exactly enough to fill out the whole first floor. There was no way in hell she was able to kill them with anything but overcharged plasma, a orkplayer would've just been screwed at this point.

I shocked my typhus onto a tiny rock 3 inch above the ground and tried to charge the second armiger warglaive because why the hell not, yes it's a 12inch charge but she cannot charge me and next round I would just be able to go down and either flank her from the other side while my other units were convering or just wait out what she does with her biggest threats, yeah they have thermalspears for this situation but it's just D3 shots, that's not enough and going into 12inch melter range for the extra shot isn't worth a typhus with Putrescent Blades charging your armiger next turn.

I'm going to test out this rule further but I can already see the heavy exploit potential, at least in our store where we have tons of 1 story ruins where you can put up your stuff.

Why didn't she just place a knight sideways?

Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

tneva82 wrote:
Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

mungkorn88 wrote:

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

Just no. Do not even think this.

mungkorn88 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

I think the Wobbly Model Syndrome rules state the model must be "freestanding". If the knight rolls on his back to get more vertical reach with his base I do not think he would count as "Freestanding" - or Standing at all.

On the other hand, if you put the knights feet near the back edge of the base when assembling it, then heat the base and fold it upwards so it stands on one edge of the base but the other rises up to smite people on barrells....

mungkorn88 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

Uh you mean literally lie sideway?

Ok I'll bite. Where in rulebook it says you can do it? Note I don't need to provide quote showing you can't. Rules work by giving permission, not by preventing.

tneva82 wrote:

mungkorn88 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

Uh you mean literally lie sideway?

Ok I'll bite. Where in rulebook it says you can do it? Note I don't need to provide quote showing you can't. Rules work by giving permission, not by preventing.

Where in rulebook it says you can place a model's base horizontally?

tneva82 wrote:

mungkorn88 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Uh whether base points left or forward doesn't matter. It's still same distance...

Actually he has an interesting point, is there even a rule that tells me to place the base HORIZONTALLY on the ground? the knight's base could be used to measure vertically.

Uh you mean literally lie sideway?

Ok I'll bite. Where in rulebook it says you can do it? Note I don't need to provide quote showing you can't. Rules work by giving permission, not by preventing.

We actually have lots of stuff that does preventing in the rulebook. We also don't have a rule that tells us how to place bases.

There's also the idea of fair play. Putting bases on models in a way you know is not that which was intended to gain an advantage isn't exactly being a good sport. I can't see many opponents agreeing to play against models with bases on their heads and knights with their bases glued to their backs.

All this stuff is just a rediculous answer to a rediculous problem.
If you want to play by the rules and say that someone on a barrel or 2d floor of the ruin is immune to mellee, i'm gona play by the rules and place my stuff upside down and glue it to the side of the 2d floor of a ruin.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
There's also the idea of fair play. Putting bases on models in a way you know is not that which was intended to gain an advantage isn't exactly being a good sport. I can't see many opponents agreeing to play against models with bases on their heads and knights with their bases glued to their backs.

I'm stupid anyways, I just read the terrain rules. Stuff like containers where you put your troops on top are not ruins anyways and need to be played as "counts as" (unless we make own rules). In that case I'd make containers and stuff like small rocks probably count as hills/statues.

You can really track how 40k became so competitive. I remember if we didn't know a rule we sometimes just made it up or rolled a duce (that was meant to say dice but it just sounced funny if we rolled a duce) for it. Gw seems to still be in those days while players are following rules to the letter.

I personally do miss those games but it would be annoying when you did know the rule and the opponent refused to accept it. It's hard to decide how 40k should be... I'm a oure casual player so I do like it more when I can just relax and not have to worry about what I can and cannot do because a FAQ somewhere I might have missed says something that doesn't feel right... but I understand for tournaments (where people play for prizes and money) you need to have rules setmin stone.

It's seriously why I believe GW needs to hire a tournament rule team who focus on a tournament version of 40k and can FAQ stuff within a week (now we won't get another FAQ for 6 months....). It means I can just play my 40k and worry about big balance changes while tournament players can have a dedicated team who fix problem s instantly like you would patch a game. Basically, if I owned mynown table and had close friends this is how I would play 40k but to many people at GW stores play the game like the rule book is a bible in 17th century North America.

 lolman1c wrote:

Nemesis234 wrote:
Always played it like this, no issues from me. Whilst the game isnt exactly realistic and they obviously are not trying to make it so. Why wouldnt a squad fully occupying a terrain level be able to prevent others from getting onto it? The people that play wobbly model, do you really thibk someone dangling from a wall should be able to attack at full skill? Please...

Because under these rules a titan can't even get into cc with someone in cover. Not saying a titan needs to but it's one of those 40k rule comedy things. Also there is a nice image going around (not made by me) of a heavy weapons team now being invincible to Ork deff dread.

Spoiler:

Regarding this one, the dread can attack the guardsmen unless you count that container as a ruin.