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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Following the rule of 'horizontally 2" and vertically 6"' would mean that the two models are in coherency, when measured from base to base (i.e. diagonally), if they are within 6.32" from each other.

That is not a 90 degree angle. Vertically literally means at right angles to a horizontal plane, which would be directly above said model.

Acutally it's "perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis". You can be perpendicular to a horizontal axis, with the horizontal axis running through the two models, with the vertical plane going through both models. You can still compare the vertical distance.between the two as their separation on the horizontal axis doesn't matter for the vertical difference.

DeathReaper, you really should bow to consensus on this one. You’ve asked your question and everyone has said “no, you’re not correct”, providing plenty of reasoned proof.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Following the rule of 'horizontally 2" and vertically 6"' would mean that the two models are in coherency, when measured from base to base (i.e. diagonally), if they are within 6.32" from each other.

That is not a 90 degree angle. Vertically literally means at right angles to a horizontal plane, which would be directly above said model.

Acutally it's "perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis". You can be perpendicular to a horizontal axis, with the horizontal axis running through the two models, with the vertical plane going through both models. You can still compare the vertical distance.between the two as their separation on the horizontal axis doesn't matter for the vertical difference.

It isn't though.

"vertical
ADJECTIVE
At right angles to a horizontal plane; in a direction, or having an alignment, such that the top is directly above the bottom."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vertical

Such that the top is directly above the bottom does not mean anything but a 90 degree angle.

@ JohnnyHell

Since the "Stepping into a New Edition" FAQ says "Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements? "A: All distances are measured in three dimensions..." the FAQ isn't actually explicit on the matter and only uses an example for movement.

But since "vertically" as per the FAQ does indeed mean the vertical component then it is covered with the presence of that FAQ (one that i missed because it was stepping into a new Ed and not in the rulebook FAQ).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Following the rule of 'horizontally 2" and vertically 6"' would mean that the two models are in coherency, when measured from base to base (i.e. diagonally), if they are within 6.32" from each other.

That is not a 90 degree angle. Vertically literally means at right angles to a horizontal plane, which would be directly above said model.

Acutally it's "perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis". You can be perpendicular to a horizontal axis, with the horizontal axis running through the two models, with the vertical plane going through both models. You can still compare the vertical distance.between the two as their separation on the horizontal axis doesn't matter for the vertical difference.

It isn't though.

"vertical
ADJECTIVE
At right angles to a horizontal plane; in a direction, or having an alignment, such that the top is directly above the bottom."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vertical

Such that the top is directly above the bottom does not mean anything but a 90 degree angle.

@ JohnnyHell

Since the "Stepping into a New Edition" FAQ says "Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements? "A: All distances are measured in three dimensions..." the FAQ isn't actually explicit on the matter and only uses an example for movement.

But since "vertically" as per the FAQ does indeed mean the vertical component then it is covered with the presence of that FAQ (one that i missed because it was stepping into a new Ed and not in the rulebook FAQ).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vertical

Vertical
1 a : perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis

So, it depends on which dictionary you're looking at, and I daresay that Meriam Webster isn't a less reliable source than Oxford. . So don't be so insistent saying "no it isn't", I have a reference that says "primary axis" can apply.

This thread has become the definition of inane. The way the rule is written is perfectly fine and understandable, and even though it's unnecessary, it's been shown to be the case. Yet it's still be argued against.