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.

Yes surrounding the models base in all directions is an invisible 1" by 5" engagement range. Any model within that 1" by 5" engagement range is engaged its not difficult to read.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If something has to be within 1" Horizontally or 5" Vertically, then you'd be right.

It's not the case, though. It's and.

You clearly do not know what and means then. You keep using those words, (Horizontally and Vertically). I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

The rules say you need to be within 1" Horizontally and 5" Vertically...

Since you can not be Horizontally AND Vertically of someone, since you would need to be simultaneously above and beside that model... Then you CAN NOT fulfil both those rules, and as such being within engagement range is IMPOSSIBLE via the RAW...

You need to understand this, and re-read the rules.

This is confirmed by the definitions of Vertically and Horizontally (As per the dictionary since the BRB does not define the terms Vertically or Horizontally). If you are in need of a measurement Vertically you need to be directly above them. If you are in need of a measurement Horizontally you need to be directly beside them (meaning on the same plane(or axis)).

P.S. Please learn what the words Vertically and Horizontally actually actually mean. These definitions are the basis of the rule.

@DeathReaper, you seem to be the only one confused by this.

It's really simple.

Are you with in 1" on the horizontal plane? If you are, then check if you are also within 5" on the vertical plane. If you meet both of these than you are within engagement range.

GW did a good job of writing this rule clearly and in a way that works as expected.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The rules say you need to be within 1" Horizontally and 5" Vertically...

Since you can not be Horizontally AND Vertically of someone, since you would need to be simultaneously above and beside that model... Then you CAN NOT fulfil both those rules, and as such being within engagement range is IMPOSSIBLE via the RAW...

Yes, you can not be "Horizontally AND Vertically" of someone. But you can be within 1" horizontally and within 1" vertically of someone.

Measuring the horizontal or vertical distance between two points doesn't require those points to be exactly horizontally or vertically aligned.
You just measure the distance in the given plane, ignoring whatever separation is in the other planes.

I thought the whole Leman Russ issue of people arguing zero was not less than a number was silly, this is something else.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You clearly do not know what and means then. You keep using those words, (Horizontally and Vertically). I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

You're the one who's reading horizontally & vertically as to mean "measure the forming hypotenuse whose short leg is equal to or less than 1 inch and long leg is equal to or less than 5 inches." That's not what the rules read.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules say you need to be within 1" Horizontally and 5" Vertically...

It's telling you to break down vector into it's XYZ components, instead of measuring base to base in diagonal when determining engagement range.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Since you can not be Horizontally AND Vertically of someone, since you would need to be simultaneously above and beside that model... Then you CAN NOT fulfil both those rules, and as such being within engagement range is IMPOSSIBLE via the RAW...

In a cartesian plane, if two points are connected by a 5" diagonal line @ 53.13 degrees from the horizon, then the two points can be said to be '3 inches in the X axis (horizontal) and 4 inches in Y axis (vertical). So, your understanding is incorrect.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You need to understand this, and re-read the rules.

No, you do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is confirmed by the definitions of Vertically and Horizontally (As per the dictionary since the BRB does not define the terms Vertically or Horizontally). If you are in need of a measurement Vertically you need to be directly above them. If you are in need of a measurement Horizontally you need to be directly beside them (meaning on the same plane(or axis)).

And no. No such requirement exists when measuring - not in real life, not in 40k rule setting. You just need to define the two end points of the line segment.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Measuring the horizontal or vertical distance between two points doesn't require those points to be exactly horizontally or vertically aligned.

Yes it does, otherwise they are diagonally, and not horizontally and vertically (Note the and, it is crucial, it doesnt say or, it says they need to be horizontally and vertically, not diagonally).

JakeSiren wrote:
@DeathReaper, you seem to be the only one confused by this.
Are you with in 1" on the horizontal plane? If you are, then check if you are also within 5" on the vertical plane. If you meet both of these than you are within engagement range.

I am not the one that does not understand what horizontally and vertically means. I am not confused at all.

Marine 2 is definitely not within 1" on the horizontally of Orc 2 (because Orc 2 is not parallel to level ground with Marine 2), but he is parallel to level ground with Orc 3. Marine 2 is definitely not within 5" vertically as he is not at a right angle to a horizontal plane when you measure the 5 inches, there is no model at a right angle to a horizontal plane, aka vertically, from Marine 2

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You clearly do not know what and means then. You keep using those words, (Horizontally and Vertically). I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

You're the one who's reading horizontally & vertically as to mean "measure the forming hypotenuse whose short leg is equal to or less than 1 inch and long leg is equal to or less than 5 inches." That's not what the rules read.

The dictionary defines Horizontally and Vertically, I did not prescribe meaning to those two words.

For the record Vertically means "vertically ADVERB At right angles to a horizontal plane; aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom.) https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/vertically

And Horizontally means "horizontal ADJECTIVE Parallel to the plane of the horizon; at right angles to the vertical. ‘a horizontal line’" https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/horizontal_1#:~:text=%2F%CB%8Ch%C9%94%CB%90r%C9%AA%CB%88z%C9%91%CB%90ntl%2F,than%20going%20up%20and%20down

A model can not be aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom and at right angles to the vertical at the same time. Ergo the RAW is broken.

Your definitions are correct. Note in particular the use of "perpendicular", "plane" and "parallel". This means that they don't have to be on the same horizontal level to be measuring horizontally - you can measure distances parallel to the plane. The same is true for vertical since it is defined with respect to horizontal. What that means is that any measurement (from any point of origin) which is parallel to the battlefield level plane is a horizontal measurement, and any measurement which is perpendicular to it is a vertical measurement. I can make a horizontal measurement from 5' above the battlefield and it is still a horizontal since it is parallel to it. Same with vertical.

The origin points are defined as the base in our case, with the axes of horizontal and vertical defined with respect to the battlefield. Any horizontal measurement from the base, made at any level perpendicular to the plane on which the base exists, is a horizontal measurement. The same for vertical. Again, I could measure horizontally from the base from 5' above it as long as my measurement starts directly above and is made parallel to the reference plane of the battlefield.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Marine 2 is definitely not within 1" on the horizontally of Orc 2 (because Orc 2 is not parallel to level ground with Marine 2), but he is parallel to level ground with Orc 3. Marine 2 is definitely not within 5" vertically as he is not at a right angle to a horizontal plane when you measure the 5 inches, there is no model at a right angle to a horizontal plane, aka vertically, from Marine 2
[...]
A model can not be aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom and at right angles to the vertical at the same time. Ergo the RAW is broken.

What's the matter here? This interpretation clearly can't be the meaning of the rulebook.
Any little hole, ramp or whatever would consequently deny the alignment in vertical or horizontal axis and thus made melee impossible.

Erturian wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Marine 2 is definitely not within 1" on the horizontally of Orc 2 (because Orc 2 is not parallel to level ground with Marine 2), but he is parallel to level ground with Orc 3. Marine 2 is definitely not within 5" vertically as he is not at a right angle to a horizontal plane when you measure the 5 inches, there is no model at a right angle to a horizontal plane, aka vertically, from Marine 2
[...]
A model can not be aligned in such a way that the top is directly above the bottom and at right angles to the vertical at the same time. Ergo the RAW is broken.

What's the matter here? This interpretation clearly can't be the meaning of the rulebook.
Any little hole, ramp or whatever would consequently deny the alignment in vertical or horizontal axis and thus made melee impossible.

And that is why the RAW is broken.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And that is why the RAW is broken.

It's not. You just fail to understand the meaning of "measure horizontally" and "measure vertically".

And before you refer back to your definitions, I already spoke about those. The definitions are correct, you just aren't understanding them. See my previous post.

Is there really anything left to discuss here? Everyone except DeathReaper understands the rule and the English the same way. Why bother trying to convince him is misinterpretation is wrong?

 alextroy wrote:
Is there really anything left to discuss here? Everyone except DeathReaper understands the rule and the English the same way. Why bother trying to convince him is misinterpretation is wrong?

Because it is not a misinterpretation.

The rules do not work RAW. It is fine for you to admit that, and mark your posts RAI or HYWPI.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Is there really anything left to discuss here? Everyone except DeathReaper understands the rule and the English the same way. Why bother trying to convince him is misinterpretation is wrong?

Because it is not a misinterpretation.

The rules do not work RAW. It is fine for you to admit that, and mark your posts RAI or HYWPI.

This ain't it, Chief. Sorry man, you're simply wrong and simply are not understanding the English language.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Is there really anything left to discuss here? Everyone except DeathReaper understands the rule and the English the same way. Why bother trying to convince him is misinterpretation is wrong?

Because it is not a misinterpretation.

The rules do not work RAW. It is fine for you to admit that, and mark your posts RAI or HYWPI.

This ain't it, Chief. Sorry man, you're simply wrong and simply are not understanding the English language.

I am not, but you can misinterpret it if you want. That is on you.

When the rest of the world misinterprets something the same way, it's probably not the rest of the world that has it wrong

 alextroy wrote:
When the rest of the world misinterprets something the same way, it's probably not the rest of the world that has it wrong

You would think that, but then there is the case like this where people are adding in diagonally when it is simply not there.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You would think that, but then there is the case like this where people are adding in diagonally when it is simply not there.

https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-to-add-vectors-together/

Yea, I know how vectors work, but you cant measure to something that is not there. You cant measure 5 inches vertically to something that is not directly above you, because you need to measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

GW gives specific instructions on how to measure, which is:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

So you are supposed to measure diagonally (in the case of the pic I posted), and engagement range does not mention diagonally at all. If you measure 1 inch horizontally it better be to the base of a model.

Since we can not do that, the rules are broken.

My main takeaway from this was that you are not allowed to measure auras diagonally, which makes all this nonsense about reaching to charge distance on a 7 from deep strike incorrect interpretations of the rules. You measure the "no closer than 9 inches" parallel with the horizontal plane, not trigonometrically from point to point. This is what GW is implying here, right?

however, I still interpret the engangement range to be calculated like the rest of the world. So charging a model which is higher up on a starcase still works.

To me personally, the concept of RAW doesnt exist in my games, only RAI. If a rules interpretation cannot be agreed on during a game, I always insist on a roll off.

Removed - Rule #1 please

 tauist wrote:
My main takeaway from this was that you are not allowed to measure auras diagonally, which makes all this nonsense about reaching to charge distance on a 7 from deep strike incorrect interpretations of the rules. You measure the "no closer than 9 inches" parallel with the horizontal plane, not trigonometrically from point to point. This is what GW is implying here, right?

however, I still interpret the engangement range to be calculated like the rest of the world. So charging a model which is higher up on a starcase still works.

To me personally, the concept of RAW doesnt exist in my games, only RAI. If a rules interpretation cannot be agreed on during a game, I always insist on a roll off.

No the point is that, unless otherwise specified, distances are measured as the hypotenuse, so angled if necessary.

That is how the charge roll needed is less than 9", because the deepstrike distance is measured diagonally, whereas the charge and subsequent engagement range is measured horizontally and vertically.
Auras would work the same way as deepstriking.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, I know how vectors work, but you cant measure to something that is not there. You cant measure 5 inches vertically to something that is not directly above you, because you need to measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

GW gives specific instructions on how to measure, which is:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

So you are supposed to measure diagonally (in the case of the pic I posted), and engagement range does not mention diagonally at all. If you measure 1 inch horizontally it better be to the base of a model.

Since we can not do that, the rules are broken.

If Engagement Range told you to measure the distance between models you would be right. It doesn't, though. Engagement Range is defined as a zone of threat that models present to their enemies. It then tells you that models within the bounds of that zone are within engagement range of each other. The zone is defined as 1" horizontally and 5" vertically, and is therefore defined by those vectors including the resultant of them.

By your definition Unit Coherency is also broken, and so is a host of other rules. Except they aren't - you're miscomprehending them.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, I know how vectors work, but you cant measure to something that is not there. You cant measure 5 inches vertically to something that is not directly above you, because you need to measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

GW gives specific instructions on how to measure, which is:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

So you are supposed to measure diagonally (in the case of the pic I posted), and engagement range does not mention diagonally at all. If you measure 1 inch horizontally it better be to the base of a model.

Since we can not do that, the rules are broken.

You never shot pistols in CC in 8th edition, right?

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, I know how vectors work, but you cant measure to something that is not there. You cant measure 5 inches vertically to something that is not directly above you, because you need to measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

GW gives specific instructions on how to measure, which is:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

So you are supposed to measure diagonally (in the case of the pic I posted), and engagement range does not mention diagonally at all. If you measure 1 inch horizontally it better be to the base of a model.

Since we can not do that, the rules are broken.

You never shot pistols in CC in 8th edition, right?

I mean, I did. I didn't shoot them while I was within 1" of an enemy unit, however, as I could not select that unit to shoot with.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yea, I know how vectors work, but you cant measure to something that is not there. You cant measure 5 inches vertically to something that is not directly above you, because you need to measure between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

GW gives specific instructions on how to measure, which is:

Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from.

So you are supposed to measure diagonally (in the case of the pic I posted), and engagement range does not mention diagonally at all. If you measure 1 inch horizontally it better be to the base of a model.

Since we can not do that, the rules are broken.

You never shot pistols in CC in 8th edition, right?

I mean, I did. I didn't shoot them while I was within 1" of an enemy unit, however, as I could not select that unit to shoot with.

I'm sincerely glad you practice what you preach, as long as you don't force it upon your opponent.

dode74 wrote:
If Engagement Range told you to measure the distance between models you would be right. It doesn't, though. Engagement Range is defined as a zone of threat that models present to their enemies. It then tells you that models within the bounds of that zone are within engagement range of each other. The zone is defined as 1" horizontally and 5" vertically, and is therefore defined by those vectors including the resultant of them.

By your definition Unit Coherency is also broken, and so is a host of other rules. Except they aren't - you're miscomprehending them.

I am not miscomprehending them. You are told to measure by virtue of them telling you the distance in inches.

Surely you can see that right?

How do you know if a model is within 1 inch and 5 inches if you are not measuring???

Your argument here is completely false.

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
If Engagement Range told you to measure the distance between models you would be right. It doesn't, though. Engagement Range is defined as a zone of threat that models present to their enemies. It then tells you that models within the bounds of that zone are within engagement range of each other. The zone is defined as 1" horizontally and 5" vertically, and is therefore defined by those vectors including the resultant of them.

By your definition Unit Coherency is also broken, and so is a host of other rules. Except they aren't - you're miscomprehending them.

I am not miscomprehending them. You are told to measure by virtue of them telling you the distance in inches.

Surely you can see that right?

How do you know if a model is within 1 inch and 5 inches if you are not measuring???

Your argument here is completely false.

Quite the opposite. You are told that you have to be within 1 inch horizonally and 5 inches vertically to be within engagement range. It does create a zone within that range that, if a model makes it there, it is within engagement range. You still have to measure the distance though to make sure you're there. He didn't say that you don't measure, and you shouldn't be trying to straw man his argument like that. He's pointing out that it includes both horizontal and vertical components to the distance, which is what you are trying to deny, As he points out, ignoring that also means that your argument also goes against having coherency distances that involve both horizontal and vertical displacement from the model you're measuring coherency from, as they also define coherency as being within 2 inches horizontally and 5 inches vertically. So, by your interpretation the entire game is broken. Either you should keep your models packed up and not play the game until they fix their definitions to your satisfaction, or perhaps you could entertain the possibility that your interpretation isn't correct, and the interpretation of literally everyone else in the thread is the correct one.

 DeathReaper wrote:

dode74 wrote:
If Engagement Range told you to measure the distance between models you would be right. It doesn't, though. Engagement Range is defined as a zone of threat that models present to their enemies. It then tells you that models within the bounds of that zone are within engagement range of each other. The zone is defined as 1" horizontally and 5" vertically, and is therefore defined by those vectors including the resultant of them.

By your definition Unit Coherency is also broken, and so is a host of other rules. Except they aren't - you're miscomprehending them.

I am not miscomprehending them. You are told to measure by virtue of them telling you the distance in inches.

Surely you can see that right?

How do you know if a model is within 1 inch and 5 inches if you are not measuring???

Your argument here is completely false.

You never shot pistols in CC in 8th edition, right?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not miscomprehending them. You are told to measure by virtue of them telling you the distance in inches.

Surely you can see that right?

How do you know if a model is within 1 inch and 5 inches if you are not measuring???

Your argument here is completely false.

No, you are not told to measure between bases. You are told the dimensions of the zone, and that if you are in that zone then you are in ER.

 Kall3m0n wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
You never shot pistols in CC in 8th edition, right?

I mean, I did. I didn't shoot them while I was within 1" of an enemy unit, however, as I could not select that unit to shoot with.

I'm sincerely glad you practice what you preach, as long as you don't force it upon your opponent.

I am a generous not-god-king, I fully allowed my opponents to... break the rules.

But yeah, it seems that Deathreaper seems to have a fundamental inability to understand how vectors work, or is misunderstanding them despite all the advice to the contrary.

I fully admit, I am all for holding the rules to the strict letter of the rules, but this isn't such a case.