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.

I was playing a game where we had a small rules dispute - we ended up just rolling off to make things simpler anyway. But, for future consideration, here is my question:

His Tau are on the 3rd level of a ruin - the 2nd level of the ruin is 3" up as normal, however the 3rd level is 6" above the 2nd. My 8 assault marines & chaplain were at the base of the ruins (after wiping out his crisis suits & HQ) wanting to jump up to the top and assault his broaddsides. However, the ledge was so small that only half of the squad could reach.

In most situations this would not be a problem, as you can maintain coherency between levels, however in this case it seems like an "all or nothing" situation. Either they can all fit up there, or none of them can. That's how we ended up playing it. My Chaplain broke off and went up there to smack them around by himself.

So did we end up playing it correctly or could I have divided the marines between different levels?

The default is that there is 3" between levels, regardless of real measurements.

Check out the ruin rules. So in this case there wouldnt be 6". there would be "3"

OK, I have never seen that rule. I read something that stated that games workshop/citadel/whatever ruins all have 3" between levels, but never read that all should be treated that way.

I will go back and check. Thanks!

I think that with the 6' gap, yo could say it was the 4th level, the 3rd level being destroyed during the process of it becoming a ruin. But with this, you would have been unable to maintain coherency between levels, so the assault would have been illegal with the squad.

-cgmckenzie


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think that with the 6' gap, yo could say it was the 4th level, the 3rd level being destroyed during the process of it becoming a ruin. But with this, you would have been unable to maintain coherency between levels, so the assault would have been illegal with the squad.

-cgmckenzie

dirtycrabcakes wrote:OK, I have never seen that rule. I read something that stated that games workshop/citadel/whatever ruins all have 3" between levels, but never read that all should be treated that way.

I will go back and check. Thanks!

BRB page 83 first sentence under 'Infantry, monstrous creatures and walkers', "Even though different building models can vary in this respect, we assume that every level of a ruin is 3" tall."

As cgmckenzie said, you could have said that the 6" gap was due to a level having been destroyed, but this should have been decided and defined before the game began. If it wasn't, then the default distance is indeed 3" height difference between levels.

Awesome! Thanks... I use the little book, but that will certainly help me find it.

the little book should have the same page numberings. IIRC, the all the additional artwork and fluff in the big BRB is in the back, after all the rules.

-cgmckenzie

Ha, well then in that case it should be REAL easy to find now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The default is that there is 3" between levels, regardless of real measurements.

The default is for levels to count as 3" for movement.

Coherency in Ruins, however, is measured from the lower model's head to the base of the higher model. There is no allowance in the coherency rules for different heights of floors... you measure between the actual models.



However, the rules for assaulting in Ruins do make a provision for the models not all being able to fit on the desired floor. You place everyone that can't fit as close as possible (including on the next floor up or down) and call it good enough... and while this doesn't explicitly state that you can ignore the usual coherency restriction sin this case, it does seem to be suggesting it. The models aren't technically hanging around on the lower floor... they're climbing up to get into the combat, and can be considered close enough to participate in the combat.

Ture enough Insaniak, but the rules give this as an exception for not being able to physically place the models on the floor in question. You would still have to move the requisite distance to get into base to base contact.

For example, you have a unit on the 1st floor, I have a unit on the ground floor.
In my assault phase I roll a '1' and a '2'.
I haven't rolled high enough to move a model one level up so the assault would not occur.

But, having models in the same position but there is not enough room on the 1st floor for me to physically place a model there.
I roll a '4' and a '3' for my assault phase.
I now have enough distance to get into base to base with your unit, so we work our how many models from each unit are involved in the assault, and we can still leave them one floor apart and then reslove the assault.

time wizard wrote:Ture enough Insaniak, but the rules give this as an exception for not being able to physically place the models on the floor in question. You would still have to move the requisite distance to get into base to base contact.

Yup, I wasn't contesting that. Just the claim that the 3" between floors thing applies to coherency.

Works for me sir!

Would it be possible to avoid this issue via Wobbly Model syndrome? For instance, say the models that can't fit are climbing the walls just under the floor and are therefore in coherency, but since the model can't balance on that piece of the terrain, you just mark where it is somehow and don't actually have to place the model there?

Like they are on the ladder, gnawing at the giblets of the target unit? Discuss it with your opponent but I think RAW was 'if you can't make it all the way, you don't get to go.' I don't have my BRB handy(particularly fun game last night) but I think it mentions that in there.

Anyways, go for it. I like fluffy games, so that is reasonable enough to be allowed, even if illegal per the BRB.

-cgmckenzie

I mean you say that's the RAW, but you don't cite it at all. Can anybody give me a page number that describes this "You either make it all the way or you don't go" business? And I'm not talking about the rule that says if you roll too low on assaulting for difficult terrain the assault doesn't go off, I'm talking about moving a unit through ruins where half the squad can go up a 6" level and 5 members of the squad get to where their bases are about a half inch below that.

All moves have to end with you in coherency - always

So if part of the unit cannot be moved near enough to get into coherency, the leading members cannot move as far as they have.

Darkjediben wrote:Would it be possible to avoid this issue via Wobbly Model syndrome?

WMS allows you to place a model as near as possible where it would be unable to balance on the spot where it should actually be standing. It doesn't include situations where there is nowhere for the model to stand.