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.

Gonna cut to the chase.

Ny carnifex and genestealers are built. My carni is largely overhanging the front of his base, so by moving straight forward head firat, he can't ever be moved into b2b unless he turn side ways or backwatds, even if he was in.range, from the base. My stealers are similar. A guy called be on it. He claimed a model can't charge "backwards facing."

NB. All of.my measurements showed that the models were in range. Just the arms and stuff prevented B2B. He agrees.

Is he correct?

I would say that he's wrong as no rule says that you can't charge backwards, nonsensical as that is. At the image of grey knights charging daemons facing backwards

The facing of the model is irrelevent in CC.

I believe the rulebook says that in situations like this you just try and get things as close as possable.

The facing of a model is irrelevent in all circumstances unless it is a walker or vehicle.
For b2b movement it's fine to spin a model that isn't a walker or vehicle to allow the movement without scratching up both the charging and charged unit.
If you want to have the models facing the right way then go with the close as you can way like the brb says.

Even for walkers, its facing only matters with shooting. In combat its always hit on front armor regardless of its facing.

My bad I forgot you can charge a walker model backwards to assault a vehicle so you can have the front and side facing out in the next shooting phase.

Grey Templar wrote:The facing of the model is irrelevent in CC.

I believe the rulebook says that in situations like this you just try and get things as close as possable.

Yup, BRB supports the common sense approach in this instance. I bet really serious competition players get mad if you try to do this though. It'd be awesome

Joey wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:The facing of the model is irrelevent in CC.

I believe the rulebook says that in situations like this you just try and get things as close as possable.

Yup, BRB supports the common sense approach in this instance. I bet really serious competition players get mad if you try to do this though. It'd be awesome

Serious competition players turn their models backwards all the time to get them into base contact more easily so the models can stand where they're actually supposed to be. If you can't physically get them into contact, you "fudge" per the Wobbly Model Syndrome rules, and mark/remember the spot where they should be for subsequent moves.

If your model extends over the base, just move it so the model touches the other model. Its the same thing. Sometimes you'll have two models that have a staff or something sticking out so their bases can't actually touch. This is normal and you just put them as close as reasonable and they count as being in base to base.

As for charging backwards, in CC only vehicle facing matters and dreadnought facing doesnt matter.

Nemesor Dave wrote:As for charging backwards, in CC only vehicle facing matters and dreadnought facing doesnt matter.

vehicle does not matter in CC at all, as all CC attacks will hit non-walker vehicles on the rear armor.

well if you really wanted to be TFG you could say he modeled to advantage because you can't get your figures into b2b with it

but seriously pg 35 says that to be clear in CC you should turn the unengaged models to face backwards. Its probably why he thought you couldn't charge backwards.

You could pick up a few empty bases of the appropriate size and swap them out during combat so everybody can get in. It alleviates the problem and literally affects nothing else, so long as you replace it once combat is over and he is a valid target again.

-cgmckenzie

Lictor-fex...I like it...




Thank you to everyone who has answered. I was 99.9999% sure he was wrong, but he seemed so confident he was right and we didn't have a BRB between us.

The original supplied bases with the metal Killa Kans were way too small so every Killa Kan's feet let alone arms always were off the base. the original Ork Dreadnoughts came on a square base. The current Boyz legs don't fit on the base. They always have toes hanging off.

If the models touch and they were with in charge range, you should be fine. Funny that this has never come up in a game for me.

me and my friend jsut calculate the distance from the base, if the guy could touch the base while assault/if the base of my model is withith 6'', I put the mdoel as close as possible and we paly from there.

Whats wrong with moon walking into combat?

it's like Tank shocking sideways so your profile is larger and you move the enemy units farther

wait you can do that. Although then they would be blasting side armor so it has its draw backs.

Moving sideways is allowed, although I believe the DoG rules explicitly state the hit is resolved against Front armor. so sidestepping tank still gets hit on its front

My god the cheese. Its Neck deep.

Deadshot wrote:Lictor-fex...I like it...




Thank you to everyone who has answered. I was 99.9999% sure he was wrong, but he seemed so confident he was right and we didn't have a BRB between us.

You should probaly get a rulebook, they generally help.

Oh I have 2! I just forgot to take either with me. I have 1 from AOBR that my brother doesn't use and my BRB.

I have had the same issue with my nids, too. They overhang the base just far too much. Since facings have no bearing on a nid army, just keep doing what you were doing.

VoxDei wrote:it's like Tank shocking sideways so your profile is larger and you move the enemy units farther

You're going to get serious arguments on that one. "first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it" would require willful misinterpretation to become "turn the vehicle sideways.."

kmdl1066 wrote:

VoxDei wrote:it's like Tank shocking sideways so your profile is larger and you move the enemy units farther

You're going to get serious arguments on that one. "first turn the vehicle on the spot in the direction you intend to move it" would require willful misinterpretation to become "turn the vehicle sideways.."

Does it say you have to have it turn and face forwards?

"in the direction you intend to move it" isn't clear enough?

jmurph wrote:"in the direction you intend to move it" isn't clear enough?

No, if it said turn it with the front facing forward it would be clear.

I seriously doubt anyopne would allow a rhino to tank shock side ways. A grav tank maybe, as it could, but a rhino has no conceivable way of moving anyway but straight forward or backward without turning.

Don't bring logic into a rule argument. Yes, a treaded vehicle has no way of actually moving sideways, but in game mechanics do not require you to move the vehicle in a realistic way. They only specify specific distances from point A to B, weather it drives forward or sidesteps to the destination is not discussed.

Though if you were to look at the demonstratoion picutre below tank shocking in the book, it clearly shows a forward movement.