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.

kranki wrote:
Since you have to swap a difficult terrain test for leaping I don't see how tests that ignore the rules for difficult terrain like charging, running, fall back and consolidations etc can be swapped for leaping but this is leading us back to the original post about leaping.

The rules say you 'can always jump' three times. That means there is never a time when you cannot jump. It then says you can do it instead of descending which is an obvious choice as there are only two ways to get down - move through DT or jump. That does not limit the previous statement.

at this point its 59% to 29% should we just lock it ?

Stormbreed wrote:
at this point its 59% to 29% should we just lock it ?

Depends. Have we yet gotten to the circular argument "does different instances of positional movement stack?"

I think we're done here with all interpretations.

I think this one is mainly an issue with English grammar not being applicable to a multi national rule set.

My last thought is that when you take one sentence (especially the first one) out of a paragraph you are using it differently than it is intended.

Can you even make a difficult terrain test without moving?

If you're not moving, when are you ever called upon to make the test?

If a situation exists where you do THEN you can replace the test with a leap down without moving.

Pg. 90 says:
"If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain.."
"If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, ... "
"Make sure you clarify which (if any) models are not attempting to move before you make the Difficult Terrain test."

Once you make a test it counts towards having moved even though you physically don't need to move your models

Look at it this way, if it qas not considered moving then heavy weapons would fire at full BS and salvo weapons would fire thier full allowed fire rate. If that sounds wrong then clearly it counts as movement.

I think there may be a few misconceptions here.

"A unit can always elect to leap down."
Oh no it can't. Its circumstantial.

To be in a building (including on battlements) is to be embarked. Units can only voluntarily embark/disembark in the movement phase.

Therefore leaping down is a part of movement that involves an unusual disembarkation, which can possibly be forced (causing movement in other phases).

So, a unit that has leapt voluntarily from battlements has disembarked, even if it does not make a subsequent "normal move" it will count as having moved.

As far as placement = movement, I don't think it is, generally, but having said that, para 3 of leaping down does contain a note that might be RAI talking.
It states "... taking care to remain in unit coherency."

That seems to be an assumption that placing the models is the end of their movement, as coherency is only applicable at the end of a units move (even though its an on-going responsibility to move models in such a way as to eventually make coherency possible).

You need to remain in coherency even when moving models not during normal movement, none movement rules generally tell you to do so... Tank shock etc etc, so I think the coherency issue is a mute point.

There isn't any actual rules I can find for disembarking from battlements or anything that suggests its the same rule for embarking in regards to movement, only rules for embarking. Assuming your using the building rules, which use the vehicle rules, as the building has not moved... Then they move up to 6???


Edit scratch that, disembarking says you can then make a normal move after PLACEMENT, but stay within 6 of the access point, however leap does not use a access point... With the lack of restrictions for movement on leap, It's looking more likely models can indeed move after a leap. Best rules we have say you can make a normal move , whether you want to restrict that to 6 of the 'landing point' is another thing entirely.


The poll results are pretty disappointing, automatic assumption that placement must replace normal movement is a dangerous game. After disembarking, if they move or not they are considered to have moved, so snap shots on those heavy, however there is no restriction on leap disallowing taking the normal movement you ate allowed to take after placement, during disembarking.

Though in the FAQ its states embark in to the building OR leap making it sound like leaping does not follow the same rules for disembarking.

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes. Follow the same rules for embarking into the
building interior to disembark from the battlements.
Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the
rules on page 95.

So that leaves Leap not using disembark rules?

Either way, this means normal movement is never used to 'climb' or 'descend' from the battlements. I can disembark from those battlements and perform a normal move up to 6 of the access point of my choice, using normal rules.

Now why would I choose to take a impact test for travelling a shorter distance :s. The only time I would have to, since I'm using the embarking rules I can not disembark normally if the building part is occupied by an enemy unit, and there's no direct access points to the roof. Even so, as getting myself on or off of those battlements never replaces normal movement, why should we assume leap is the exception to that without even so much if a hint it should?

Now in the case of ruins is a bit different, as those rules...
#Do not tell you how to perform a leap. At all
#Make no mention on Movement.
#Mixes words and phrases between the demonstration and the poor set of rules it does have
#tells you you can use it to descend a building
#References the battlements leap down for impact test only.
basically ruins leap is half a rule, practically RAW wise it's none functional.

 Nem wrote:
You need to remain in coherency even when moving models not during normal movement, none movement rules generally tell you to do so... Tank shock etc etc, so I think the coherency issue is a mute point.

You don't need to maintain coherency as you move, you only need to move each model in such a way that coherency can be maintained at the end of the units move.
Ie, coherency is a concern while moving, but doesn't necessarily have to be complete until the last model has moved.
So, demanding coherency as you move (if you can disembark then move normally) or demanding coherency at the end of your move (because you cannot then go on to move normally).

 Nem wrote:
So that leaves Leap not using disembark rules?

The short answer from the faq is, however ...

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes.

Either way, you are disembarking.

As for this bit, it is a little odd.

Follow the same rules for embarking into the
building interior to disembark from the battlements.
Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the
rules on page 95.

But, what that seems to say, is you can "disembark" from the battlements in order to "embark" into the building in order to "disembark" from an access point.
This will take up the units remaining move.
= leave battlements (but not really disembark), enter building (which you already had, but there you go), disembark from building, leaving a pile of models stuck in the doorway.

It smacks to me of a horrible faq fudge of the rules that breaks them for no apparent gain (except perhaps for single-model units).

I will need to review the Building version of embarking when I get home but I know the vehicle version has one interesting things to consider: A restriction preventing you from willingly embarking and disembarking a unit during the same movement phase.

Should the Building disembarking rules inform us to use the vehicle rules for embarking and disembarking, which my faulty memory hints to me that they do, then one can not chose to disembark from the building as part of the 'disembarking from the battlements.' They would be able to embark into the building as per the method outlined in the battlement rules, they key word being there that they are embarking into the building. From there they would need to use the buildings rules, as they are no longer on the battlement, when it comes to disembarking from the building itself. As the act of embarking into the building, followed then by an act of disembarking from the building, is willingly doing both in the same movement phase it would fall under this restriction. Assuming buildings use all the same embarking/disembarking rules for vehicles of course.

This makes Jumping Down more valid, as you do not waste a turn waiting inside the building, but still does not answer if it is movement though....

 fuusa wrote:

 Nem wrote:
You need to remain in coherency even when moving models not during normal movement, none movement rules generally tell you to do so... Tank shock etc etc, so I think the coherency issue is a mute point.

You don't need to maintain coherency as you move, you only need to move each model in such a way that coherency can be maintained at the end of the units move.
Ie, coherency is a concern while moving, but doesn't necessarily have to be complete until the last model has moved.
So, demanding coherency as you move (if you can disembark then move normally) or demanding coherency at the end of your move (because you cannot then go on to move normally).

 Nem wrote:
So that leaves Leap not using disembark rules?

The short answer from the faq is, however ...

Q. Can units disembark from the battlements? (p95)
A: Yes.

Either way, you are disembarking.

As for this bit, it is a little odd.

Follow the same rules for embarking into the
building interior to disembark from the battlements.
Alternatively, you could choose to leap down using the
rules on page 95.

But, what that seems to say, is you can "disembark" from the battlements in order to "embark" into the building in order to "disembark" from an access point.
This will take up the units remaining move.
= leave battlements (but not really disembark), enter building (which you already had, but there you go), disembark from building, leaving a pile of models stuck in the doorway.

It smacks to me of a horrible faq fudge of the rules that breaks them for no apparent gain (except perhaps for single-model units).

I see using the rules for embarking to mean the options for embarking, eg which sections you can disembark from in parallel with what sections you can embark from- under section reaching the roof, as rules for disembarking the building already exists, the embarking (and by extension, disembarking) for battlements follows additional restrictions on moving through a building.

You can't literally use the rules for embarking either way, you have to use the rules for embarking, and reverse the application ending with a complete unrestricted normal movement, or disembark using the building rules, and the embarking battlements rules.

As in - FAQ was needed because it was not obvious, disembarking follows the normal process, with the added restrictions already written for embarking into interior...

Movement restrictions on embarking are needed or, as its a multi part building the unit could start leap frogging sections, using access points the immediately moving to an adjacent section.


@jinx it says all vehicle rules, I assume including when you can and can not disembark.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Other option for the FAQ Is suggesting rather than actually disembarking you embark into the lower building, which suddenly makes battlements much worse. You'd think if you go up via ladders you can come down via ladders.. Up side of this jinx is while them vehicles can get up there, they would struggle to get back down. If this is the case it's more of a example of really bad FAQing.

I don't see anything that says the models count as having moved, thus this is not movement but model placement. Is that what was intended, I doubt it, but this is a thread/poll about what leaping down is and not what it should be.

How we play it in my group. A model leaping down uses up 1" of movement for every 1" it drops and this allows a model to drop farther than it could move. For example if I model is 3 inches from the ledge, and the ledge is 4" off the ground the model may move 3 inches to the ledge then leap down. It will count as having moved 7" by the time it reaches the ground (assuming it survive) If the model has only had 6" of movement it is done, but if the model had more then 7" it could continue with the rest of its move.