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.

der soulstealer wrote:
I don't believe there's an explicit restriction.

A quick reminder before we dive into this one:

A quick reminder of the Tenets of YMDC:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

No worries, its on page 45 in the SRB has the "cannot charge what it cannot reach" rule in it, the next couple pages go over how things have to be in BTB contact to fight and so on.



so by GW rules, if the ruin has enough space for say the IK and the unit it is charging to both be placed, and be in BTB contact, you are good to go for the charge.

its just that this rarely happens what with ruins having small 2nd/3rd floors, and most tournaments will FAQ it to be as it is with ITC events where super heavies are banned by name (which is fair IMO, it does away with silly things like IKs and super heavies being on top of ruins, but allows the little guys to still assault even if there is no room)

 easysauce wrote:
No worries, its on page 45 in the SRB has the "cannot charge what it cannot reach" rule in it, the next couple pages go over how things have to be in BTB contact to fight and so on.



so by GW rules, if the ruin has enough space for say the IK and the unit it is charging to both be placed, and be in BTB contact, you are good to go for the charge.

its just that this rarely happens what with ruins having small 2nd/3rd floors, and most tournaments will FAQ it to be as it is with ITC events where super heavies are banned by name (which is fair IMO, it does away with silly things like IKs and super heavies being on top of ruins, but allows the little guys to still assault even if there is no room)

There's the rule I thought you might be quoting. It's funny, because if you quote the whole rule it goes on to say:

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

Extrapolating that this implies that you must be able to physically fit on the ledge with the unit that is only 3" away from your unit from the explicit rule that says you must be in range - meaning 12" or less - seems like a logical leap to me rather than a "crystal clear RAW GW says you can't do it" to me.

There is other stuff about being in base to base, but strangely enough, the only rule we're given for when a charge fails is this one, on page 47:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

So maybe it would be best to first admit that it's actually not crystal clear and that HIWPI might be the best we could hope for.

Edited because I realized that I was being really snarky and my Doctor recommended that I cut down on my snark...

A note about my earlier post I was not trying to be snarky about using earlier editions as examples of rules that might work better and i apologize if I came across that way. In this particuler instance as that specific rule might come closer to what is needed than what we currently have while still not being perfect itself. My point was we could also use the war machine versio or some other game's version as well but all of them including the earlier edition would not be in the current rulebook and thus on equal footing. As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

On "reaching", the imperial knight is a tad bit taller than normal models. looking at it realistically (I know thats a dirty word around here lol) it would be easier to 'reach" an enemy on the second floor if the knight remained on the ground. I'll use a funny example that does relate a little bit. I'm 6'11" and find kissing really short women to be difficult. Put her on a chair (2nd floor of a ruin) and its a lot easier.
i am also of the mind that super heavies should have been left to apoc or really large games (2k+) but we deal and work with what we have.
What did you guys think of the suggested house rule my group has so far?

 EVIL INC wrote:
What did you guys think of the suggested house rule my group has so far?

I think any house rule that makes as many people happy to play the game as possible is great. If it clears up the muddy waters created by the BRB, that's even better.

right and that section also talks about how things have to be in BTB contact, you have to be in range, and reach BTB contact. Im not quoting a sentence out of those pages by itself, because you need to apply the whole sections rules, and it takes up multiple pages.

All of which has to be taken into account.

what happens when a charger cannot be placed in BTB contact with the target?

what rules allow you to fight combat with no engaged models?

the rules are indeed clear about what models can or cannot fight in close combat.




Ive already admitted there are two sides to this, but RAW is pretty clear about this if you look at how the rules all work together, you have to reach the target, and be in BTB to fight. WHen you cannot physically be placed in BTB with the target, you cannot reach them or fight them.




We do have a FAQ/errata for 99% of intents and purposes (ITC) that spells it out, and it conforms with most peoples HIWPI which is that if you are within your rolled range, you are good to charge, but super heavies and the like cannot charge or go up on top of ruins still.

I suggest you use that until GW has an official ruling on this.

 easysauce wrote:
right and that section also talks about how things have to be in BTB contact, you have to be in range, and reach BTB contact. Im not quoting a sentence out of those pages by itself, because you need to apply the whole sections rules, and it takes up multiple pages.

All of which has to be taken into account.

what happens when a charger cannot be placed in BTB contact with the target?

what rules allow you to fight combat with no engaged models?

the rules are indeed clear about what models can or cannot fight in close combat.




Ive already admitted there are two sides to this, but RAW is pretty clear about this if you look at how the rules all work together, you have to reach the target, and be in BTB to fight. WHen you cannot physically be placed in BTB with the target, you cannot reach them or fight them.




We do have a FAQ/errata for 99% of intents and purposes (ITC) that spells it out, and it conforms with most peoples HIWPI which is that if you are within your rolled range, you are good to charge, but super heavies and the like cannot charge or go up on top of ruins still.

I suggest you use that until GW has an official ruling on this.

If you assume that you can't use the WMS rule, then I can see how it would all seem very clear to you.

I assume that you can use the WMS rule.

That's why I said that a HIWPI agreement should be reached by each group playing in their area instead of claiming that RAW my side was correct and everyone else was wrong. Because the truth is that it isn't clear cut, and some civility is necessary.

 EVIL INC wrote:
As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

And so, once again, nobody has an axe to grind. The only person making an issue of the '5th edition was better' thing in this thread so far is you.

I mentioned how it used to be handled solely because it was a quick and simple resolution to the current rules issue, and so would be an acceptable and sensible house rule. The fact that the rule comes from 5th edition is completely secondary to what it does.

night howler

WMS only works if the model "can be placed" in that position to start with.

if you cannot place it, you cannot use WMS. WMS even says in its rule that *both* players must agree to use WMS to use it.

WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with.

not sure why you bring civility into it, none of my posts have been snarky or uncivil... ive seen some edits from others that might fit this, but not my posts.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
As we all know, every time someone has an issue we always have someone who uses it as an excuse to grind their axe that 5th ed is better or 2nd ed is better and it gets derailed onto arguing melee is dead or 4th ed did this and tempers flare and we end up with a huge mess. I was trying to cut that off at the pass.

And so, once again, nobody has an axe to grind. The only person making an issue of the '5th edition was better' thing in this thread so far is you.

I mentioned how it used to be handled solely because it was a quick and simple resolution to the current rules issue, and so would be an acceptable and sensible house rule. The fact that the rule comes from 5th edition is completely secondary to what it does.

Read the entire thread. My last post cleared that up before you posted this. No problems though. You likely just hadnt made it that far before replying.

 easysauce wrote:
night howler

WMS only works if the model "can be placed" in that position to start with.

if you cannot place it, you cannot use WMS.

WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with.

not sure why you bring civility into it, none of my posts have been snarky or uncivil... ive seen some edits from others that might fit this, but not my posts.

I wasn't accusing you of being uncivil. I said some civility is required in this situation since the rules aren't clear.

The truth is that some civility is always required.

I'm glad to know that you use the WMS rule differently than I do, and your understanding of the rule certainly explains why you would assume that it doesn't work when declaring a charge in ruins.

However, as I interpret the rule, it works just fine for declaring a charge when my initial charger is in charge range and the only thing obstacle is that my model would fall if I tried to place it there.

We disagree. The rule is unclear. It's ok.

 easysauce wrote:
WMS isnt a rule that lets you put anything, anywhere you want to put it. Its a way of not leaving models in precarious positions is all, they still have to be placable in that position to start off with..

And that's where the disagreement starts. You see a requirement to physically place the model. Others take the WMS rule as simply meaning that the location is somewhere that the entity the model represents would realistically be able to move to, but is unable to due to the fact that it is a static model mounted on a rigid plastic disc.

That latter interpretation is the one being used to allow assaulting between levels. It's arguably not strict RAW, but it is an easy solution to something that many players see as a problem in the current rules.

look at WMS rules,

BOTH players must agree the model can be placed there to use WMS.

you guys might want to re read WMS rules.

you cannot unilaterally enact WMS whenever you feel like it, the model must be placeable, and both players must agree that it is such.

the rule clearly just allows you to not leave a model in a dangerous position, it does not let you put models in places they cannot fit, or be placed on.



you might use the WMS or play it differently then how GW words it, and you are welcome to make up houserules as you see fit,

but the rules say both players have to agree that WMS is to be used, and the rules say the models still has to be placable at the location for WMS to be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
model represents would realistically be able to move to, .

tahts pretty subjective, and again, both players have to agree on this according to WMS.

even with your interpretation,
WMS still doesnt allow for a model to be placed somewhere it realistically cannot go, and physically cannot go.

realistically can or cannot go is outside of the realm of RAW too, your idea of realistic may not be mine, and in a world of magic warp dust fiends, really doesnt matter either way


again,

we have a FAQ, that the community as a whole has a part in, look at ITC FAQ, it has the answer to this question/thread, and this is how almost every tournament or game will be played.

 easysauce wrote:
look at WMS rules,

BOTH players must agree the model can be placed there to use WMS.

you guys might want to re read WMS rules.

you cannot unilaterally enact WMS whenever you feel like it, the model must be placeable, and both players must agree that it is such.

the rule clearly just allows you to not leave a model in a dangerous position, it does not let you put models in places they cannot fit, or be placed on.



you might use the WMS or play it differently then how GW words it, and you are welcome to make up houserules as you see fit,

but the rules say both players have to agree that WMS is to be used, and the rules say the models still has to be placable at the location for WMS to be used.

Again, it's nice that you have one way of interpreting the rule, but let me quote the whole rule for you and help you understand why it's not as clearcut as you imagine it to be.

Wobbly Model Syndrome
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

So sure, we could read that sentence to mean that we both have to agree to use the rule, or we could read that sentence to mean that we both have to agree where the model actually is.

Not super clear anymore is it?

I don't mind disagreeing. It's a big part of a game with such poorly written rules. I find it much more frustrating when someone decides that their interpretation of a hotly contested rule is the one and only crystal clear RAW. Especially when it is so obvious that the rule are in fact very poorly written.

Wobbly Model Syndrome

"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place as he can check line of sight."

Sure sound like the model must be able to actually be left in place without support, and slide or tip from poor balance. There is no possible way that your interpretation could include difficulty in balancing it, and people nudging the table to make it fall.

How does your interpretation include "Delicately balance" in it? Hoe can you "Delicately Balance" something in a location that it is physically impossible to set it? Maybe, you will let me WMS my Swooping Hawks 12" off the top of the table? Hey they are jump troops, so it makes sense that they can do this.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Wobbly Model Syndrome

"Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting at the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place as he can check line of sight."

Sure sound like the model must be able to actually be left in place without support, and slide or tip from poor balance. There is no possible way that your interpretation could include difficulty in balancing it, and people nudging the table to make it fall.

And I'm saying that I don't need my interpretation to include the only example they give of a model falling over to use the rule. One example given does not exclude all other possible examples or scenarios.

I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm just saying that it's not clear cut.

Note the "hard" in that first sentence. How does "impossible" equal "hard"?

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Note the "hard" in that first sentence. How does "impossible" equal "hard"?

Let me help you out here with a visual:

Wobbly Model Syndrome
Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. Example of one way in which it may be hard to place your model where you want it. In cases like this, we find it perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location.

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

" If you delicately balance it in place, it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table" is no analogous of "falls over the second you let go of the model"






As far as a solution, I've got one that's RAW


This edition allows you to literally writ your own terrain rules and present them to your opponent. Copy and paste the 6th edition terrain rules into a data slate, title it "less crappy ruin rules" and you're done.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

So if your model could move the necessary distance to get there but it's hard to place it there without it falling over, you can use WMS.

That's not what the rule says "hard to place it there" and "impossible to place it there" are not the same.

The entire point of the rule is to avoid damaging models, not avoid physics.

I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

The problem with your interpretation is with it I could literally move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
I respect that this is how you interpret the rule, but It's not how I interpret it.

If you read back a page or two you can find a hypothetical where beast on the ground floor are allowed to move past infantry on the second floor on their way to the third floor as long as the infantry leave at least 1" of space somewhere at the edge of their floor because of the abstract way that models move through ruins.

If they can move past, they can absolutely move there - but the model would fall, so you can claim WMS.

Again, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I am not saying that this is RAW. I'm saying that it is HIWPI because the RAW are not clear.

The problem with your interpretation is with it I could literally move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms.

That's actually not a fair comparison. If said you could move a jump infantry 12 inches vertically and claim wms to leave him perched on a 1" ledge, that would be a fair comparison and I would say that you can do that.

I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

 easysauce wrote:
realistically can or cannot go is outside of the realm of RAW too, your idea of realistic may not be mine, and in a world of magic warp dust fiends, really doesnt matter either way

Hence the stipulation for both players to agree on the model's placement.


I'm not saying that one player should be able to just say 'Yup, my model is perched on this ridiculously small piece of terrain, because WMS, yeah!'... The terrain rules in this edition are ridiculously vague, and require a certain amount of co-operation from both players.

Sadly, all miniatures games have issues such as this. i've seen players keep a notepad at the table to take note of items as they come up to address them between games whether its to check the FAQ or go online or to try to come up with solutions to be discussed between players before the next game where it may come up again.

I know talking it out with your opponent befoe the game is a nice pat answer but it doesnt take an important thing into account.
As we see here, different players interpret the rules differently. You can have players see a rule as being 'as clear as the nose on your face" and be coming at it from different directions with two totally different answers. if you sat and pored over the rulebook before the game discussing each and every possible scenerio that MAY come up during a game that the rules are unclear on or does not specifically cover, you will never get to play (regardless of what game or edition your going to play).
This is why we need to understand its just a game.Find a fast solution to get you through the rest of the game your in when an issue comes up (rolling for it works fairly well) and then search for something official or work something out that satisfies eall involved.
My own group is going to start a living FAQ to put just such things in. With the understanding of course, that other groups likely do things differently.
But that leads us back towards something official because gaming groups take the place of individuals in terms of scale when they meet to play.....

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

You do realize that if there is greater than 1" for a model to move past them, then there is enough room to balance at least 1 beast, biker, Terminator/Wraithguard sized model, right?

Next question, do you honestly want to allow a squad of 7 models to fit on that tiny little 2" square of a top floor, thus stopping the assault anyway? I will gladly deploy my Firewarriors, rangers, and what have you all on that top floor. Thus still blocking an assault because you still can't get to the top floor, and I WMS an entire squad filling the entire floor with a single squad. I end up being able to protect more models with your interpretation, and make it even more difficult to get the assault off, example you can't place the squad in thin air.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I assure you I delicately balanced it in place (in mid air).

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated.

Nevertheless it's not a fair comparison, but the one I offered is. If there were a 1" ledge 12" up from the ground on the side of a sheer wall that was considered a ruin, I would say that you could claim wms to place your jump infantry there.

You do realize that if there is greater than 1" for a model to move past them, then there is enough room to balance at least 1 beast, biker, Terminator/Wraithguard sized model, right?

Next question, do you honestly want to allow a squad of 7 models to fit on that tiny little 2" square of a top floor, thus stopping the assault anyway? I will gladly deploy my Firewarriors, rangers, and what have you all on that top floor. Thus still blocking an assault because you still can't get to the top floor, and I WMS an entire squad filling the entire floor with a single squad. I end up being able to protect more models with your interpretation, and make it even more difficult to get the assault off, example you can't place the squad in thin air.

To the first point that if there's 1" inch then there's enough room to balance at least 1 biker - not if it's a 1" long but 0.3" wide ledge. Remember that the infantry models on the second floor have round bases and are standing on an irregularly shaped floor with jagged edges. It is a ruin after all.

To the second point, I would say that you can't wms the models to cover the entire floor because again, round bases on an irregularly shaped floor. There will always be at least a sliver of floor that is not covered by the round bases because round bases shoved together leave triangles of space between them at the edges.

Edited to add that you're getting very literal about an abstract rule system. It's just my opinion, but I feel like if you attempt to game the system to prevent an opponent from being able to use any of his assault troops through a rules loophole, it feels very unsportsmanlike.

The problem is there is no RAW awnser to this. You need to house rule it.

Step 1) Declare a charge from the Knight to the Eldar in the ruins.
Step 2) The Eldar fire overwatch.
Step 3) Assuming the Knight was not removed, the Knight rolls its charge distance.
Step 4) Measure the distance from the Knight to the Eldar. If this is greater then the charge distance rolled (including any modifiers) the charge is failed, otherwise continue to step 5.
Step 5) Move the Knight using the movement phase rules along the shortest route until it is in base contact with an enemy model.

Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact. The charge only fails in the measurable distance between the initial charger and the enemy model is greater then the charge distance rolled. We are instructed to do something impossible here so the game falls apart on a pure RAW level. One opinion is to declare the charge failed on move no models. Another would be to move the initial charger along the shortest possible route until it cannot get any closer and move on to step 6.

Step 6.) Move additional chargers (not applicable here) and the units are now locked in combat.
Step 7) During the fight sub-phase, if the Knight and Eldar are more then 3" apart the fight concludes otherwise move on to step 8)
Step 8) The Eldar and Knight make pile in moves at the appropriate initiatives bringing them into base contact. (The Knight's pile in move will be 0" but the Eldar's 3" will be enough to close the gap).

This might result in the Knight not getting any attacks in the 1st round of combat if it has a higher initiative, because until the Eldar come out to fight him he will be locked in combat but un-engaged.,

edit: I should add that the HIWPI for my group is basically option 2. We attempt to move the initial charger along the shortest route in step 5. but declare the charge a failure if that movement can't get him 3" or closer to the enemy. if the charge fails in step 5 the charger is put back where he started.

That "little sliver of floor" is specifically not allowed by the rules, as you can't end your move on top of an enemy model, so is not allowed, and assaults does not remove that particular restriction. If that little sliver is all you need to allow you to assault, why can't I use it to block you? A little unfair of an interpretation, me thinks.

As to stopping assault troops. I play using Wyches, Incubi, Striking Scorpions, and/or Howling Banshees. I use my tactics, and abilities to overcome this situation. I also no longer play "tournament" style stuff, because it is just completely unfun, and the rules are so horribly written, and armies so horribly balanced, that it isn't worth the effort to play that way anymore.


@DJGietzen
The assault rules still tell you to use the movement rules. ie if a model can't be placed there it can't make it there.