New Charge rule

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.

**tneva82**

How? His base isn't within 1" of base of guardsmen...

**Daedalus81**

lolman1c wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
A stompa has no issues hitting an assassin on top of a tower with his sword. It has no base and thus you measure to its hull.

Same for battlewagons and trukks, you can easily deff-rolla stuff that's on the second floor of a building because they are within 1" of your turret, but the gorkanaut can hit it because you must measure to its base.

Maybe we need a way to cc terrain. XD I would love to see a deff rolla or morkanaut smash a building to peices. And then it works like transport. The units in the covermmudt roll 1s to see if they got out.

THAT would be cool.

**mungkorn88**

tneva82 wrote:
How? His base isn't within 1" of base of guardsmen...

The terrain on that pic for all purposes in terms of rules does not exist on the board. There's no "container" terrain. If it counts as a statue units couldn't climb it.

In the end it's what you and your opponent let those things count as. If you let them count as either ruins or hills well then I guess your melee dread is screwed.

if it's a statue for rule purpose then they wouldn't be able to place themselves there on the first place.

If you're gonna be like that and let this thing be unmeleeable I'd just not let you place it on the board. Only ruins provide stuff like guardsmen basic immunity from melee attackers, LoSblocking terrain should have enough space for more models than 1 or 2.

**tneva82**

You need to get within 1" of enemy model. Those IG troopers aren't lower than they are. They are way higher than 1" so you need to get higher. Hope there's another container nearby you can climb and get within 1" of base.

Or if you think that does not exist in board presumably you think you can shoot through it as you can draw LOS through it. After all it does not exists really...

**mungkorn88**

tneva82 wrote:
You need to get within 1" of enemy model. Those IG troopers aren't lower than they are. They are way higher than 1" so you need to get higher. Hope there's another container nearby you can climb and get within 1" of base.

As said if you'd play it like that any opponent who knows the rules won't let you place those things in the first place, if we totally go by RAW then those containers do not exist.

Extreme scenario. You have 12 of those containers in your deployment zone, enemy plays khorne daemons. Do you think he'd be okay with that rule?

Place your army on top of something and you autowin unless the opponent places missionmarkers in a way where you cannot hold them at the same time and draws better than you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Or if you think that does not exist in board presumably you think you can shoot through it as you can draw LOS through it. After all it does not exists really...

I'd probably take that over not being able to harm you

**Spoletta**

He is right, that situation could happen only if you allowed your opponent to do so.

Infantry can only be placed on it if it is a ruin, but if it is a statue or impassable terrain, then you couldn't put those there.

**Cheeslord**

Lion of Caliban wrote:
There's also the idea of fair play. Putting bases on models in a way you know is not that which was intended to gain an advantage isn't exactly being a good sport. I can't see many opponents agreeing to play against models with bases on their heads and knights with their bases glued to their backs.

Not really modelling for advantage so much as modelling to overcome glaring defects in the rules... (though of course it helps the CC army and not the shooty-hidey-on-platforms army, but I would probably not feel comfortable playing against someone basing their strategy on such an unrealistic rules exploit)

Mark.

**koooaei**

Spoletta wrote:
He is right, that situation could happen only if you allowed your opponent to do so.

Infantry can only be placed on it if it is a ruin, but if it is a statue or impassable terrain, then you couldn't put those there.

Means you won't be able to place infantry on anything higher than ~1.2" above the ground?

**warhead01**

I'm of two minds on this now. One, Mortal wound them till they're gone and Two, ignore them completely. (If I can.)
This whole FAQ makes me feel like I have no idea what's going on. No surprise as I am fortunate to get 20 games a year.

**mungkorn88**

Place 1.5inch high treestumps in 2 inch close to each other, place your units on top of them, melee immune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06vLz3LnkU&t=16m15s

**lolman1c**

I think it's because for most games (In my area this is how it works) every peice of terrain is ruins. I know other people who also have rules like that in their LFC and GW store.

**SemperMortis**

lolman1c wrote:
I think it's because for most games (In my area this is how it works) every peice of terrain is ruins. I know other people who also have rules like that in their LFC and GW store.

This new rule more then any other just shows you how fething ridiculous GW "Play Testing" is. It took us a grand total of what? 10 seconds to figure out a MASSIVE loophole in this FAQ?

**mungkorn88**

SemperMortis wrote:
lolman1c wrote:
I think it's because for most games (In my area this is how it works) every peice of terrain is ruins. I know other people who also have rules like that in their LFC and GW store.

This new rule more then any other just shows you how fething ridiculous GW "Play Testing" is. It took us a grand total of what? 10 seconds to figure out a MASSIVE loophole in this FAQ?

Well it doesn't matter what GW's rule is if nobody plays by it. If my opponent insists that my units cannot attack him because he's 1 inch above me on something I can't reach then he'll have to look for another opponent.

**Jidmah**

lolman1c wrote:
You can really track how 40k became so competitive. I remember if we didn't know a rule we sometimes just made it up or rolled a duce (that was meant to say dice but it just sounced funny if we rolled a duce) for it. Gw seems to still be in those days while players are following rules to the letter.

I personally do miss those games but it would be annoying when you did know the rule and the opponent refused to accept it. It's hard to decide how 40k should be... I'm a oure casual player so I do like it more when I can just relax and not have to worry about what I can and cannot do because a FAQ somewhere I might have missed says something that doesn't feel right... but I understand for tournaments (where people play for prizes and money) you need to have rules setmin stone.

It's seriously why I believe GW needs to hire a tournament rule team who focus on a tournament version of 40k and can FAQ stuff within a week (now we won't get another FAQ for 6 months....). It means I can just play my 40k and worry about big balance changes while tournament players can have a dedicated team who fix problem s instantly like you would patch a game. Basically, if I owned mynown table and had close friends this is how I would play 40k but to many people at GW stores play the game like the rule book is a bible in 17th century North America.

For MtG, Wizards of the Coast used to answer rule question once a week - until the rules became robust enough to no longer require such weekly column.

Can't be that hard to have someone dedicated to filtering a mail box, picking the most interesting topics and write answers for them once a week. Nowadays there are tools that can even help you to find the most common topics without reading a single mail.