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.

There is no possible way for the Hive Tyrant to get into base to base. Can he never assault the Loota?

Technically, yes, the ork is safe if the enemy physically can't move into base contact, unless you apply the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome' rule to situations like this... some players do, some don't.

Anyone know how this is typically ruled in a tournament, or have any good sources? I want to be able to find a good ruling to use moving forward with this.

Why can't the hive tyrant turn around and go in backwards?

Anything that's prohibited because of the conversion/pose someone decided to put the model into, we ignore. If someone had used an old hive tyrant model (walking), and put wings on it, and magnetized them, would be able to make it in. Modeling to advantage is generally ruled as BS around here, and being disadvantaged for modeling is equally bad. He can make it.

MrJog wrote:
Anyone know how this is typically ruled in a tournament, or have any good sources? I want to be able to find a good ruling to use moving forward with this.

Most players from my experience would just go with the 'move as close as possible and call it good enough' approach. Which sadly actually was a rule previously, but was removed as part of the gross simplification of terrain rules for 7th edition.

 Spellbound wrote:
Why can't the hive tyrant turn around and go in backwards?

This is not the scenario that actually occurred. The real situation involved a daemon prince with elevated base trying to go under home made ruins. The ruins had a 1/2" base on it decreasing the first floor ceiling height to less than the GW terrain has. Also the second floor was much wider than GW terrain, and the daemon prince was on a GW base but was elevated for aesthetic modeling purposes.

I would pretty much say the same thing.

Now if people want to declare before the game starts "these ruins are rickety, monsters can't go in them" or "this passage is too narrow for models, but let's say that infantry can pass through, and monsters can't"

If you want to agree beforehand fine, otherwise I would allow it and expect it to be allowed.

If you're looking for a rules reference to back up this stance, flip to the "Most important rule".

 Spellbound wrote:
I would pretty much say the same thing.

Now if people want to declare before the game starts "these ruins are rickety, monsters can't go in them" or "this passage is too narrow for models, but let's say that infantry can pass through, and monsters can't"

If you want to agree beforehand fine, otherwise I would allow it and expect it to be allowed.

If you're looking for a rules reference to back up this stance, flip to the "Most important rule".

We usually don't have many rules arguments but the game was coming down to the wire, and I think he was trying to force more of an advantage than he normally would have. He even denied my my models this cover save stating that my models were in open ground. I agreed they were in open ground. However, none could deny that at least one of his firers (half in reality) had their sight 25% obscured. I let him have the argument anyway though.



Anyhow, I'm making him out to be a bad guy. Really, he isn't. I think I will concede to him that the model must be able to make it into base contact, as long as he agrees I get a cover save when I'm allocating to a model who is 25% obscured from at least one of the firing models. Then I will go and remove my aesthetic model elevations and place my models on the proper base, and in a manner that the base can stick out as far as possible when a situation such as the one above occurs.

EDIT- Does anyone know how the big tournaments handle this situation?

MrJog wrote:
in a manner that the base can stick out as far as possible when a situation such as the one above occurs

That is modelling for advantage, and i would recommend against it... Put the model "as normally as you can" on the base and that should be enough.

For you example above, even if the Hive Tyrant/Daemon Prince could not actually fit inside, you could argue that you obtained an adequate Charge Distance, therefore make it to within 2" of the enemy (as close as you can). If your initiative is high, as you are not in B2B you may not attack, but then the Ork would have to consolidate on his Initiative and could hit you.
This even allows for a "fluff-type" ruling where the Ork in the Ruins managed to "Hide" from the first attack of the creature and get to surprise it back. Next combat phase though, they are properly locked in combat and he will probably die....

@Insaniak: What RaW would that actually break? Not being locked in combat because there is no B2B? The "Consolidate because no longer locked" is at the end of the phase...

MrJog wrote:

Anyhow, I'm making him out to be a bad guy. Really, he isn't. I think I will concede to him that the model must be able to make it into base contact, as long as he agrees I get a cover save when I'm allocating to a model who is 25% obscured from at least one of the firing models.
EDIT- Does anyone know how the big tournaments handle this situation?

In that picture above, as both sides are in the open (Unless you decided that whole triangle made by the Ruins is actually "Ruins") then it is completely down to 25% LOS.
Don't forget how the Rule is written:
"at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."

So if 1 of his models cannot see any of your models (check them 1 by 1), your Unit gets a cover save, even if 1 of his can completely, with nothing in between, see 1 of yours.

 BlackTalos wrote:
@Insaniak: What RaW would that actually break? Not being locked in combat because there is no B2B?

If you can't make it into base contact, the charge is failed. Being locked or not never comes into it.

I though we concluded in previous threads of this that even though being unable to reach B2B meant the Close combat could not happen (can't strike blows without B2B etc), "the charge is failed" has no support at all, past "If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved."
IE If the initial charger is not found to be further than its charge range. You cannot rule "Failed Charge".

Add previous thread loops in here, but my "new" question is: At what point does it "not work" in my example above?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I though we concluded in previous threads of this that even though being unable to reach B2B meant the Close combat could not happen (can't strike blows without B2B etc), "the charge is failed" has no support at all, past "If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved."

You've made that claim in previous threads. I don't recall anyone else agreeing with it.

At what point does it "not work" in my example above?

At the point where you determine that the charging model is unable to make it into base contact.

You are correct, i remembered others agreeing but looking back, only partially:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603017.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606913.page

But "unable to make it into base contact" is not "further than its charge range from the enemy".
One has RaW support, the other does not.
How do you resolve something that is not in the RaW?
Well, that cannot possibly exist in the first place, by RaW...
We can label it "broken" and just stop the game, or resolve it by house-rules or logic.

I guess both my example above and the "failed charge" ruling of yours break the "Move the initial charger into contact" Rule....

Never mind then, just thought i'd made a breakthrough in how to resolve it...

"Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy" Doesn't specify "Base" contact as a side note...

 BlackTalos wrote:

But "unable to make it into base contact" is not "further than its charge range from the enemy"...

Yes it is. If you have an 8 inch charge range, and charging by the most direct route doesn't get you into base contact before you have used up those 8", then the target lies outside your charge range.

You don't determine if something is in charge range by just measuring a straight line between the two units if a straight line isn't going to actually get them into contact.

I would allow the charge if he rolls far enough to get there.. i believe he would move "through terrain" as stated in the rules. the placement issue makes this a "fun" situation but i'd be surprised if a TO ruled in favor of the loota. just move him as close as possible and remember the most important rule..

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

But "unable to make it into base contact" is not "further than its charge range from the enemy"...

Yes it is. If you have an 8 inch charge range, and charging by the most direct route doesn't get you into base contact before you have used up those 8", then the target lies outside your charge range.

You don't determine if something is in charge range by just measuring a straight line between the two units if a straight line isn't going to actually get them into contact.

As in: A model moves up a Ruin, top level, 6" move.

An enemy model follows the same path, moves 12" and is now 2-3" away from the model up top, following the exact same path he took to reach his position.
The enemy model sees the target, declares a charge, and rolls a charge range of 13".

This distance would enable him to circle the top level about 5 times, but unfortunately, he cannot fit at the top.

You say it is a Failed Charged. Why? They are pretty much in close combat distance before the charge is even declared?

That's a good question BlackTalos.

Sorry, it was a bit of a rhetorical question for Insaniak...

Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range, but the rules do not tell you how to resolve the situation, so the situation is "Broken Rules".
There are multiple assumptions you can make to resolve the Broken Rules, including "Failed Charge", but it is 1 resolution amongst many options...

 BlackTalos wrote:
That is modelling for advantage, and i would recommend against it... Put the model "as normally as you can" on the base and that should be enough.

What advantage would I be gaining? Unless you assume I mean to mount the DP back onto the base without both feet fitting flatly on the base, which I do not. Then I don't see where any advantage would be gained. I'd be losing a disadvantage sure, so I guess you could call it modeling to prevent a disadvantage.

MrJog wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That is modelling for advantage, and i would recommend against it... Put the model "as normally as you can" on the base and that should be enough.

What advantage would I be gaining? Unless you assume I mean to mount the DP back onto the base without both feet fitting flatly on the base, which I do not. Then I don't see where any advantage would be gained. I'd be losing a disadvantage sure, so I guess you could call it modeling to prevent a disadvantage.

As in, any form of "I'll glue him this way so that he can reach for A or B reason" is a form of MFA.

If you glued the model exactly as GW would, in the middle of the base, etc, would it reach?
If yes, then modelling yours to be able to do the same is fine.
If no, then it is modelling for advantage.

So for example, I have modeled Imperial Guardsmen as Space Marine Scouts, but they are all laying belly flat on the ground. That means that they could move under Ruins that are only a 1/2 inch tall, and even Space Marines could not fit. I will not move them that way.

It was simply when you said "that the base can stick out as far as possible", that would seem like you are gluing him as far as possible on the edge of his base, when the "normal" position would be in the middle of it.

I gain no extra reach by glueing him 1/4 inch off. I gain no extra inches in deployment, movment, shooting, or charging. I just don't collide with over hanging terrain as much. Is this really comparable to such things as gluing a model prone to make it harder to draw line of sight to it? If you have ever glued a model a bit off to help with center of gravity over the base, rather than weighing down the base, then you have done the same thing. Is intent the only deciding factor here? If so, then I intend to get more of a fair shake than to be prohibited from charging due to terrain intervening with my models wings and causing him to be able to make it no closer than 1/8 of an inch away.

Modeling to prevent disadvantage - MrJog

 BlackTalos wrote:
Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range,

No, he doesn't.

He could have an infinite movement range, and he still wouldn't be able to move far enough to get into contact with the enemy model, because there is no available route to do so.

As such, that model lies outside his charge distance. He can never move far enough to get into contact with that model. So the charge is failed.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range,

No, he doesn't.

He could have an infinite movement range, and he still wouldn't be able to move far enough to get into contact with the enemy model, because there is no available route to do so.

As such, that model lies outside his charge distance. He can never move far enough to get into contact with that model. So the charge is failed.

There you go BT. Exactly why I would have no regrets modeling to prevent disadvantage.

MrJog wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range,

No, he doesn't.

He could have an infinite movement range, and he still wouldn't be able to move far enough to get into contact with the enemy model, because there is no available route to do so.

As such, that model lies outside his charge distance. He can never move far enough to get into contact with that model. So the charge is failed.

There you go BT. Exactly why I would have no regrets modeling to prevent disadvantage.

Yeah, I actually kind of have to agree with this.. You're the type of person who rules that this charge cannot be executed, you should never complain if the people you play against model for advantage.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Yeah, I actually kind of have to agree with this.. You're the type of person who rules that this charge cannot be executed, you should never complain if the people you play against model for advantage.

Just to be clear here, I pointed out right at the start that most players (which includes myself) would have no problem allowing the charge in the example provided, regardless of whether or not the rules technically allow it.

 morganfreeman wrote:

MrJog wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range,

No, he doesn't.

He could have an infinite movement range, and he still wouldn't be able to move far enough to get into contact with the enemy model, because there is no available route to do so.

As such, that model lies outside his charge distance. He can never move far enough to get into contact with that model. So the charge is failed.

There you go BT. Exactly why I would have no regrets modeling to prevent disadvantage.

Yeah, I actually kind of have to agree with this.. You're the type of person who rules that this charge cannot be executed, you should never complain if the people you play against model for advantage.

Because one person insists the rules are enforced, he shouldn't complain if his opponent cheats? Really?
I mean, in this situation I'd allow the charge, but that is exactly what you just said.

 insaniak wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Of course the model should be able to charge because he has ample range,

No, he doesn't.

He could have an infinite movement range, and he still wouldn't be able to move far enough to get into contact with the enemy model, because there is no available route to do so.

As such, that model lies outside his charge distance. He can never move far enough to get into contact with that model. So the charge is failed.

I would disagree that within RaW it is a question of distance. The First model up there has chosen a path.
The same path is available for the charging model, and his range more than allows it. By RaW he is therefore forced to make it into combat.

This would be the same as saying "I have no space to put my model, or no arms to pick it up, therefore i cannot remove this casualty." The model would remain in play because you have a physical un-resolvable issue?
There are many more example i could think up, but the baseline is that the Rules have to be followed.
Not doing so is breaking said rules and simply not playing the game properly.

I guess it is the same philosophical debate as the "All attack are Shooting or CC" i had with Yak and simply cannot have a logical "correct answer". As such i will return it to the "Unresolved Broken Rules" pile together with the Psychic phase, Un-profiled Witchfires and Blast Re-rolls...

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would disagree that within RaW it is a question of distance.

Can the model follow a path with a length no greater than his charge distance that gets it into contact with the enemy?

The First model up there has chosen a path. The same path is available for the charging model, ...

If that were true, he could move into contact.

The whole reason that we're having this discussion is that he can't do so.

This would be the same as saying "I have no space to put my model, or no arms to pick it up, therefore i cannot remove this casualty." The model would remain in play because you have a physical un-resolvable issue?

It would be the same if the casualty removal rules had a clause that told you that something else happens if the model can not be removed...

As is, no, it's not remotely the same.

 BlackTalos wrote:
This would be the same as saying "I have no space to put my model, or no arms to pick it up, therefore i cannot remove this casualty." The model would remain in play because you have a physical un-resolvable issue?
There are many more example i could think up, but the baseline is that the Rules have to be followed.
Not doing so is breaking said rules and simply not playing the game properly.

2 walls with a 1.5" gap. There's a Hive Tyrant on one side, 3" from the walls. There's a Chapter Master 1" away from the walls - he got there by moving through the gap.
Assuming the Hive Tyrant rolls a 12 for his charge distance, and the walls are 10" wide, 1" deep, would the Tyrant be allowed to complete the charge?

Allowing him to do so means he somehow squeezes through a gap significantly smaller than his base - because he obviously can't go around.
Your argument means he'd be allowed to make the charge.

Indeed it would... But when you put it so, i can understand the issues that would bring. I'll concede RaW: Some models can be "safe from CC" in such situations. Actively using such situations would be regarded negatively though... And i also think that this was definitely not RaI.