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.

The questions:

1. For the RaW, Do Eldar Jetbikes ignore elevation and/or vertical movement in the movement phase?
For example, I move my Jetbikes over a tower onto a castle's ramparts, do I measure anything but horizontal distance for the movement?
2. I saw this sort-of discussed in another post but I would like clarification, does the above change if the movement is a turbo boost rather than the normal movement phase movement?
3. If I was on top of a 9 inch structure (open ground) and moved down to the bottom (also open ground) do I have to make any test?


The ramblings:

Hey all! I'm new to dakkadakka (first post, actually) and wanted to ask a few quick Qs. I've been a (sshhhh!) (*Warmachine*) collector/infrequent player for 9+ years and I just started 40k in July. Our LFGS is new to GW too. The shop mainly does RC cars, but the owner is excited to add 40K and WHFB to their offerings just in the last year.
Anyways, I played a friendly game this last Saturday (my Eldar vs. his SM). During the game he thought it was incredible (and therefore not possible) that I could move my jetbike up a 9 inch rampart just for the cost of the horizontal movement (about 3 inches), or later turbo-boost over the entire castle to land on ramparts (also just measuring horizontal, that time ~23 inches).

With us both being new to 40k (this was my 4th ever game with my Eldar) and to make peace, keep the game moving, etc., I offered to measure vertical distance as part of my movement, with the caveat that we'll both look into the rules after the game so it could be settled. I also gave him that moving on the ramparts could be difficult terrain so I had to take a dangerous terrain check (passed all of 'em).
Now, we hadn't actually discussed the ramparts before the battle, and I figured it wouldn't affect the game much if it was difficult terrain, so that was no problem. Also, the measuring didn't really affect anything I was going to do as I was at the base of the tower anyways. I figured being generous was the better move at that point. In the end I almost tabled him and took the win (wraithguard+DT wave serpent= awesome sauce! ... and dead Pred tanks). The couple issues mentioned here didn't really have much bearing on the result, we both just want to make sure we're playing correctly (he was a really good sport for me on other stuff too).

I've since read the BRB and can't find anything that speaks directly to jetbikes and elevation, except the standard rule for infantry and moving up/down elevation.



Anyways, sorry for the text wall, but I apprecate any page references or clarificaton I can get.

,Rooks

~~Don't flamer me!~~

You measure as your told to; base to base. Meaning you essentially measure the hypotenuse.

Nosferatu1001,
Do you have a Rule quote that can support the stance that these Vehicles ignore Vertical Movement?
From what I have seen concerning Vertical Movement, being quote vocal against the method in the book because it is stupid, simply measuring the Hypotenuse would be illegal.

JinxDragon wrote:
Nosferatu1001,
Do you have a Rule quote that can support the stance that these Vehicles ignore Vertical Movement?
From what I have seen concerning Vertical Movement, being quote vocal against the method in the book because it is stupid, simply measuring the Hypotenuse would be illegal.

Not to mention difficult. how could I easily or acurately measure from base to base through a castle, or other terrain for that matter? That terrain was actually fairly bulky, and it would probably end up that I'd measure up and over (or around) the terrain, not just straight horizontal movement.

I just re-read the Unit type entry from the BRB, under Bikes and Jetbikes, Jetbikes & Terrain "Jetbikes can move over all other models and terrain freely." Other than landing on impassible terrain, it doesn't give any other clarification. What a horrible rule.

It doesn't say what move over means, and doesn't expand on freely. So, I'm assuming I can just move the jetbike over other models, but do I have to pay vertical movement to go over a wall, or is that what freely means, move over w/o cost other than horizontal movement? This is confusing.... Is there another rulebook or FAQ that clarifies or am I being nit-picky?

The real problem is that it does not address what happens when the Model moves onto said terrain, instead of simply jumping over it, which is when the Vertical Movement Rules take effect....

If it was just a matter of moving a Model with this Rule, say a Skimmer, completely over some piece of terrain I would simply point to that very line as evidence of why we do not measure up, across and then back down. Doing such measurements would greatly restrain the ability for the Skimmer to move over terrain, which is clearly outside of any definition of the word 'freely' that I can fathom. However, if we are utilizing a situation where the Skimmer is simply moving onto the terrain then that sentence grants us just as much permission to ignore the Vertical Measurements as it does to 'freely' end our movement on top of another Model.

JinxDragon wrote:
Nosferatu1001,
Do you have a Rule quote that can support the stance that these Vehicles ignore Vertical Movement?
From what I have seen concerning Vertical Movement, being quote vocal against the method in the book because it is stupid, simply measuring the Hypotenuse would be illegal.

Jet bikes aren't vehicles...

True, was the wrong word selected there... question still stands:
What Rule allows these Models to ignore how we measure Vertical Movement?

JinxDragon wrote:
True, was the wrong word selected there... question still stands:
What Rule allows these Models to ignore how we measure Vertical Movement?

Because you're not moving vertically, you're moving horizontally.

Then how does Nosferatu1001 have a hypotenuse to measure?

The scenario put forth had the Model moved nine inches onto a rampart, while only measuring three because that was the horizontal. Nosferato1001 put forth that such a measurement was incorrect, and stated the correct method would be to measure the Hypotenuse between the start and end positions of the Model. My reply was in direct relation to that post, requesting that a Rule be posted which proves that these Models are immune to the Basic rules concerning Vertical Movement. The closest I have seen is a Rule which allows the Model to move freely over a piece of terrain, but that is different then a Rule allowing us to ignore Vertical Movement should the Model end it's turn on top terrain.

In the previous edition of the game, where multi-level terrain had rules stating that each level of a building costs 3" of movement, this wasn't hard to figure out.

This edition however, terrain is simply a 3D representation and has no specific written rules on how to handle vertical movement.


This leads me to think that you simply measure, as with all other models, directly from point to point with your tape measure/ruler no matter where you intend on moving.

Jetbikes and skimmers completely ignore any restrictions or penalties from terrain during the course of their move, which is what the freely means, only having to roll dangerous terrain rolls at the beginning or end of their movement.

Jinx - because the unit did not, at any time, move hirzontally and then vertically, it moved straight there freely.

There used to be a handy diagram showing this in 6th, but otherwise you fall back on - you measure how you are told to measure, which is base to base. This is almost always going to be a hypotenuse, even when there is no vertical movement as you'd think of it - moving up a hill, for example

Jinx, here is the Rule referred to:
The Movement Phase
Movement Distance
"if a model does move, no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away from where it started the Movement phase."

So you measure form the imaginary place where the base was (You could even temporarily place an empty base for reference) to the new position of the base.
If there is "Verticallity" in your Horizontal movement, you must measure the potential Hypotenuse.

Only, as pointed out, the Vertical Movement Rules have you measure the Horizontal and then the Vertical separately and mentions nothing about the Hypotenuse.

I do see what people are suggesting though, that we are measuring the actual path the Model took when we follow those Rules so it makes sense to measure Horizontal then Vertical. This is supported by the simple fact that Vertical Movement are Basic Rules, which fails to address anything with the capability of moving 'freely' across the field. The issue I have with this concept is from a pure Rule as Written perspective... we need a specific Rule giving us permission to ignore the Vertical Movement of the non-infantry Models in question. As Game Workshop never addresses a Basic Rule outside of the vacuum, it would be up to a more Advanced Rule to specifically mention an entirely different method of measuring movement in order to overturn this Basic Rule. Or, better yet to simply state to ignore the Vertical gains on any Model with some sort of 'ignore Terrain' Rule.

Personally; I measure the Hypotenuse even for Infantry Models because the Vertical Movement Rules are quite... poorly written... as it is very obvious they only address 'climbing' Ruins.
It is physically possible to move the Model underneath the floor of a Ruin... not so much for a Battlement which has a Building occupying that space.

JinxDragon wrote:
Only, as pointed out, the Vertical Movement Rules have you measure the Horizontal and then the Vertical separately and mentions nothing about the Hypotenuse.

I do see what people are suggesting though, that we are measuring the actual path the Model took when we follow those Rules so it makes sense to measure Horizontal then Vertical. This is supported by the simple fact that Vertical Movement are Basic Rules, which fails to address anything with the capability of moving 'freely' across the field. The issue I have with this concept is from a pure Rule as Written perspective... we need a specific Rule giving us permission to ignore the Vertical Movement of the non-infantry Models in question. As Game Workshop never addresses a Basic Rule outside of the vacuum, it would be up to a more Advanced Rule to specifically mention an entirely different method of measuring movement in order to overturn this Basic Rule. Or, better yet to simply state to ignore the Vertical gains on any Model with some sort of 'ignore Terrain' Rule.

Personally; I measure the Hypotenuse even for Infantry Models because the Vertical Movement Rules are quite... poorly written... as it is very obvious they only address 'climbing' Ruins.
It is physically possible to move the Model underneath the floor of a Ruin... not so much for a Battlement which has a Building occupying that space.

Thanks for everyone's input on this.

@JinxDragon: I think you have the root of this dilemma. Does the Jetbike rule to move "freely" confer the ability to ignore the vertical movement rule. Without clarification from yet another rule, or an authoritative source, it sounds like it needs to be house ruled.

I asked a similar question of our LFGS owner and he said he'd ask his GW rep about it. It sounds like I shouldn't hold my breath for a clear, definitive answer on this one.

Particularly from any representation in the stores, they are nothing more then glorified players who often put their own personal opinions over the written Rules.

The problem with assuming "Free Vertical movement" is that you would be breaking the "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away" rule simply because you measure base to base. Where ever you may place the base by any method, when you measure from A to B, the distance will be a set value in X Y and Z coordinates. If your ruler touches one base, and touches the other, even if you ignored any Z value, it would still be included at that point.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The problem with assuming "Free Vertical movement" is that you would be breaking the "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away" rule simply because you measure base to base. Where ever you may place the base by any method, when you measure from A to B, the distance will be a set value in X Y and Z coordinates. If your ruler touches one base, and touches the other, even if you ignored any Z value, it would still be included at that point.

That's actually a good point, and I'd only add two things to it.

1. Jetbikes actually move 12 inches (but that's a non-relevant technicality).

2. it is arguable that if the "Jetbikes can move over all other models and terrain freely." was assumed to include free vertical movement, breaking the x inches away rule could also be included for the vertical.

Having said that, the more this is discussed the more it feels like a vertical movement distance inclusion is a bit excessive, especially considering the ambiguity of the RaW. Too many assumptions have to be made to do anything other than measure total distance base to base, not more than 12 inches 3D. As it turns out that conclusion really does seem the best way to handle it, barring any additional rule clarification/FAQ,etc. With turbo boost this still gives you a 12+36 inch dome to move in which is incredible.

That still leaves the question, "3. If I was on top of a 9 inch structure (open ground) and moved down to the bottom (also open ground) do I have to make any test? " Basically I'm asking is there fall damage in 40k, esp. if I stay within my x inches of normal movement for that unit? Only place I see something like that so far is when you are in a building that is getting destroyed.

You are right, I would have to add the rules:

"Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."
Jetbikes can move over all other models and terrain freely. (...) they can end their move(...)

The emphasis is on the second part and "end their move". Anything you do before then if "free". You can hop up/down as many times as you want, including vaulting over a Reaver Titan, etc.

However, after you've done all of that, and "end their move", you then need to measure "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away" replacing the 6" with 12" from the first rule above. As i said before, that measurement is done base to base (even if one is now an imaginary one), and will always account for Vertical distance, simply by the way it is worded.

 BlackTalos wrote:
You are right, I would have to add the rules:

"Bikes and Jetbikes can move up to 12" in the Movement phase."
Jetbikes can move over all other models and terrain freely. (...) they can end their move(...)

The emphasis is on the second part and "end their move". Anything you do before then if "free". You can hop up/down as many times as you want, including vaulting over a Reaver Titan, etc.

However, after you've done all of that, and "end their move", you then need to measure "no part of its base can finish the move more than 6" away" replacing the 6" with 12" from the first rule above. As i said before, that measurement is done base to base (even if one is now an imaginary one), and will always account for Vertical distance, simply by the way it is worded.

Awesome! I'm gonna call this good and ask the fall dmg. Q in a separate thread then, as I'd rather keep the thread topic title.. well.. on topic.

One thing I should of checked for first:
If the Vertical Movement Rules where nothing more then a sloppy copy and paste from 6th Edition... surprise, surprise... it is.

These Rules where once part of the Rules governing the use of Ruins, and in such context they make perfect sense. In 6th Edition, Vertical Movement Measurements would only be utilised within situations involving moving between floors of Ruins, where a 3 inch movement was required to move between each level. Within the 6th Edition Rulebook's Rules for Ruins are specific instructions for Jump/Jet/Skimmers and Jetbikes when it came to measuring movement through said Ruin. These instructions, not surprisingly, where simply to place the Model within the maximum movement range and not bother with any Vertical Measurement's at all. This is just another case of the Authors using half of a 6th Edition Rule, while ignoring that the other half existed to solve problems like this!

I once more recommend doing what I always do with terrain: Making 'scratch built' Datasheets which include access to additional rules. For example, all my Ruins are '6th Edition Ruins' so they actually have access to this very Rule, and already allowed Skimmers to simply hop on top if they are within 12 inches of it. All without me even realizing I was 'fixing' a broken Rule by including the exception which was needed to make these Units function as they clearly where intended to function! Yay, me.

This does highlight a problem though:
When this was a 6th Edition Rule it had a specific exceptions for Skimmers, Jump-Units, Jetpack-Units and Jetbikes.
As that exception is no longer present, but the Rule it was exempting still is, do we still have permission to use the method outlined via the exception?

JinxDragon wrote:
One thing I should of checked for first:
If the Vertical Movement Rules where nothing more then a sloppy copy and paste from 6th Edition... surprise, surprise... it is.

These Rules where once part of the Rules governing the use of Ruins, and in such context they make perfect sense. In 6th Edition, Vertical Movement Measurements would only be utilised within situations involving moving between floors of Ruins, where a 3 inch movement was required to move between each level. Within the 6th Edition Rulebook's Rules for Ruins are specific instructions for Jump/Jet/Skimmers and Jetbikes when it came to measuring movement through said Ruin. These instructions, not surprisingly, where simply to place the Model within the maximum movement range and not bother with any Vertical Measurement's at all. This is just another case of the Authors using half of a 6th Edition Rule, while ignoring that the other half existed to solve problems like this!

I once more recommend doing what I always do with terrain: Making 'scratch built' Datasheets which include access to additional rules. For example, all my Ruins are '6th Edition Ruins' so they actually have access to this very Rule, and already allowed Skimmers to simply hop on top if they are within 12 inches of it. All without me even realizing I was 'fixing' a broken Rule by including the exception which was needed to make these Units function as they clearly where intended to function! Yay, me.

This does highlight a problem though:
When this was a 6th Edition Rule it had a specific exceptions for Skimmers, Jump-Units, Jetpack-Units and Jetbikes.
As that exception is no longer present, but the Rule it was exempting still is, do we still have permission to use the method outlined via the exception?

That's funny you mention that.
Last night was 40k night at the LFGS, and I got to talk to the owner and some players about this, including the guy I played with Saturday. The GW rep the owner talked to said just measure Skimmers, Jump-Units, Jetpack-Units and Jetbikes as if they were infantry, up to the thing they wanted to sit on, then measure the vertical. However, the players and I successfully argued a new house rule based on this thread. There were three possible interpretations on the table:

Move freely means you can move anywhere within max movement range ...
1. ... horizontally, with limitless vertical.
2. ... both H and V (essentially a "dome" of movement).
3. ... but measure like infantry (to the base of the object you want to be on, then "climb" up).

We all decided 2 was the best compromise between RaW and intent for movement.

So thanks DakkaDakka! You've made my life better!