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.

Silly question if a unit teleports in and sets up 9 inches away from the enemy unit
When it charges to get within 1 inch do you need a charge roll of 9 or 8 as that would put it at 1 inch away

Thanks

This was poorly worded by GW but has been mentioned several times.

The rules, as written, state "More than 9 inches", so that means 9.1" and above. So if you deploy that way you would need to roll a 9+ on your charge distance to get within 1" of an enemy combatant. If you rolled an 8, you would actually only get within 1.1" of the target unit, etc.

It's stupid and poorly worded, but that is how it's been mentioned on several Warhammer TV videos.

 Elbows wrote:
This was poorly worded by GW but has been mentioned several times.

The rules, as written, state "More than 9 inches", so that means 9.1" and above. So if you deploy that way you would need to roll a 9+ on your charge distance to get within 1" of an enemy combatant. If you rolled an 8, you would actually only get within 1.1" of the target unit, etc.

It's stupid and poorly worded, but that is how it's been mentioned on several Warhammer TV videos.

Poorly worded? How can you read "more than 9 inches" as anything other than more than 9 inches? You can complain about a lot of things with GW but this isn't one of them.

Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

 Elbows wrote:
Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

That's not really GW's fault that some have a problem understanding that a 9" charge fails if you're over 9" away.

 Elbows wrote:
Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

So your solution to this one simple, and easily answered, question is to push deployment back nearly an entire inch? I think that is a massive overreaction.

I think they used the "more than x" wording because if it was "x or more" you would have to set up at exactly the right point to get the smallest charge distance and it just wouldn't be possible. With this wording you get a lot more wiggle room to have the smallest charge distance.

 alextroy wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

So your solution to this one simple, and easily answered, question is to push deployment back nearly an entire inch? I think that is a massive overreaction.

There is no gaming difference between 9.1" and 10".

 Elbows wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

So your solution to this one simple, and easily answered, question is to push deployment back nearly an entire inch? I think that is a massive overreaction.

There is no gaming difference between 9.1" and 10".

And there's no ambiguity with more than 9 inches.

Obviously there is, if it's stumping enough people to become a commonly asked question.

It's a really stupid rule. This is the only thing that our gaming group is house ruling (so far), so for us it is '9" or more'.

Strange that this didn't come up in the FAQ yet though.

 mrhappyface wrote:
It's a really stupid rule. This is the only thing that our gaming group is house ruling (so far), so for us it is '9" or more'.

Strange that this didn't come up in the FAQ yet though.

That's a huge buff to deep strikers and infiltrators. It goes from a 10/36 chance to succesfully charge to a 15/36 chance.

Why do you think it's a stupid rule? I don't get it.

 Gargantuan wrote:

That's a huge buff to deep strikers and infiltrators. It goes from a 10/36 chance to succesfully charge to a 15/36 chance.

Why do you think it's a stupid rule? I don't get it.

Stupid in it's wording, I wouldn't have minded if they had simply said 10" or more.

Also it isn't OP, especially against gunline armies who can position to deny deep strike charges against anything but the front line of squishy infantry.

He didn't say it's OP. He said it's a huge buff. And it is. And it's unnecessary because the rule is pretty easy and straightforward as written.

The best thing for them to do would have been to say at least 9.5" away. That way there is no confusion around the whole number, you definitely need a 9 to charge anything.

Every faction of an inch further from enemy units you are forced to deploy effectively reduces the make area you can deploy in. There may be no game difference between 9.1" and 10", but there is a lot of board difference between the two. It can be enough to prevent you from deploying at all in a particular area.

For example, if you keep a line of models 10" from a board edge, your opponent can't deploy even a 25mm base model on that board edge as it will be 9" from enemy models. Increase the minimum separation for deployment and you can move that area denial unit further away from the edge and gain the same effect.

 Elbows wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Because it created a ton of questions and issues (like the one posted)? If you want to require a roll of 9, simply make the rule worded "10 inches or more". Done. Zero questions. If there is ambiguity in the writing...that's poorly worded. Simple as that. I've seen this same question asked on four different forums and three facebook groups.

So your solution to this one simple, and easily answered, question is to push deployment back nearly an entire inch? I think that is a massive overreaction.

There is no gaming difference between 9.1" and 10".

For the first turn? Sure, that's (mostly) accurate.

For subsequent turns, less than an inch can mean the difference between being in range or not, being in Rapid Fire range or not, being in melta range or not, and successfully charging or not.

We aren't playing on grids here, after all. We move at angles, our units are grouped anywhere from base-to-base contact to at the very edge of 2" between models, we're permitted (and for gaming purposes, we can sometimes have very good reason) to move in increments of infinitely smaller quantities than whole inches.

You'd have to be very, very near-sighted to not see the relative significance of the difference between 9.0000001" and 10".

Even in a T1 drop, >9" is important for some units. For example, Scions have a Rapid Fire 18" range weapon. When they drop in, they cannot be in range for 2 shots with their weapon. This may not seem like a big deal...but depending on your army, a squad of 10 Scions dropping in, getting buffed by a Tempestor Prime, and getting an extra 18 shots may not be the most enjoyable thing to experience. Just one example that comes to mind.

Thanks all

If this makes it easier to conceptualise

Black on the left enemy
Black on right your deep striker who has to be 9.1 inches away

To charge its the 0.1 + 8 solid inches + 0.1 to get within 1"

So you need to roll a 9 even though you are moving 8.2"

But it isn't 9.1", it is 9.0000...1 to an infinitely small value, it might be a bit pedantic but it is provable that 9.0000...1 is equal to 9 and therefore only an 8" charge is required.

If you're saying that 9 + x = 9 in the limit where x -> 0, then true. However, saying "more than 9"" is explicitly saying that you can't take the limit.

Moreover, we don't play 40k by calculating ranges. If I can't measure that your models are more than 9" away (going by what I learned in Physics labs at uni, that's one half of the smallest division on the measuring instrument, or 1/32" on a standard tape measure with 1/16" markings), then you're too close.

In effect, distances in 40k aren't infinitely divisible; they're quantised by the measuring devise you use.

Don't even need to measure that accurately if we are talking actions following DS. In order for the DS player to not cheat all models must be >9" away. If they try to use any effects requiring =<9" in that turn...they are cheating.

 mrhappyface wrote:
But it isn't 9.1", it is 9.0000...1 to an infinitely small value, it might be a bit pedantic but it is provable that 9.0000...1 is equal to 9 and therefore only an 8" charge is required.

If 9.0000....1 inches is equal to 9 inches, and if you perform the impossible feat up setting up your unit exactly that distance from an enemy, you didn't set up more than 9 inches away, because like you said, they are equal.

It was just an interesting thought I had, on paper it is perfectly legal but you are right, in practice it would not work. I can imagine someone will try to pull this trick in a tournament though.