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.

Hi Guys

I couldn't find anything on multilevel combat with big models. A few mates and I were discussing whether a large model could attack someone on the 2nd-floor balcony, we understand in core rules it says distances are measured from base to base. but it seems stupid that someone standing on a barrel that is 1.0001 inches above the base of a model cant be attacked even if the model is Mortarion sized.

Please can someone help, is there an FAQ or something that clears this up.


Thanks Ub

There's no FAQ and no real guidance on this or any of the other related questions about multi level combat

I play base to base so someone on a lower level can't fight, but infantry can scale walls and "wobbly model" onto the outside of the wall.

Units with FLY like Mortarion can fly into combat.

Takes a little imagination to say "that unit is actually up there with you" and takes an opponent who's there to play for fun and not say "no way man you cant land there so you can't fight me"

i think general consensus is that models are not meant to be assault-proof when they stand on raised platforms.

NONE of this is official though. But there have been lots of threads like this!

Nothing needed to clear it up. Measurements are base to base.

If you wanna house rule it do so.

Except if the model doesn't have a base then you measure hull to base, so some vehicles can reach the upper floors of a ruin/building.

This seems so stupid, so a defiler can attack someone on the 3rd floor but an imperial knight cant?

Thanks for the help guys.

 Ubl1k wrote:
This seems so stupid, so a defiler can attack someone on the 3rd floor but an imperial knight cant?

Thanks for the help guys.

Welcome to 8th edition. Edition GW assumes is played by 4 year old kids only.

edit: Actually screw that. Even 4 year old kids could see sensible way. Wonder what kind of target GW aims for?

We also just said that an Eldar superheavy grav tank can never be charged since the hull is more than an inch away from the base. I know its nitpicky but with all the FAQ's surely they could fix this.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ubl1k wrote:
This seems so stupid, so a defiler can attack someone on the 3rd floor but an imperial knight cant?

Thanks for the help guys.

Welcome to 8th edition. Edition GW assumes is played by 4 year old kids only.

edit: Actually screw that. Even 4 year old kids could see sensible way. Wonder what kind of target GW aims for?

I'd say it's quite the opposite. GW assumes players are intelligent and mature enough to house rules things that don't make sense.
There are lots of badly written rules in pretty much every GW game. But this one is pretty clear, and very simple. It would actually be quite difficult to write a rule that would allow tall models to hit other models on 2nd floors, without opening the door to abuse. It's best to keep a simple rule to prevent RAW arguments, and let people who favor immersion over a simple ruleset introduce houserules tailored to their models and terrain.

What kind of abuse would that be if the rule would say 1" from any part of the model to the other model, instead 1" base to base ?

 p5freak wrote:
What kind of abuse would that be if the rule would say 1" from any part of the model to the other model, instead 1" base to base ?

An infantry model with a banner/gun pointing upward could hit people on the 2nd floor even if it's twice its size.
But the worse would probably be the interaction with the movement rules: some models could be less than 1" away from each other when measured model to model, while still being more than 1" away base to base. So during my movement phase, I could move a model with a pointy bit 1.01" away from one of your units (base to base), then rotate it so that the pointy bit points towards the closest model, therefore bringing my unit within 1" of yours (model to model). I would then be eligible to choose that unit to fight in the fight phase, even though I never charged with it. Many such interactions could occur, where units can become eligible to fight without any charge.

The distance in the fight phase has to be kept consistent with the one in the movement phase, and probably shooting too. And moving everything to model-to-model distances would be extremely painful.

I understand that and people would take advantage of it, but if i make a 6 inch high base and hide my marine behind it thats also taking advantage?

fresus wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
What kind of abuse would that be if the rule would say 1" from any part of the model to the other model, instead 1" base to base ?

An infantry model with a banner/gun pointing upward could hit people on the 2nd floor even if it's twice its size.

Is the banner modeled for advantage or is it a normal banner? Also, consider that if the model with the banner could hit people on the 2nd floor, the people on the 2nd floor could hit him. It does provide a method for large models like knights to hit models on higher floors that they could presumably just punch into.

fresus wrote:
But the worse would probably be the interaction with the movement rules: some models could be less than 1" away from each other when measured model to model, while still being more than 1" away base to base. So during my movement phase, I could move a model with a pointy bit 1.01" away from one of your units (base to base), then rotate it so that the pointy bit points towards the closest model, therefore bringing my unit within 1" of yours (model to model). I would then be eligible to choose that unit to fight in the fight phase, even though I never charged with it. Many such interactions could occur, where units can become eligible to fight without any charge.

So why wouldn't the 1" apply from any part of the model to any other part of the model apply during movement? I'd say that you wouldn't be able to rotate like that and have some of the model within 1" unless you declare you're charging.

fresus wrote:
The distance in the fight phase has to be kept consistent with the one in the movement phase, and probably shooting too. And moving everything to model-to-model distances would be extremely painful.

So, if you made the distance closest point to closest point all the time, you'd have your consistency and fix the issue about multi-level comat.

How is model-to-model for everything "extremely painful"? You're just holding the tape measure up to a potentially different point on the model.

I have this "discussion" alot with a few regulars at the shop (moreso about Jump units and CC). Vertical distance DOES matter. If you can't get within an inch, and I am very liberal with Wobbly Model Syndrome, then you can't make Combat.


Are the coherency rules in Ruins in the Core rules, or did they leave that one out too...

Ubl1k wrote:I understand that and people would take advantage of it, but if i make a 6 inch high base and hide my marine behind it thats also taking advantage?

For sure.
That's why I think the best solution for the multi-level problem is to have the simple, restrictive rule we currently have. It removes all the potential abuse, and make for simpler pick-up games/tournaments. But if you play with a sensible person it's easy to house rule a specific case to make for a more narrative game.

doctortom wrote:

fresus wrote:
The distance in the fight phase has to be kept consistent with the one in the movement phase, and probably shooting too. And moving everything to model-to-model distances would be extremely painful.

So, if you made the distance closest point to closest point all the time, you'd have your consistency and fix the issue about multi-level comat.

How is model-to-model for everything "extremely painful"? You're just holding the tape measure up to a potentially different point on the model.

With base-to-base measurements, rotations are free for models on round bases, but would cost movement if you were to measure model-to-model. Moving a unit of 20 guys while keeping them aligned in the same direction is pretty annoying, and feels very strange if you're not moving them in the direction they're facing.
And when fighting in melee with multiple rows of guys, it would be very difficult to determine who's within 1" of a dude within 1" of an enemy unit. Sometimes the bases are 1.2" apart, but the end of one of the guy's rifle is actually within 1" of the pony tail of the guy in front of him, so you would have to check many many different distances. It's just a pain compared to the distance between two disks.

fresus wrote:

That's why I think the best solution for the multi-level problem is to have the simple, restrictive rule we currently have. It removes all the potential abuse, and make for simpler pick-up games/tournaments.

So, its ok that mortarion or magnus cannot charge a space marine on the second floor of a ruin, because they cannot be placed within 1" base to base ? Wobbly model syndrome requires to "delicately balance it in place" and "as long as both players have agreed". If my opponent refuses to agree i cant charge that marine. A 13 pt. model is immune to melee from a 470 pt. model by camping in a ruin is the best solution ?

 p5freak wrote:

fresus wrote:

That's why I think the best solution for the multi-level problem is to have the simple, restrictive rule we currently have. It removes all the potential abuse, and make for simpler pick-up games/tournaments.

So, its ok that mortarion or magnus cannot charge a space marine on the second floor of a ruin, because they cannot be placed within 1" base to base ? Wobbly model syndrome requires to "delicately balance it in place" and "as long as both players have agreed". If my opponent refuses to agree i cant charge that marine. A 13 pt. model is immune to melee from a 470 pt. model by camping in a ruin is the best solution ?

The best I can come up with, for the game as a whole.
If you have a better one, feel free to share.

There will always be abuse, no matter how the rules are. Right now the unchargeable marine is abuse. A tiny marine shouldnt be able to hide from giants like mortarion or magnus, simply because they have a (large) base. It should be within 1" from any part of the model to any part of the enemy model.

 p5freak wrote:
There will always be abuse, no matter how the rules are. Right now the unchargeable marine is abuse. A tiny marine shouldnt be able to hide from giants like mortarion or magnus, simply because they have a (large) base. It should be within 1" from any part of the model to any part of the enemy model.

There already is one: wobbly model syndrome allows for this without actually placing the model in a precarious position.

I do think GW needs to come up with some expanded rules for terrain to cover things like this, even if it's just in the form of a designer's commentary.

Slipspace wrote:

There already is one: wobbly model syndrome allows for this without actually placing the model in a precarious position.

No, i already explained how it wouldnt work. RAW on WMS says to "delicately balance it in place". If there is no space, you cant balance it. And it requires your opponents permission. The CC rules for terrain require a major overhaul. They are terrible right now.

 p5freak wrote:
There will always be abuse, no matter how the rules are. Right now the unchargeable marine is abuse. A tiny marine shouldnt be able to hide from giants like mortarion or magnus, simply because they have a (large) base. It should be within 1" from any part of the model to any part of the enemy model.

1" within any parts of models is pretty annoying to handle, like I explained above regarding multi-ranks fights. And of course opens lots of abuse, but I understand you consider it wouldn't necessarily be worse than the current situation.

Even then, how do you handle charge distances? The rule would have to be changed to that a charge is successful if any part of a model from the charging unit gets within 1" of a target unit's model (otherwise you don't solve anything). That basically amounts to reduced charge distances, because you only need to cover ground in the horizontal plane. However, shooting would still be base to base, and account for the difference in height. The distances for shooting (and overwatching) would therefore be quite different than the distances for charging. That's quite a big change. And here it's not just about trying to abuse the rules (by staying slightly further than 8" base to base, while being way closer model-to-model to have a small charge range, yet no flamer overwatch), but just a weird, counterintuitive rule interaction.

I skipped 7th but what did that say about charging a model entirely taking up a ruin level?

Slipspace wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
There will always be abuse, no matter how the rules are. Right now the unchargeable marine is abuse. A tiny marine shouldnt be able to hide from giants like mortarion or magnus, simply because they have a (large) base. It should be within 1" from any part of the model to any part of the enemy model.

There already is one: wobbly model syndrome allows for this without actually placing the model in a precarious position.

I do think GW needs to come up with some expanded rules for terrain to cover things like this, even if it's just in the form of a designer's commentary.

Yes, there should be expanded rules. WMS doesn't cover everything, and it seems ridiculous that a knight next to multilevel ruins can't assault a model less than an inch from its fist that doesn't count as engaged in combat because he's on the 2nd or 3rd level of a building and the base is more than 1" away.

The unassailable marine is definitely abuse., far more than the abuse of a marine having a banner being able to engage or be engaged by something a level above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fresus wrote:

With base-to-base measurements, rotations are free for models on round bases, but would cost movement if you were to measure model-to-model. Moving a unit of 20 guys while keeping them aligned in the same direction is pretty annoying, and feels very strange if you're not moving them in the direction they're facing.
And when fighting in melee with multiple rows of guys, it would be very difficult to determine who's within 1" of a dude within 1" of an enemy unit. Sometimes the bases are 1.2" apart, but the end of one of the guy's rifle is actually within 1" of the pony tail of the guy in front of him, so you would have to check many many different distances. It's just a pain compared to the distance between two disks.

I'm sorry, but that's a crock. You have models with oval bases right now, not just round bases. You already have the "issue" there with rotation.

Measuring model to model won't cost any more movement if you're measuring closest to closest than if you're measuring base to base.

the bit about moving 20 guys while keeping them aligned is a problem you have when you move them whether you're measuring from the bases or the closest points on the model.

It's not difficult to dtermine who's within 1" of someone who's within 1" of an enemy. You can measure, and you still have the base Iof a known size) as a reference. Are there points sticking out that make the model closer than the base? You'd have to measure to the base anyway to know how far the base is, either it should be obvious it's close enough or you just measure to the closest point on the model instead of the closest point on the base.

I would imagine the rule would count base or model as the closest point of measurement.

fresus wrote:

Even then, how do you handle charge distances? The rule would have to be changed to that a charge is successful if any part of a model from the charging unit gets within 1" of a target unit's model (otherwise you don't solve anything). That basically amounts to reduced charge distances, because you only need to cover ground in the horizontal plane. However, shooting would still be base to base, and account for the difference in height. The distances for shooting (and overwatching) would therefore be quite different than the distances for charging. That's quite a big change. And here it's not just about trying to abuse the rules (by staying slightly further than 8" base to base, while being way closer model-to-model to have a small charge range, yet no flamer overwatch), but just a weird, counterintuitive rule interaction.

Remove base to base entirely. Shooting is also model to model. Or anything outside the base diameter doesnt count for charging.

This conversation keeps repeated since the edition began.

RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

 EagleArk wrote:
RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

Yes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:
RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

Yes.

Awsome /s

 EagleArk wrote:
RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

Many, many TOs would consider that modeling for advantage, and ruin your day.

 meleti wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:
RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

Many, many TOs would consider that modeling for advantage, and ruin your day.

Oh obviously, Its also major TFG territory. It was more a question of whether its RAW, rather than "Can I do this so I can win my games?"

 meleti wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:
RAW, if you had one of the grav tank models, that have a base but require you to measure to the hull. Could you stick it on a really long stem and make it un- attack able in combat?

Many, many TOs would consider that modeling for advantage, and ruin your day.

The "tall" stick that comes with several kits can do this on it's own, no additional work required. Any TO that blames a player for how GW makes their models and poor rules is a bad TO in my book.