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.

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

At first glance this did kind of seem like a rules exploit to me too although after some thought about other 'rules exploits' that are regularly used 'sound tactics' I don't really think so.

The situation is this:

An entire side (or two) of 2nd level or higher building is filled up with models, by RAW this unit can not be charged from that side and the assaulting squad must go around to assault, therefore usually taking an extra turn to get in to BTB.

Now, this may seem like a rules exploit BUT, is it really much different than the 'fish of fury' tactic, where one will make thier firewarriors unassaultable by getting out of the back of devilfish about 12" away from enemy models and rapid fire and making the enemy models go around the devilfish to assault them.

Another example is taking 4 gun drones and surrounding an IC with them so that the IC can not be shot at because it is not the closest unit.

The second example is used in a plethora of armies, Ork Warboss with Grot squad surrounding him, Marine Librarian with a scout squad surrounding him etc.

These would SEEM to be rules exploits, and realistically, if an IC is 1" further than being the closest target, it seems excessive that you can't shoot at him, but they are regularly used and accepted tactics.
With CoD VERY quickly gaining popularity will the filling up a floor assault denial become a common tactic? I guess that would be for another poll.

It's a rule exploit because all of your other examples allow the charging unit to charge something even if it isn't the target they want. The lining up so they can't be charged on the edge because models can't be placed is exploitation just like placing an eldar heavy weapon in a narrow area to block models from charging through since it isn't a model or terrain but still blocks.

But you CAN still charge the squad, you just have to go around to the other side or kill enough of them with shooting attacks to get in to BTB.

Or they could be a large group and block off the whole level, the same result happens on the other side now. You would be denying a normally legal charge simply because the opponent cannot place models around the terrain in a manner that suits the charge. It is an exploit.

But you are still able to assault them by attrition.

Oh, please don't stone me to death, but this "tactic" seems to me to have "real world" "sense." (Did I use enough taboo words in one sentence?

The reason I say this is that it is just like a force trying to assail a fortified position that is on a higher elevation. If you can't create enough room for a foothold, then your assault just ain't gonna happen. Not like they should just make room for you or something.

It is a fairly simple thing to fix. Shoot the bejesus out of the unit before you attempt to assault. Flamers would work wonders for this. If they did spread the unit all over the level, that would make for a ton of hits with no cover saves.

"Exploit" or not, it does appear that the RAW supports this interpretation more closely that to any other interpretation I have heard.

Sal.

See my reply in the "ANOTHER unassaultable unit?" thread in YMTC.

Posted By Saldiven on 06/16/2006 8:51 AM

"Exploit" or not, it does appear that the RAW supports this interpretation more closely that to any other interpretation I have heard.

Sal.

Actually don't the rules state that terrain should not impede play? Does it say anywhere that not being able to place a model on a level restricts the unit from making an otherwise possible charge? (as long as you roll far enough to reach combat) This is like sitting behind a short wall and saying they can't charge you from the front because they can't place their model, that is terrain abuse.

"Terrain abuse" Better call the Terrain Aid Society.

How about if models are behind impassable terrain? Is that terrain abuse or should the assaulting unit get to go in to the impassable terrain to make the assault?

Impassable terrain is just that, impassable. You can't abuse it with model placement any more than you can abuse a forest blocking LOS by being behind it.

 

This thread is about denying something that would be legal if it wasn't for the model not being able to be placed. Do you deny people charging over low walls because the bases can't come into contact because of the terrain? Why is this any different?

Because they are on a different level. You can be .001" apart on the ground floor because of the wall in between and you may not be in base to base contact but you are at least on the same level. With the situation that I am talking about, you can not even get your models to the same level as the unit that you are charging.

The examples of a 1/4" terrain base is not the same thing because you are on the same level. That being, ground level.

What does levels have to do with charging other than the inability to place models? If you can reach the models you are charging you have successfully charged wether you can place them or not. Impassable terrain would keep you from reaching the opponent because it is not possible to enter. You can however change height, and as long as you can reach that height you can make a successful charge wether you can be placed or not without falling off.

The problem is you are equating "can't place model" to "can't reach target" which is not the case.

Agree with Snoogums here.  40k is not a true '3d' game, and doesn't have strong rules for that element, so "but its not on the same level" doesn't hold water for me.

In the 40k rules (Cityfight in particular), you get vertical as well as horizontal movement within or to enter buildings (a roll of 4 on d6 gets me 4" of vertical and horizontal movement).  That effectively puts me on the 'same level' regardless of terrain.

Same argument about stepped hills in a normal 40k game.  The argument, following this logic, is that I could line up my troops along the lip of a stepped hill, and you would not be able to charge me because you can't 'place' the model in base to base - and that is 'normal' terrain, with no difficult terrain to deal with.

I don't buy it

Oh, and 'real world' tactics and situations for taking high ground or fighting in cities have zero, nada, zip, zilch to do with 40k

But CoD IS 3d and has rules for levels (note I am not talking about L1, L2, L3 terrain/models, I am talking about floors of buildings.) You can only flamer 1 level up or down, you measure shots on angles instead of like normal 40k straight on the ground.

Posted By happypants on 06/16/2006 11:02 AM
But CoD IS 3d and has rules for levels (note I am not talking about L1, L2, L3 terrain/models, I am talking about floors of buildings.) You can only flamer 1 level up or down, you measure shots on angles instead of like normal 40k straight on the ground.

That has nothing to do with this thread, since we are charging, not shooting flamers.

I think that the most reasonable analogies in "normal 40k" are the stepped hill and the thin low wall.

In normal 40k, you must be in base to base contact to complete a charge.

It's physically impossible to do so in two cases:
1) The target unit occupies the entire 1st shelf of a stepped hill. However, I've never seen anyone argue that the unit on the hill cannot be assaulted. You just move the assaulting unit as close as possible - they're on different levels due to the physical design of the terrain piece, but they are assumed to be in base to base contact for rules purposes.

2) The target unit is on the other side of a low wall, which is too thin to balance a miniature on. In this case, the assaulting unit is moved as close as possible, touching the low wall. The models are assumed to be in base to base contact, even though they are physically separated due to the terrain piece.

In COD, a unit that fills the second floor of a ruin cannot be physically contacted by a unit charging them from outside the ruin for *both* these reasons - the terrain piece has them physically on a different level, and there is a thin wall separating them.

I would argue that if the assaulting unit has enough distance that they would be able to contact the target unit were it not for the physical design of the terrain piece, then they should be put in contact with the wall (as in (2) above), and treated as in base to base even though the models are physically on a different level (as in (1) above).

@Cruentis, if RAW does not apply to this, and 'real world/fluff' situation have no place in 40k, why don't you just play with GI Joe?

@Strangelooper, in both the examples you cite, RAW is not used and common convention is for fluff reasons, "You are on top of a hill, I can still stab at your legs" or "You are on the other side of a wall so I can still pop off pistol shots and stab at you through windows/holes in the wall"

Either you can take the RAW on it OR the fluff, either way you can not charge the unit. Taking common conventions as prescedent does not work because common convetions apply to very specific circumstances.

As a note, all you need is one square inch on a floor to make it in to HTH, and then every model whose head is within 2" of the models base that made it up to the floor above can fight (more than would ever be allowed in any other circumstance for 1 model being in BTB)

So I know this tactic SOUNDS scary and really one sided but it is reasonably easy to defeat, you only have to kill 1 model in a squad that is covering an entire floor with fire before the assault to make the assault.

Genestealers cannot kill a model without getting into combat. This is a rules exploit. You can meet all of the requirements of charging but still not charge. That is a rules exploit.

It would take more than one model, methinks.  If you're the kind of guy that would try to use this as a tactic then you'll be the kind of guy that removes models furthest from the unit that is about to assault, or furthest from the only ladder up to the floor.

I agree with the others that say this is a rules exploit.  If this were true, then any model that has arms/weapons/claws that go past the perimeter of its base cannot be assaulted ever provided the owner of that particular model positions it so that the arms/weapons/claws are directly between the assaulter and the assaultee, since you have to assault via the shortest distance to the model.

- Oaka

I agree, sounds logical to me. Not a valid tactic in my book. Definately exploitation.

@snoogums: Get the book
@Vsurma: what sounds logical? Going against the rules/2 things occupying the same space & time/being able to claw/punch/stab someone 10' up from you?
@oaka: again, the example you are citing is a common convention, in this case one that is used to get around modelling issues. Common conventions are specific things that you use to go against RAW for fluff/playability reasons. In this case it does not apply.

I think I understand your idea about common conventions, so you want each specific circumstance ruled differently as opposed to blanketing everything with "If models can't get into base contact, then they can't assault".  I'm alright with that interpretation, but you would have to specifically explain this to each opponent before every game.  It also makes the game a lot more confusing.

"You can't assault my guys in that building, none of your models can get into base contact with mine."

"But you just assaulted my squad with a spiky carnifex that isn't in base contact!"

"That's different, it's commonly accepted that I can do that."

"Well what about this line of barrels your guys are behind, is it commonly accepted I can assault you even though my models can't stand on the barrels and can't get into base contact?"

"I don't know, let's take a store poll to see whether it's common enough for me."

Most of us won't like it when you say we can't assault your unit one floor above us, and then in your turn you move one floor down and assault that same unit yourself purely due to model positioning.  That would be absolutely unacceptable to try midgame without prior warning that was how you played the game.

And I would suggest against this, unless your opponent completely agrees with you (maybe he uses Fish of Fury himself and sees the resemblence).

- Oaka

Dave: you're not Ed Mauleed, and you're far from a Dakka Toughguy...what's with the 'tude?

P.S. You're just wrong.

2) The target unit is on the other side of a low wall, which is too thin to balance a miniature on. In this case, the assaulting unit is moved as close as possible, touching the low wall. The models are assumed to be in base to base contact, even though they are physically separated due to the terrain piece.

Regardless of the multi-level issue, this is just silly.

If you don't have the movement to move around it (and/or difficult terrain test to move over it, depending on how you're categorizing the wall), you don't get the charge. There's a difference between a tactic that may or may not overly affect the flow and balance of the game and dumbing down the one thing (terrain) that provides any real tactical interest in 40k to start with.

So, because you can't physically place the model in b2b, it's being argued that there can't be an assault? Oaka's example exemplifies the same with my opinion as well.

Even in regular 40K when you declare an assault, your closest model needs to be moved to closest model of the opponent's unit in the most direct manner. What if there is a simple GW sandbag/barricade right in front of the opponent's unit? You physically can't put the models in b2b and the assault can't happen by that logic. However, there are rules about assaulting units in cover.

Basically, I'll allow my opponent to perform the assault if he has sufficient movement to get his models there. It sounds a bit like exploiting to me and doesn't pass my 'feels right' test (yeah, flame me now for not going by RAW).

Didn't vote the first time.

Lowinor: In my example, the assaulting unit has enough movement to reach the target unit after difficult terrain tests etc. - it's just physically impossible to actually balance the miniature on top of the wall, as the wall is only 1/8" thick. Or 1/16" and uneven. Whatever. The miniature would fall off. And I meant a low wall, that is only say 1/2" tall, so it counts as difficult terrain, not impassable.

So the only issue is that it's impossible to physically place the models in base to base, due to the specifics of the terrain piece. The only way I've ever seen this played, is to place the assaulting models as near as possible (ie 1/8" away, on their side of the thin wall) - but allow the assault to happen. I've never seen anyone force the assaulters to 'go around'.

I agree that if you don't roll enough distance on the difficult terrain roll to reach the target unit, then you don't charge. That was never in dispute.

Hope this clarifies my argument for you!

I think it seems less crazy to call the vertical distance to a floor you cannot stand on impassable terrain.

I don't have an issue with the idea that an assaulter that could reach its target should be able to attack though. Maybe we should be modeling stair cases.

I agree that if you don't roll enough distance on the difficult terrain roll to reach the target unit, then you don't charge. That was never in dispute.

Yes, but why do you get to take a shortcut *through* terrain to assault? If it's possible (given enough movement) to go around to get into actual base to base, but you're limited by movement... why should you get the charge?

Perhaps we just see things inherently differently, but from my perspective terrain is the only thing that fundamentally separates 40k from Yahtzee with mascots. If the terrain is there, providing cover and being used as difficult terrain, why do you get to ignore it on the charge? With the people I play with, we treat terrain that impedes a model from being placed on it as terrain you can't stand on. Sometimes you have to go around to get the assault.

With the full floors question, I'd just suggest shooting them until a spot opens up, then assault them. It may be overly good for shooty squads that don't want to be assaulted, but that's a separate question from ignoring terrain to complete charges.

That said, house rules are house rules and can certainly make things less contentious -- the group I play with normally treats any physical contact as qualifying as "base to base".

Posted By Lowinor on 06/16/2006 5:27 PM

Perhaps we just see things inherently differently, but from my perspective terrain is the only thing that fundamentally separates 40k from Yahtzee with mascots. If the terrain is there, providing cover and being used as difficult terrain, why do you get to ignore it on the charge?

Well, you don't ignore the terrain, the defender gets to go at initiative 10.