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.

They have a rule that they ignores all terrain and model when they move. Is this just like with the Fly keyword, in that they also ignore vertical distance? Or should I measure diagonally through air if I want to move then on top of a nearby building?

torblind wrote:
They have a rule that they ignores all terrain and model when they move. Is this just like with the Fly keyword, in that they also ignore vertical distance? Or should I measure diagonally through air if I want to move then on top of a nearby building?

You measure horizontally and then vertically. Wraiths cannot FLY. It just means that they can't be boxed in by terrain or other models when they do move.

Also, being able to FLY doesn't ignore vertical distance anymore, they removed that part of the FAQ. Even if you can fly you still have to measure horizontally and then vertically just like all other models. That means, oddly, a FLY model can move to the other side of a 90" tall, 1" wide wall, but can't land on top of it.

The ignoring verticle distance thing that is only for charging right? They still do in the movement phase?

I was browsing the faqs and don't see otherwise course its very possible i missed it.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
The ignoring verticle distance thing that is only for charging right? They still do in the movement phase?

I was browsing the faqs and don't see otherwise course its very possible i missed it.

IIRC it was never a thing until the FAQ said it was for charging, which people extrapolated to the movement phase. Now they changed the rule for Fly to only work in the movement phase and removed that FAQ.

It's a tangled mess of FAQs that may or may not exist. Why they couldn't just add it to the actual rule (or add a line about how to measure) is beyond me.

It’s not that tangled or messy. Read the rule and any relevant FAQs. As the rule in question isn’t FLY the FAQ doesn’t apply, so just read and apply their rule.

Stop trying to complicate things to suit an agenda.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
The ignoring verticle distance thing that is only for charging right? They still do in the movement phase?

I was browsing the faqs and don't see otherwise course its very possible i missed it.

IIRC it was never a thing until the FAQ said it was for charging, which people extrapolated to the movement phase. Now they changed the rule for Fly to only work in the movement phase and removed that FAQ.

It's a tangled mess of FAQs that may or may not exist. Why they couldn't just add it to the actual rule (or add a line about how to measure) is beyond me.

I agree totally with this.

Before any FAQs it just said ignore terrain. Some people took that to also mean ignore vertical distance, but that never made sense to me. Ignore terrain does not mean ignore the vertical component of the relative positions before and after movement. But people argued that anyway.

Then there was an FAQ that said explicitly that you did ignore vertical distance.

Then that got removed apparently, which to me means you no longer ignore vertical distance at any time.

It is a massive mess though!

I thought you measured fly as a straight distance to the target position. Where does it say models with fly keyword has to move only horisontally and vertically?

Gitdakka wrote:
I thought you measured fly as a straight distance to the target position. Where does it say models with fly keyword has to move only horisontally and vertically?

This is the entirety of the current FLY rule:

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’

Note it says nothing of how to measure distances. The default is to measure horizontal and vertical components separately. There's nothing in the FLY rule to change that other than how you interpret the phrase "move across... terrain as if they were not there".

Gitdakka wrote:
I thought you measured fly as a straight distance to the target position. Where does it say models with fly keyword has to move only horisontally and vertically?

And to add what Stux said the "Stepping into a New Edition FAQ" (seriously GW I will literally work for a salary of £1 and fix your massive FAQ mess and update your ebooks for you) says:

Stepping into a New Edition FAQ wrote:Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed its Movement characteristic. This means that in order to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move down it.

Having the ability to FLY doesn't change this.

So what you propose “ignore” means if it doesn’t allow you to ignore anything?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So what you propose “ignore” means if it doesn’t allow you to ignore anything?

It means you can go over a 9000" wall no problem, but you can't land on top of it. I don't make the rules (if I did it wouldn't be so shoddy).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So what you propose “ignore” means if it doesn’t allow you to ignore anything?

It means you can go over a 9000" wall no problem, but you can't land on top of it. I don't make the rules (if I did it wouldn't be so shoddy).

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models and terrain as if they were not there.’

I agree with BCB. Flying models can move ACROSS models and terrain as if they were not there. If you choose, instead, to move onto a piece of terrain, you're choosing to move across the terrain piece as if it WAS there. Of course you'd measure distance in such a case.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So what you propose “ignore” means if it doesn’t allow you to ignore anything?

It means you can go over a 9000" wall no problem, but you can't land on top of it. I don't make the rules (if I did it wouldn't be so shoddy).

I would argue that a more correct explanation is that you can move THROUGH a 9000" tall wall but you cannot move OVER it to reduce any potential confusion here, since if you were to MOVE OVER it, as in count both horizontal and vertical distances, you'd end up somewhere along the side of the wall while invoking WMS.

To clarify something, wraiths dont have FLY, but their wraith form rule is worded pretty much the same :

Wraith Form
....During the Movement phase, models in this unit can move
across models and terrain as if they were not there.....

Not that someone tries to shoot them with flakk missile, that doesnt work.

Wraith are actually nerfed twice by this rule change. Because they arent infantry they cannot charge through the walls of ruins. They need one more turn to move into the ruin, or they have to charge up the ruin walls, and maybe down again to get to their targets.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So what you propose “ignore” means if it doesn’t allow you to ignore anything?

It means you can go over a 9000" wall no problem, but you can't land on top of it. I don't make the rules (if I did it wouldn't be so shoddy).

Agreed.

It makes no sense to me to interpret ignoring terrain to mean you ignore the vertical component of movement. You can move through terrain, but if you go up you still go up.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
I thought you measured fly as a straight distance to the target position. Where does it say models with fly keyword has to move only horisontally and vertically?

And to add what Stux said the "Stepping into a New Edition FAQ" (seriously GW I will literally work for a salary of £1 and fix your massive FAQ mess and update your ebooks for you) says:

Stepping into a New Edition FAQ wrote:Q: How do vertical distances work for movement and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed its Movement characteristic. This means that in order to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move down it.

Having the ability to FLY doesn't change this.

I dont understand this answer, could you clarify? I know models can go through stuff with fly, and I know they dont ignore vertical distance. Are you saying you allways have to split your movement into vertical and horizontal components? Or can you measure in other directions like say along the slope of a hill type terrain piece?

Gitdakka wrote:
I dont understand this answer, could you clarify? I know models can go through stuff with fly, and I know they dont ignore vertical distance. Are you saying you allways have to split your movement into vertical and horizontal components? Or can you measure in other directions like say along the slope of a hill type terrain piece?

You always split your movement into horizontal and vertical components. You need to bust out the calculus if you want to get an optimised value for going up sloped or rounded hills. Measuring diagonally will give an incorrect too-low value if you go up a convex hill. At least if you can't fly, if you can fly you can just measure the horizontal and vertical movement once and add them together.

Moving is always horizontal and vertical distance, if there is any. You never move diagonal. If your flying unit wants to move up a piece of terrain which is 4" high and 4" wide you must spend 8" of your movement. 4" vertical plus 4" horizontal.