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.

First lets see if I know anything about charging vehicles in the first place.

Scenario 1. I have Tau Commander Farsight, he's within 7" of a Eldar Waveserpent, and rolls a 7, so technically he's now within 1" of the waveserpent, and lets say the wave serpent is on flat ground. Because of the wave serpents clear base, its high enough that while Farsight has his torso within 1" of the Serpent, his base and the hull/base of the waveserpent in no way, shape, or form could they ever be any closer than 1.5". Does the charge fail?

Scenario 2. Same thing as above, except now, the waveserpent is on a 1.25" tall piece of terrain, the base is now 2.5" away and my model's torso is still within 1" of the hull. Does this charge fail?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
First lets see if I know anything about charging vehicles in the first place.

Scenario 1. I have Tau Commander Farsight, he's within 7" of a Eldar Waveserpent, and rolls a 7, so technically he's now within 1" of the waveserpent, and lets say the wave serpent is on flat ground. Because of the wave serpents clear base, its high enough that while Farsight has his torso within 1" of the Serpent, his base and the hull/base of the waveserpent in no way, shape, or form could they ever be any closer than 1.5". Does the charge fail?

Scenario 2. Same thing as above, except now, the waveserpent is on a 1.25" tall piece of terrain, the base is now 2.5" away and my model's torso is still within 1" of the hull. Does this charge fail?

RaW Wave Serpents are unchargeable if the charging model has a standard base. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756778.page#9976878

Same for scenario 2, all ranges are measured from the base, and there is no provision for increased vertical range in the charge or fight phase. It's 1" regardless of direction.

So to answer clearly, in both scenarios the charge fails.

If it has a base, your actual model has literally zero bearing on measuring range for any rules purposes, but does for Line of Sight.

Disregard.

LOL, that's not helpful! (but you get a point for the waveserpent snowflake rule)

Lets say its a hover tank that has a rule that says measure from the hull or the base to the charging model.

How is this handled in tournaments?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
LOL, that's not helpful! (but you get a point for the waveserpent snowflake rule)

Lets say its a hover tank that has a rule that says measure from the hull or the base to the charging model.

How is this handled in tournaments?

The Hover Tank rule for Codex: Craftworlds is explicit.

Hover Tank: Distance and ranges are always measured to and from this model’s hull, even though it has a base.

The fact GW changed it for other codexes is irrelevant. You can't claim an "or the base" clause when it doesn't exist.

How tournaments handle it is up to them. Their house, their house rules.

Back to my question on hand. Lets assume its a generic hover tank please, I wasn't aware the waveserpent had an asinine rule. If you like, a tau hammerhead (because I'm running hammerheads, and I'd like to know the RAW and RAI or at least what the 90% handle the situation).

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Back to my question on hand. Lets assume its a generic hover tank please, I wasn't aware the waveserpent had an asinine rule. If you like, a tau hammerhead (because I'm running hammerheads, and I'd like to know the RAW and RAI or at least what the 90% handle the situation).

If you're charging a Hover Tank that has some variation of "Instead of measuring distances to and from this model’s base, measure to and from this model’s hull or base (whichever is closer)", you measure to whatever is closer like the rule says and if your base isn't within 1" of either the charge fails. As I already said, there is provision for extending the "vertical" distance required, it's 1" in all directions.

Seems lousy, but I was of the same mindset, RAW... not possible. Was hoping a more playable solution had come to light.


Whats your take on you can't come within 1" a model that you are not charging, when its a hovertank, can the model part of my model get 1/4" away, because my base is over 1" from the hull?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Seems lousy, but I was of the same mindset, RAW... not possible. Was hoping a more playable solution had come to light.


Whats your take on you can't come within 1" a model that you are not charging, when its a hovertank, can the model part of my model get 1/4" away, because my base is over 1" from the hull?

As long as your base is more than 1" away from whatever the tank measures to, you're not within 1". It doesn't matter if the body of your model is within 1" because it's not within 1" by how the rules measure distances (assuming a normal model with a normal base).

It's probably worth mentioning at this point that, while strict RAW interpretations make charging various "skimmer"-type vehicles impossible, it's pretty much universally accepted that in your initial scenario the charge would succeed.

Yes, the rules are quite badly written, but in practical terms I've never seen anybody in a real-world setting apply them as written and everyone I've ever met or seen play has allowed skimmers to be charged.

The easiest way to houserule fix this issue is to say that you are within 1" of model itself and thus the charge succeeds. This only works for models that are completely inside the cylinder of the base though. Models that have spears/flags/wings that extend grossly past the edge of the base cannot use this house rule in a fair manner.

You need to play a reasonable opponent and agree before game how you’ll play it. These models don’t work 100% RAW, much pike a lot of things they require some agreement.

Of a curiosity, if you create a scenic base for a model, with a pole sticking out of the ground (like a banner or something), and the pole is within range of the skimmers hull, would this constitute the base being in range? As there is nothing (that I'm aware of) which clarifies what is base and what is model?

Just wondering if there's a way to model around the problem, in case I ever meet someone who would actually claim that their tanks are un-assaultable (it's such a bother packing up halfway through a game, after all!). What if you made your base 1" thick? it'd make hiding in cover more difficult, but the base would be within 1" of the hull.

If you have to go to those lengths you know you’re left the spirit of the rules far behind and are (in this case literally) reaching...

 some bloke wrote:
Of a curiosity, if you create a scenic base for a model, with a pole sticking out of the ground (like a banner or something), and the pole is within range of the skimmers hull, would this constitute the base being in range? As there is nothing (that I'm aware of) which clarifies what is base and what is model?

Just wondering if there's a way to model around the problem, in case I ever meet someone who would actually claim that their tanks are un-assaultable (it's such a bother packing up halfway through a game, after all!). What if you made your base 1" thick? it'd make hiding in cover more difficult, but the base would be within 1" of the hull.

Base is part of the model for all rules purposes.

Yes, what you say technically works. While there's nothing in the rules to stop you, it would clearly be modelling for advantage. Sometimes it's not clear where that line is, but in this case you are literally modelling to give yourself an advantage!

Better to house rule skimmers than to go down that road imo.

So would a good way of house ruling it, be... if you are within 1" of the hull from an overhead view, regardless of the shape of the skimmer and regardless of the height of the peg (for assaulting assume zero), and your base is then within 1" of the skimmer profile (yay bring back cylinders), then you can make the charge.

I'm making two assumptions. Make a cylinder profile of the skimmer, and negate the stem on the base because that can be modeled to advantage. (I would run the tallest stem to negate charges completely otherwise)

Bacon,

If we accept that, the competative solution is to run either the tall 35mm stem. And then no one can charge any hover tank, unless you had a really large base that could move under a hover tank, or really small models like my 2nd edition nurglings, where the models fit under the hover and can reach the base.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Bacon,

If we accept that, the competative solution is to run either the tall 35mm stem. And then no one can charge any hover tank, unless you had a really large base that could move under a hover tank, or really small models like my 2nd edition nurglings, where the models fit under the hover and can reach the base.

Yes, that is the case. It's stupid but it's what GW intends until they errata or FAQ otherwise.

I'm sure you're usually the first one who rails against "authors' intent" when it comes to rules. In any case, I'd suggest that wave serpents being immune to close combat attacks isn't what they intend.

It might be, but I'd expect a fairly solid bit of evidence to back that up, not just "it's not been FAQed yet".

Also people forget that ALL new vehicles coming out of GW and forgeworld are being given round oval bases, which completely negates the need for questions and rules inquiry's like this.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm sure you're usually the first one who rails against "authors' intent" when it comes to rules. In any case, I'd suggest that wave serpents being immune to close combat attacks isn't what they intend.

It might be, but I'd expect a fairly solid bit of evidence to back that up, not just "it's not been FAQed yet".

I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written. I don't see the need for you try and strawman my opinions when my opinions are logically consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Also people forget that ALL new vehicles coming out of GW and forgeworld are being given round oval bases, which completely negates the need for questions and rules inquiry's like this.

My personal dream is for GW to stop being cowards and force bases onto all models, even legacy boxy vehicles like Land Raiders and Skimmers, and make base size a statistic on the datasheet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written. I don't see the need for you try and strawman my opinions when my opinions are logically consistent..

Rules may be intentionally written, but it's been obvious from the FAQs that they do now always consider the ramifications of what they wrote or consider the interactions with other rules, so those ramifications and interactions are not necessarily intended. Therefore, stating that RAW = RAI is incorrect.

Remember, we're discussing a rule, not the concept of RAW and RAI.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Also people forget that ALL new vehicles coming out of GW and forgeworld are being given round oval bases, which completely negates the need for questions and rules inquiry's like this.

Are there any hover tanks included in that?

 Sazzlefrats wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Also people forget that ALL new vehicles coming out of GW and forgeworld are being given round oval bases, which completely negates the need for questions and rules inquiry's like this.

Are there any hover tanks included in that?

The Repulsor has the Hover Tank rule, but distances are measured to the Hull and not the base.

 Stux wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Of a curiosity, if you create a scenic base for a model, with a pole sticking out of the ground (like a banner or something), and the pole is within range of the skimmers hull, would this constitute the base being in range? As there is nothing (that I'm aware of) which clarifies what is base and what is model?

Just wondering if there's a way to model around the problem, in case I ever meet someone who would actually claim that their tanks are un-assaultable (it's such a bother packing up halfway through a game, after all!). What if you made your base 1" thick? it'd make hiding in cover more difficult, but the base would be within 1" of the hull.

Base is part of the model for all rules purposes.

Yes, what you say technically works. While there's nothing in the rules to stop you, it would clearly be modelling for advantage. Sometimes it's not clear where that line is, but in this case you are literally modelling to give yourself an advantage!

Better to house rule skimmers than to go down that road imo.

I would see it more as "modelling for fairness" - if someone tries to use the geometry of their models to prevent me from making a charge against them, then I would have no qualms about adding details to my base (I'd be silly; I'd put stepladders on everyone's base) to counter it.

I do agree that the best solution is to go by 1" from the hull, not the inaccessible base, and I would be flabbergasted if I ever played against someone who claimed their tanks to be unassaultable due to this rule.

An alternative is to model a bunch or orks crawling on the floor, just to take the p**s out of the situation! swap them out and get them under there!

Are there any rules about adding bases to models who don't normally have them? EG adding a tiny base in the middle of a battlewagon, thus making it unassaultable?

There are no game rules about modelling your miniatures, which is why being reasonable is extremely important to the game being enjoyable for anybody at all.

 Stux wrote:
There are no game rules about modelling your miniatures, which is why being reasonable is extremely important to the game being enjoyable for anybody at all.

I agree entirely, and I don't think that I will ever need to do anything like this! but if I ever came across someone who claimed I can't assault their vehicles, I may add a "hover mode" to my battlewagons to pull that same trick right back at them!

It would actually be an awesome conversion... wheels fold in back to the future style, as the base lifts the wagon up...

I may have found a new project...

 some bloke wrote:


I agree entirely, and I don't think that I will ever need to do anything like this! but if I ever came across someone who claimed I can't assault their vehicles, I may add a "hover mode" to my battlewagons to pull that same trick right back at them!

It would actually be an awesome conversion... wheels fold in back to the future style, as the base lifts the wagon up...

I may have found a new project...

Looted Repulsor?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am of the position that RaW = RaI because rules are intentionally written.

If it is not possible to assault a Wave Serpent (RaW), then the converse is also true; the Wave Serpent cannot assault because it cannot manoeuvre its base within 1" of an enemy model. But GW have given the Wave Serpent an attacks characteristic indicating their intent that the Wave Serpent could engage in a fight sub-phase. So Raw does not equal RaI.