Switch Theme:

Charging distance against Skimmers(Raiders) from deepstrike  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




If you charge a skimmer that "measures from the hull" with a unit that arrived via deepstrike is it possible to have an 8" charge instead of 9"?

From what I understand the deepstrike distance requires you to be >9" away from the HULL of the unit which includes the vertical distance the unit is off the ground. However, the charge distance is measured to the engagement range of the unit which means you would ignore the vertical distance in most circumstances. Leading it to be easy to be >9" away from a skimmer hull, but also be <9" of engagement range of the skimmer.



   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

When you deepstrike 9.01" away from a raider the distance is measured to the hull (diagonally), which is some distance above ground, i dont how much. When you charge you move horizontally, that distance is shorter than 9.01". If we assume that the hull is 1.5" above that battlefield, and the diagonal distance is 9.01", the horizontal distance is 8.88", which is an 8" charge, because engagement range is within 1" horizontal and within 5" vertical of the hull.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




It doesn't even have to be a skimmer. If the vehicle has any sort of protruding element that's not on the ground level, like a leman russ' side sponsons or the elevated tracks on its front, and you position your unit correctly, you can achieve the same 8" charge just as easily.
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






While stricktly RAW this would be correct, do not expect anyone to actually play it that way.

The intent is obvious that you have to roll a 9 when coming out of deep strike, unless you have ability's, strats, or buffs helping.

Otherwise my dread host Telemon with one fist and a storm cannon only has to make a 7 inch charge on 3d6 drop the lowest and with a free reroll.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 Eihnlazer wrote:
While stricktly RAW this would be correct, do not expect anyone to actually play it that way.

The intent is obvious that you have to roll a 9 when coming out of deep strike, unless you have ability's, strats, or buffs helping.


Why shouldnt it be intended ? When you deepstrike 9.01" away from a unit which is on the first floor of a 5" tall ruin, the charge distance is 8, according to the FAQs. Which, btw is wrong, because its a 7. There is an example in the indomitus 1.2 update with picture on the first page, so thats clearly intended.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Eihnlazer wrote:
While stricktly RAW this would be correct, do not expect anyone to actually play it that way.

The intent is obvious that you have to roll a 9 when coming out of deep strike, unless you have ability's, strats, or buffs helping.

Otherwise my dread host Telemon with one fist and a storm cannon only has to make a 7 inch charge on 3d6 drop the lowest and with a free reroll.

People argued that with ruins, and we literally have a FAQ saying otherwise. So no, the intent is not obvious. Therefore, play by RAW until FAQ'd otherwise.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




If the models is higher than 4.13 inches from the ground level, the required charge roll becomes a 7. As JakeSiren said, GW itself explained how and why you can do it in a FAQ, so it's a 100% valid. Keep in mind those vehicles can also get 8" charges against anything when coming out of deep strike, so in many cases it's a tradeoff.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




This has been around forever, long before Raiders & Co made their splash on the meta.

If you really wanna play it RAW, there're lots of ways to get there.


Spoiler:
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Using your bases upside down is not legal, as the assembling instructions show you the proper way to use them, and doing otherwise would be considered modeling for advantage.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Sunny Side Up wrote:
This has been around forever, long before Raiders & Co made their splash on the meta.

If you really wanna play it RAW, there're lots of ways to get there.


Spoiler:


Oh don’t bring that Reddit guff into a rules thread. It’s not clever.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
This has been around forever, long before Raiders & Co made their splash on the meta.

If you really wanna play it RAW, there're lots of ways to get there.


Spoiler:


Oh don’t bring that Reddit guff into a rules thread. It’s not clever.


I thought it was hilarious (and obviously meant to be so).
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Seizeman wrote:
Using your bases upside down is not legal, as the assembling instructions show you the proper way to use them, and doing otherwise would be considered modeling for advantage.


So a model assembled differently to the assembly instructions is illegal?

That's a can of worms there, lol.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Sunny Side Up wrote:
Seizeman wrote:
Using your bases upside down is not legal, as the assembling instructions show you the proper way to use them, and doing otherwise would be considered modeling for advantage.


So a model assembled differently to the assembly instructions is illegal?

That's a can of worms there, lol.


It's not if the model retains the original model's functionality, which is not the case if you turn the base upside down, in the same way that you can't significantly alter the model's size to be able to hide it better, etc
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Seizeman wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Seizeman wrote:
Using your bases upside down is not legal, as the assembling instructions show you the proper way to use them, and doing otherwise would be considered modeling for advantage.


So a model assembled differently to the assembly instructions is illegal?

That's a can of worms there, lol.


It's not if the model retains the original model's functionality, which is not the case if you turn the base upside down, in the same way that you can't significantly alter the model's size to be able to hide it better, etc
The only thing you're breaking would be the unspoken rule of 'Don't be TFG if you want others to play with you'.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
The only thing you're breaking would be the unspoken rule of 'Don't be TFG if you want others to play with you'.


Sure. Of course.

But that is the same for using pythagoras on the Raider or whatever (and about 80% of all stuff discussed in YMDC).

As an exercise in RAW, there're no rules on what base I can use or cannot use. Certainly there is no requirement to use GW bases that I know of (would you be disqualified for a Secret Weapons base?), nor any requirement to which side I use as the upside. Hell, using it upside-down might just be what I do for epoxy resin to get a nice water effect or whatever. Take those 8" deepstrike charges and win the hobby track!!


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 18:27:20


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





Sunny Side Up wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The only thing you're breaking would be the unspoken rule of 'Don't be TFG if you want others to play with you'.


Sure. Of course.

But that is the same for using pythagoras on the Raider or whatever (and about 80% of all stuff discussed in YMDC).

As an exercise in RAW, there're no rules on what base I can use or cannot use. Certainly there is no requirement to use GW bases that I know of (would you be disqualified for a Secret Weapons base?), nor any requirement to which side I use as the upside. Hell, using it upside-down might just be what I do for epoxy resin to get a nice water effect or whatever. Take those 8" deepstrike charges and win the hobby track!!


Yes, and more you venture into 'well, the rulebook doesn't tell me I can't, so why the hell not', more you're approaching the realm of TFG.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Correct.

Not doubting that.

In that sense, the entire thread is obviously moot and you still charge 9“ to a Raider from Deepstrike.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Audustum wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
This has been around forever, long before Raiders & Co made their splash on the meta.

If you really wanna play it RAW, there're lots of ways to get there.


Spoiler:


Oh don’t bring that Reddit guff into a rules thread. It’s not clever.


I thought it was hilarious (and obviously meant to be so).


But look what you did… too many folk round here who’d run with that, and the thread has indeed gone off on that tangent.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Seizeman wrote:
Using your bases upside down is not legal,
Citation needed, as I do not see anything in the rulebook about the orientation of a model's base.

as the assembling instructions show you the proper way to use them
A models assembly instructions have nothing to do with the 40k rulebook. Remember that "2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs."

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

and doing otherwise would be considered modeling for advantage.
While this may be the case, modeling and modeling for advantage are not covered in the rules for 40k either. (Some tournaments may have house rules about this though).

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Citation needed, as I do not see anything in the rulebook about the orientation of a model's base.


Every tournament I've ever known has a rule against modeling for advantage. Generally, if you model your miniature in a way that's different from the instructions or the way they are portrayed in the official sources, and that gives you a clear advantage, you are violating that rule. The assembling guides and all official pictures show models where their bases are placed with the wider part on the ground level, and doing otherwise gives you a gameplay advantage, so that fits into the modeling for advantage rules violation. Furthermore, since the obvious reason to assemble your bases upside down is to gain a gameplay advantage, It's likely that the judge is going to be particularly severe when ruling against it.

In casual play there's the problem of everyone you try to play against telling you to feth off.

Since the only way to play 40k is either in a tournament or a casual setting, there's no way to play the rules as you want, even if you were right.

However, the rules refer to particular types of model by name. The assembling instructions are part of what defines the model. If you build an intercessor in a way that doesn't fit the instructions, then it's not an intercessor, but a different model, and you can't use intercessor rules with something that's not an intercessor.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Seizeman wrote:
However, the rules refer to particular types of model by name. The assembling instructions are part of what defines the model. If you build an intercessor in a way that doesn't fit the instructions, then it's not an intercessor, but a different model, and you can't use intercessor rules with something that's not an intercessor.
This part you are just making up.

There is nothing that says If you build a model in a way that doesn't fit the instructions, then it's not that model, but a different model.

If I put together a AM squad and use different heads, are they no longer AM infantry?

How much of a model needs to be a 'Citadel miniature' for it to be considered a 'Citadel miniature'?

Are these still AM infantry?

Spoiler:



The rules do not cover putting your Citadel miniatures together.

As I said previously, and it is an important bit:

Modeling and modeling for advantage are not covered in the rules for 40k. (Some tournaments may have house rules about this though).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 23:23:05


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin





Livermore, Ca

I've seen rules that say that if you deepstrike on the ground floor and charge a unit on the 1st floor then your charge may be shorter than 9". But... I haven't seen anything that covers vehicles being treated the same way.

I would think that in practice, even tournaments that you'd just play the 9" rule.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Sazzlefrats wrote:
I've seen rules that say that if you deepstrike on the ground floor and charge a unit on the 1st floor then your charge may be shorter than 9". But... I haven't seen anything that covers vehicles being treated the same way.

I would think that in practice, even tournaments that you'd just play the 9" rule.


What it comes down to is that engagement range is defined as 1" horizontally and 5" vertically, with no stipulation for -why- you're measuring vertically. The key point being that you don't measure engagement range diagonally through space, unlike the normal distance measurements in the game (heroic intervention has a similar set of horizontal and vertical distance stipulations that don't specify -why- they're used, just specify that they're used).

So while the FAQ listed as "Warhammer 40,000 Core Book Updated 07/01/2021" in the FAQ section calls out multi-level terrain as the sort of situation which enables the situation where you've set up outside of 9" but need less than that to charge, it's not the only situation in which that sort of thing arises.

On the other hand, the rules appear to say that you only measure to the hull of a vehicle if it doesn't have a base (the first paragraph of Measuring Distances specifies this. Since anything with a flying stand is pretty much on a base, I'm not sure what text there is allowing anyone to measure to the hull of a vehicle mounted on a flying stand (instead of having to measure to the vehicle's base).
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Theres a stipulation for vehicles with a base that says measure from the base or the hull (whichever is closest).

the prow/blades on a flying vehicle will almost always be closest.

The problem arrises since the vehicle is off the ground, it can access the verticle part of coherency and cut some distance on the charge.

Unfortunately, allowing this strict RAW ruling allows for some rather shadey stuff to happen so its better to say that it doesnt work.

The example I gave is that a Telemon dreadnought who takes a Storm cannon for one arm can deep strike 9" away and have a 7" charge due to the length of the gun barrel and that fact that it isnt more than 5" above the table.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Eihnlazer wrote:
Theres a stipulation for vehicles with a base that says measure from the base or the hull (whichever is closest).


Can you provide a reference for this, as I think you are mistaken. The core rules (“Measuring Distances”) say to measure the closest points of the bases of models, and if the model does not have a base to use the closest point of the model (measuring to the model’s hull). Some datasheets stipulate that you should measure to and from the hull instead of the base (eg. repulsor ).

AFAIK there is no rule to saying to measure whichever is closer, the base or the hull.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/15 08:51:45


 
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

Some necron vehicles have the hovering rule.

Hovering
Distances are measured to and from either this model's hull or its base, whichever is the closest.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 p5freak wrote:
Some necron vehicles have the hovering rule.

Hovering
Distances are measured to and from either this model's hull or its base, whichever is the closest.


Thanks!! I didn’t know that!
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Unfortunately, allowing this strict RAW ruling allows for some rather shadey stuff to happen so its better to say that it doesnt work.


You break the rules when you say that it doesnt work. GW has clearly shown in their FAQ that its intended that a unit coming in from deepstrike can have a shorter charge, when there is vertical distance involved.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/15 09:54:17


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:

Unfortunately, allowing this strict RAW ruling allows for some rather shadey stuff to happen so its better to say that it doesnt work.


You break the rules when you say that it doesnt work. GW has clearly shown in their FAQ that its intended that a unit coming in from deepstrike can have a shorter charge, when there is vertical distance involved.


Than put the raiders on a 10" round pizza-plate base that extends beyond the hull. Problem solved.


You'd also be houseruling the game if you require specific bases or assembly of models, as the game has no provisions for that.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 p5freak wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:

Unfortunately, allowing this strict RAW ruling allows for some rather shadey stuff to happen so its better to say that it doesnt work.


You break the rules when you say that it doesnt work. GW has clearly shown in their FAQ that its intended that a unit coming in from deepstrike can have a shorter charge, when there is vertical distance involved.

From Warhammer Community, updated 2 June 2021:

Due to some quirky interactions with vertical distances (and some fascinating Pythagorean loopholes), certain units and Vehicles could be charged easier than others by units arriving from teleportation chambers or other similar rules.

As much as we’re fond of bringing ancient geometry to our tabletop battles, it didn’t treat all models fairly. To ensure there’s a level playing field the Studio team have clarified these distances. Now, you’ll always have to make that 9” charge to reach your foe on the turn you arrive.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: