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 folks,

I have had my first game with my new Nids recently. One thing that I noticed is that it can be difficult (or impossible) to get certain units in close combat.

Say I have unit of 20 Hormagaunts. It is absolutely impossible to move that many models into base contact vs much smaller units, but thats alright since models from that unit can still strike if they are within 2" (resp. 6" vertically) of a model that is in direct base contact.

Problems arise when I want to move something bigger (Carnifex, Hive Tyrant etc.) into the same close combat. As these models are from a different unit they first have to launch a successful assault, which means I need to make base contact. The problem is that even a small number of Gaunts can shield off any further base contact, especially for models with a large base. It makes up for really silly situations where second and third row Gaunts could strike, but a towering Carnifex cant.

Lets look at some pictures:



All the Gaunts (yes I know they are mixed...pretend they are all Hormagaunts) can strike. Carnifex cant.

It gets more ridiculous in multi level ruins:



Again, all Gaunts can strike, poor Carnifex cant (even though hes already poking the Incubus with this spikey bits)

I'm thinking about house ruling this somehow. My initial idea is to allow secondary assaulter to strike if a) they could have made base contact (i.e. they rolled enough base-to-base range) and b) can be placed within 2"/6"h of a model in base to base contact.

I'm curious how other player or tournament organizers rule this, because even in RAW the situation is not 100% clear (read the failed charge rule, it only states "range", not "base to base contact"). Any input in the matter is appreciated!







I wonder how you guys solved this kind of situation. Any input on the matter is appreciated!

This is exactly how it works. And I think it makes fluff sense. If someone is being swarmed by little dudes and a big dude walks up, the little guys will need to either get out of the way (no rules mechanism for this other than something like Hit and Run) or the big guy will have to wait his turn.

As to the Ruins example, this makes even more sense. Best place to hide from a big monster is a narrow corridor where he'll have trouble reaching you.

Honestly, this is one of the downsides to assault only armies. There are numerous situations where you can position your models to make them immune to assault. Entirely fill up one level of a ruins for example. Your opponent won't be able to get even a single model into base to base.

 Kriswall wrote:

...
Honestly, this is one of the downsides to assault only armies. There are numerous situations where you can position your models to make them immune to assault. Entirely fill up one level of a ruins for example. Your opponent won't be able to get even a single model into base to base.

The only assault immunity comes from bubblewrapping units with other units - which are then in the way that the assaulting unit needs to take.

Similar to a failed Psychic Shriek ballistic test, there is no effect if you cannot place your model in base to base contact.
As long as you are eligible to attempt and succesful at making your charge distance roll, you are in melee.

Like I said, the rules are not clear as they lack a definition of a successful charge. You can deduce from the definition of unsuccessful charges, but then, like you say, only the rolled range matters (NOT base-to-base contact).

Honestly I'm more interested in how more players handle the situation. .

This has always driven me nuts. I want to assault with two squads this turn, but nope they cant both charge into the melee because the one charged first and woops I got that 12" charge now I'm gonna completely surround every one of their bases. Now my second squad can't charge and is just gonna have to sit there in the open getting shot.

 Stephanius wrote:
Similar to a failed Psychic Shriek ballistic test, there is no effect if you cannot place your model in base to base contact.
As long as you are eligible to attempt and succesful at making your charge distance roll, you are in melee.

If you can not move the model in such a way as to end in base contact, you weren't successful on your charge distance roll.

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Similar to a failed Psychic Shriek ballistic test, there is no effect if you cannot place your model in base to base contact.
As long as you are eligible to attempt and succesful at making your charge distance roll, you are in melee.

If you can not move the model in such a way as to end in base contact, you weren't successful on your charge distance roll.

The rules do not state that.
In fact, the instruction to place the models in contact follows only a successful charge distance roll, making your assertion illogical.

The placement in contact is meant to clearly show which units are engaged in nelee, similar to ICs being attached or detached based on positioning.

In my view a minimal loss of board clarity is preferable to shenanigans with that guy claming charge immunity while standing on a soap box.

 Stephanius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Similar to a failed Psychic Shriek ballistic test, there is no effect if you cannot place your model in base to base contact.
As long as you are eligible to attempt

This is where your argument falls apart. You aren't eligible to attempt. I'll explain below.

and succesful at making your charge distance roll, you are in melee.

If you can not move the model in such a way as to end in base contact, you weren't successful on your charge distance roll.

The rules do not state that.
In fact, the instruction to place the models in contact follows only a successful charge distance roll, making your assertion illogical.

The placement in contact is meant to clearly show which units are engaged in nelee, similar to ICs being attached or detached based on positioning.

In my view a minimal loss of board clarity is preferable to shenanigans with that guy claming charge immunity while standing on a soap box.

Small rulebook, page 45, "Declare Charge" section - "A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm."

So you see, you never actually roll the charge range dice. If you can't get a model into base to base, then you can't reach the unit. Using the rule above, you can't declare a charge against that unit. You're not eligible to make that charge. It can be a pretty cheesy tactic, but it's very possible to deploy models in such a way that they are immune to assault. Bubble-wrapping with other models is one technique. Exploiting cramped ruins or filling an entire level of a ruin is another technique.

In the case of Tyranids, a Pile In move can wrap itself around the attacking unit, correct? Pile in to the left, shuffle around and open up room for other bugs to Pile In. Since Nids often outnumber their 'prey' the 2" move might be enough to swing the models down the line and around the back if the assault goes on long enough, or am I wrong?

Another thing is the actual orientation of the model itself. Assault with the butt and while it looks stupid on the table, backing into something with its tail raised... The back end of a Nid model tends to take up less space and can sometimes, such as the Carnifex in the ruin picture, fit under terrain to put the base where it needs to be. Hormagaunts are ones I almost always have running backwards for base contact because of how the model is physically designed.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Similar to a failed Psychic Shriek ballistic test, there is no effect if you cannot place your model in base to base contact.
As long as you are eligible to attempt

This is where your argument falls apart. You aren't eligible to attempt. I'll explain below.

and succesful at making your charge distance roll, you are in melee.

If you can not move the model in such a way as to end in base contact, you weren't successful on your charge distance roll.

The rules do not state that.
In fact, the instruction to place the models in contact follows only a successful charge distance roll, making your assertion illogical.

The placement in contact is meant to clearly show which units are engaged in nelee, similar to ICs being attached or detached based on positioning.

In my view a minimal loss of board clarity is preferable to shenanigans with that guy claming charge immunity while standing on a soap box.

Small rulebook, page 45, "Declare Charge" section - "A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm."

So you see, you never actually roll the charge range dice. If you can't get a model into base to base, then you can't reach the unit. Using the rule above, you can't declare a charge against that unit. You're not eligible to make that charge. It can be a pretty cheesy tactic, but it's very possible to deploy models in such a way that they are immune to assault. Bubble-wrapping with other models is one technique. Exploiting cramped ruins or filling an entire level of a ruin is another technique.

Except for the fact that the Declare charge section clearly refers to charge distance with "reach". That is explicitly explained just after the bold sentence you cited. Being able to reach means within 12" or 10" inches respectively.

 Stephanius wrote:
Except for the fact that the Declare charge section clearly refers to charge distance with "reach". That is explicitly explained just after the bold sentence you cited. Being able to reach means within 12" or 10" inches respectively.

I'm not sure what distinction you are seeing there.

If there is some obstacle that is preventing you from moving into contact with the enemy model, then you will never be able to reach the model. You could roll an infinite charge distance, and you will still never be able to move in a path that will get you into contact with the enemy model before you run out of movement distance.

I guess the question would be... If you can't get into base to base as a result of your charge, where do you propose that you put your model? I need to check the rules, but I believe the instruction is to put the closest model into base to base, not as close as you can get.

 Kriswall wrote:
I guess the question would be... If you can't get into base to base as a result of your charge, where do you propose that you put your model? I need to check the rules, but I believe the instruction is to put the closest model into base to base, not as close as you can get.

This seems to be correct. Page 46 top right paragraph. "Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy......."

If it's any consolation, you only have to be within 2" of a friendly model in the assault to be engaged and get your swings. 2" from a TMC can be quite a lot of smaller guys.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
If it's any consolation, you only have to be within 2" of a friendly model in the assault to be engaged and get your swings. 2" from a TMC can be quite a lot of smaller guys.

At least one model from the unit still needs to make it into base contact, though.

“A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

You have to be able to reach the unit. This USUALLY means any unit up to 12" away, but ultimately includes the requirement that you can reach the unit. If you can't get into base to base, you can't reach the unit, no matter how actually close you are. Hence, you can't declare a charge.

 Kriswall wrote:
“A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).”

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” v1.0. Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

You have to be able to reach the unit. This USUALLY means any unit up to 12" away, but ultimately includes the requirement that you can reach the unit. If you can't get into base to base, you can't reach the unit, no matter how actually close you are. Hence, you can't declare a charge.

I'm sorry, but I believe that you are interpreting this incorrectly. You're interpreting "..cannot reach..." to mean "...cannot be placed in base to base contact..." but that's not what it says. In fact it goes on in the very next sentence to say, "this means that a charge can only be declared on a unit up to 12" away". Very, very clearly they are not talking about whether or not you are able to place a model in base to base contact in this paragraph. They are only talking about distance.

In fact, just two pages later "failed charge" is also very clearly defined: "If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved." That is all. Those are the only words used to define a failed charge. There is absolutely no mention of not being able to place the initial charger in base to base, because only the distance matters.

Thank god 7th edition still has the "wobbly model" rules on page 20 of the BRB. This removes any question. "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard to put a model exactly where you want. If you delicately balance it in place it is very likely to fall as soon as somebody nudges the table, leaving your beautifully painted miniature damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location." So roll your charge range, move your model up to the second floor of that ruins, hovering out in the air next to the model you were charging, then claim the "wobbly model" rule and place it down on the first floor in a safer location. Your charge was successful, and you can now repeat this process with all the charging models. They will all "count" as being in base to base as long as they were in range to make it to the second floor, but placed in a safe location (since they clearly can't hover without falling and getting damaged).

(edited to remove the snarky bits)

NightHowler wrote:
You're interpreting "..cannot reach..." to mean "...cannot be placed in base to base contact..."

Yes that's what it means.


I'm sitting in a 2-meter-wide car that has enough petrol in it to drive 100m. I'm at one end of an 80 meter long bridge that is only half a meter wide. Can my car reach the other side of the bridge?

No, clearly not. The fact that I am capable of travelling a distance equivalent to the length of the bridge doesn't change the fact that it is physically impossible for me to travel that distance and subsequently reach the other end of the bridge.


Wobbly Model Syndrome does solve the issue where the problem is with fitting around terrain if you allow it to apply to that situation. Some players take the more hardline approach that WMS requires you to be able to physically place the model in its final location in order for it to apply.

 insaniak wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
You're interpreting "..cannot reach..." to mean "...cannot be placed in base to base contact..."

Yes that's what it means.


I'm sitting in a 2-meter-wide car that has enough petrol in it to drive 100m. I'm at one end of an 80 meter long bridge that is only half a meter wide. Can my car reach the other side of the bridge?

No, clearly not. The fact that I am capable of travelling a distance equivalent to the length of the bridge doesn't change the fact that it is physically impossible for me to travel that distance and subsequently reach the other end of the bridge.


[...]

Applying real world logic to 40k

First of all, thanks for the discussion. Kristwall brought up some clarifying points, citing an out of rulebook source. I expect that this is how its going to be played in a tournament, though I have a feeling that GW is deliberately staying vague on the subject. They know their models and they must know full well that it's impossible to place something like a hormagaunt in BtB contact proper. The WMS rule had to come up but that rule is also not clear regarding the involvement of base contact and combat.

Let me also prephase this: I'm not trying to argue in favour of my army. I play mainly DE vs assault heavy armies and quiete frankly I don't want to be able to hide my stuff in untouchable terrain. We use a lot of the GW ruins because they look awesome, they are not supposed to tip over the game balance in such a major fashion. I simply don't want to get into that argument with my opponent, I want a scenic table.

Tyranids in particular are bound to run into rule issues when it comes to assault, that's why I bring them up in the first place. Like I said earlier, IMHO this is a fluff nightmare. Look at any pictures of tyranid armies advancing - they come across like a liquid tide of meat and claw, not like a orderly phalanx. Especially gaunts have this slithery nature upon them, I would fully expect them (like a cat) to fit anywhere where they want. The first image I posted represents a rule situation that is for me almost painful to look at. Does anyone actually believe that the Carnifex would "wait till its his turn"? Of course not, he would strike as he is quite obviously able to.

You can tell its a contrivance. Gaunts from the same unit can strike over much longer distances and if the rules would allow the Fex to join a unit he would magically find his ability to attack as well. I believe that the concept of unit composition is alien to tyranids.

Certainly there's an element of suspension of disbelief. You could argue over a ton of rules from a fluff perspective. But if you look at the model range the Nids, an assault centric army, they are being hit especially hard.

Most Hormagants can't make it into B2B contact by the way they are modelled. More importantly though, they take up much more actual space than they should. Compare them to a (in reality larger and bulkier) marine who takes up a fraction of board space. I bet 2 gaunts could squeeze themselves into a piece of servo armor. Anyway, at a point we have to ask ourselves what we are doing when we are facing our miniatures the wrong way so that more models can strike in combat. Seriously, what the hell.

I will implement two house rules, one concerning the nature of my gaming table, the other one more general.

1) ruin levels: if models can climb up and down as easy as spending 3 inches and participate in fights over several levels (that is an explicit rule) it is easy enough to assume that they can also initiate a fight with models on a crowded floor. They will need to roll the proper distance ( including the 3 inches up) but placing them below the crowded floor will suffice. They will also suffer from charging through difficult terrain (I don't treat the ground floor of ruins as area terrain).

2) models can successfully charge if they roll the proper distance and can be placed within 2 inch of a model in B2B contact. I feel like this in the spirit of the rule of encouraging active close combat (many pile in moves, 2 inch striking distance etc.). Note that this does not prevent tactics such as bubble wrapping, it would not allow you to assault a unit that is not already engaged in the first place. It just prevents silly situations as in picture 1.

I would also think long and hard about playing my swarm-style nids army outside of my group. I feel like there's no other army that needs as rules leeway to do what its supposed to do.

 insaniak wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
You're interpreting "..cannot reach..." to mean "...cannot be placed in base to base contact..."

Yes that's what it means.


I'm sitting in a 2-meter-wide car that has enough petrol in it to drive 100m. I'm at one end of an 80 meter long bridge that is only half a meter wide. Can my car reach the other side of the bridge?

No, clearly not. The fact that I am capable of travelling a distance equivalent to the length of the bridge doesn't change the fact that it is physically impossible for me to travel that distance and subsequently reach the other end of the bridge.


Wobbly Model Syndrome does solve the issue where the problem is with fitting around terrain if you allow it to apply to that situation. Some players take the more hardline approach that WMS requires you to be able to physically place the model in its final location in order for it to apply.

Obstacles for movement are clearly defined in 40k. Impassable terrain and moving through other units come to mind.

Your example would be impassable terrain with no option to go around it, which is not what is being discussed here.

The BRB defines a failed charge as follows:
Failed Charge: If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

With no other failing conditions mentioned I conclude that the charge succeeds regardless of cheeky positioning.

So for the Tangent on un-reachable fortified Units, i agree with Stephanius. The RaW is perfectly clear "Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy..."
If you fail to obey that rule, you are breaking rules and i would bid you a fair Day and walk away.

As to the OP question, do not forget this:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
If it's any consolation, you only have to be within 2" of a friendly model in the assault to be engaged and get your swings. 2" from a TMC can be quite a lot of smaller guys.

In both of your Examples, the carnifex could also strike blows if he succeeded his charge distance.
"A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."

It does not have to be a model within your own Unit, it can be from another Unit.

 Stephanius wrote:
Your example would be impassable terrain with no option to go around it, which is not what is being discussed here.

It's effectively the same thing, though. The model is within the your charge distance, but the intervening terrain prevents you from reaching it.

The BRB defines a failed charge as follows:
Failed Charge: If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Right. So in the examples given at the start of the thread, is the charging model's charge distance sufficient for it to finish its movement in contact with the charge target?

If there is no legal way to place the model in contact with the target, the answer is clearly 'no'.

 insaniak wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
You're interpreting "..cannot reach..." to mean "...cannot be placed in base to base contact..."

Yes that's what it means.


I'm sitting in a 2-meter-wide car that has enough petrol in it to drive 100m. I'm at one end of an 80 meter long bridge that is only half a meter wide. Can my car reach the other side of the bridge?

No, clearly not. The fact that I am capable of travelling a distance equivalent to the length of the bridge doesn't change the fact that it is physically impossible for me to travel that distance and subsequently reach the other end of the bridge.


Wobbly Model Syndrome does solve the issue where the problem is with fitting around terrain if you allow it to apply to that situation. Some players take the more hardline approach that WMS requires you to be able to physically place the model in its final location in order for it to apply.

I think you and I agree. I was not trying to imply that the situation in the OP could be a successful charge.

I was responding to the claim that you could make models immune to a charge by crowding the second floor of a ruins so that chargers could not be placed in base to base. The rules pretty clearly allow a charge in the ruins scenario.

In the OP, however, where a unit is completely surrounded by attackers, a second attacking unit would not be able to engage the enemy. These are two completely different situations.

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Your example would be impassable terrain with no option to go around it, which is not what is being discussed here.

It's effectively the same thing, though. The model is within the your charge distance, but the intervening terrain prevents you from reaching it.

Not at all! Walls, floors, trees and in fact anything that isn't either a unit or explicitly declared impassable terrain at worst makes you take a difficult terrain test, messes with your initiative or reduces your possible charge distance.

A ledge or floor infantry models simply count a 3" vertical movement is no obstacle to model movement.

 insaniak wrote:

The BRB defines a failed charge as follows:
Failed Charge: If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Right. So in the examples given at the start of the thread, is the charging model's charge distance sufficient for it to finish its movement in contact with the charge target?

If there is no legal way to place the model in contact with the target, the answer is clearly 'no'.

The rulebook does not say that. Base contact is illustrative. If base contact would be important or very important such as overruling the explicit success and fail conditions of the charge, there should be a consequence noted for failure to establish base contact. Since there are no consequences laid out, nit being in base contact is a distinction without a difference in the melee.

 Stephanius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Your example would be impassable terrain with no option to go around it, which is not what is being discussed here.

It's effectively the same thing, though. The model is within the your charge distance, but the intervening terrain prevents you from reaching it.

Not at all! Walls, floors, trees and in fact anything that isn't either a unit or explicitly declared impassable terrain at worst makes you take a difficult terrain test, messes with your initiative or reduces your possible charge distance.

A ledge or floor infantry models simply count a 3" vertical movement is no obstacle to model movement.

 insaniak wrote:

The BRB defines a failed charge as follows:
Failed Charge: If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Right. So in the examples given at the start of the thread, is the charging model's charge distance sufficient for it to finish its movement in contact with the charge target?

If there is no legal way to place the model in contact with the target, the answer is clearly 'no'.

The rulebook does not say that. Base contact is illustrative. If base contact would be important or very important such as overruling the explicit success and fail conditions of the charge, there should be a consequence noted for failure to establish base contact. Since there are no consequences laid out, nit being in base contact is a distinction without a difference in the melee.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that Insaniak is only talking about the scenario presented in the OP. Clearly models on the second floor of a ruin can be charged using the wobbly model rule, but in a situation where a unit is completely surrounded by models from unit 1 already, models from unit 2 would be unable to charge since they would not be able to reach the enemy.

There is one way to resolve this. Instead of moving to assault the models inside the ruin/building, attack the building itself? There are rules for that. And a Carnifex could certainly pull that off.

From "moving the Initial charger" in the digitial rule book for moving the first model:
"Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

Even models after the initial charge are expected to make contact:

"If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model."

And if it a model can not make base it must be with 2 or 6 inches of a model in base contact:
"If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of one of its own unit’s models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency."

Notice you are expected to make base contact all through moving the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NightHowler wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
Your example would be impassable terrain with no option to go around it, which is not what is being discussed here.

It's effectively the same thing, though. The model is within the your charge distance, but the intervening terrain prevents you from reaching it.

Not at all! Walls, floors, trees and in fact anything that isn't either a unit or explicitly declared impassable terrain at worst makes you take a difficult terrain test, messes with your initiative or reduces your possible charge distance.

A ledge or floor infantry models simply count a 3" vertical movement is no obstacle to model movement.

 insaniak wrote:

The BRB defines a failed charge as follows:
Failed Charge: If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Right. So in the examples given at the start of the thread, is the charging model's charge distance sufficient for it to finish its movement in contact with the charge target?

If there is no legal way to place the model in contact with the target, the answer is clearly 'no'.

The rulebook does not say that. Base contact is illustrative. If base contact would be important or very important such as overruling the explicit success and fail conditions of the charge, there should be a consequence noted for failure to establish base contact. Since there are no consequences laid out, nit being in base contact is a distinction without a difference in the melee.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that Insaniak is only talking about the scenario presented in the OP. Clearly models on the second floor of a ruin can be charged using the wobbly model rule, but in a situation where a unit is completely surrounded by models from unit 1 already, models from unit 2 would be unable to charge since they would not be able to reach the enemy.

WMS does not really apply to this case. WMS is for when models can be placed but will fall over, not for when they can't actually be placed because of no space for the base.

barnowl wrote:
From "moving the Initial charger" in the digitial rule book for moving the first model:
"Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

Even models after the initial charge are expected to make contact:

"If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model."

And if it a model can not make base it must be with 2 or 6 inches of a model in base contact:
"If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of one of its own unit’s models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency."

Notice you are expected to make base contact all through moving the model.



WMS does not really apply to this case. WMS is for when models can be placed but will fall over, not for when they can't actually be placed because of no space for the base.

I like how you've decided when WMS applies for the rest of us. Thanks.

I have to say, though, that I think WMS works just fine.

There's always a small corner of a level of ruins that isn't completely covered with the round bases of the models that were placed there. I'm sure I could get my model wedged in there (unless you know a rule that says they have to be flat -- good luck finding that one) but I'd be worried that model will fall. Tada! WMS works perfectly.

So now the lousy WAAC player who was trying to game the rules to prevent 100% of all assault against his unit has to actually play to the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of the rules. It's players like this that suck the ever loving fun out of 40k. Rules-lawyering against both logic and the obvious intent of the rules to make their army invincible.

Fortunately, WMS is in the book, and sensible players won't try to say that their unit is unassaultable.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
There is one way to resolve this. Instead of moving to assault the models inside the ruin/building, attack the building itself? There are rules for that. And a Carnifex could certainly pull that off.

Ruins are not buildings - they're battlefield terrain. There are no rules allowing you to attack ruins.