Levels of close combat (current edition only)

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.

**insaniak**

DJGietzen wrote:
Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact.

Yes, they do. The charge rules stipulate that if the model is unable to reach his target, the charge fails.

If you are unable to move the model to a position where it is in base contact, then it is unable to reach its target.

If you allow WMS to apply to this situation, the the charge would still succeed so long as you have sufficient movement distance to reach the target. If you don't, then the charge fails.

**easysauce**

its not about letting WMS apply or not,

its about whether you interpret WMS to let you put things where you cannot put them,

or as just a way to safely put things where you can precariously, but still actually, put them.

the rules do say *hard* to place models, not impossible to place models, if I can use WMS to place things impossibly, then I can use it to place things in mid air and other rediculousness.

**Arthurmw43**

Is there a difference between base to base contact and base contact? What I have read in the BRB states base contact, not base to base. I ask this because if one just need to be able to show that the charging model can make contact with the charged model's base then it would not matter what size base my model has. I'm not looking to twist the wording here, it's just I have seen that this thread has used base to base and the BRB does not.

**Crablezworth**

So this seems more than relevant to the discussion.

Take it from experience, you don't want to open the can of worms. Just house rule that tall/large models can use hull or body in lieu of base to base. Much simpler.

**insaniak**

It's no more relevant now than it has been any other time you have posted it. You're still fundamentally misunderstanding the argument.

Nobody is interpreting WMS to suggest that models should be able to stand on top of trees. Just that it should be used where the entity the model represents could move to somewhere that the static model can't stand... Because your troops aren't actually (in universe) moving around the battlefield in a fixed pose with a large disc attached to their feet.

**megatrons2nd**

insaniak wrote:
It's no more relevant now than it has been any other time you have posted it. You're still fundamentally misunderstanding the argument.

Nobody is interpreting WMS to suggest that models should be able to stand on top of trees. Just that it should be used where the entity the model represents could move to somewhere that the static model can't stand... Because your troops aren't actually (in universe) moving around the battlefield in a fixed pose with a large disc attached to their feet.

Except the rules are written assuming static models.

**insaniak**

Of course they are. Because that's what we're using.

And that's why WMS exists.

**blaktoof**

serious inquiry. I preface it stating it is dumb, but from a RAW standpoint a serious question:

Are we allowed to move a model so its base is still touching the table, but is turned up 90 degrees so it is also touching a models base on a different level.

As you move the models in a unit, they can be turned to face in any direction,

doesn't seem to limit you to turning to face in the x,y direction.

so can we turn in the z direction?

**megatrons2nd**

insaniak wrote:
Of course they are. Because that's what we're using.

And that's why WMS exists.

No, WMS exists to prevent models that might fall do to the location they end to be moved to a safer location, not so a model can hover in place because 1/10000000000000000000000000000 of an inch are present for it to squeeze into a location. It also does not allow for a model to be placed on an upper level of a ruin, say the second floor, or even under the second floor if it is not possible to physically place the model there. See the vertical movement rule I quoted on the first page that says as much.

**EVIL INC**

There is nothing in the rulebook that says the base of the mel has to be in on the bottom in a horizonatal position (unless someone can cite where that is exactly and specifically spelled out.) this means you could lay the model on it's side that way. it also means that you can glue the bases to the tops of the model's heads instead of under their feet or glue the bases on normally and having the models stand on their heads and without the other player doing something similar.
However, we are beyond the actual rules for the last few pages and have been proposing rules to fill in a gap that has always existed. We arent even talking about infantry assaulting from one level of a building to another and worrying about floor space, we are talking about huge models, monstrous sized and larger (dont think even all the monstrous sized critters could do it) who can literally walk up o the 2nd floor of a building and from a model's eye view attack what is on the second floor much MUCH easier than what is on the ground.

This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in. A simple standing in base contact and swinging at an enemy model within 1-2" of the edge but still within eyesight would have solved this. Heck, it could mean that it could not assault the guys on the ground floor out of LOS cause it couldnt see them. That would make a lot more sense to me.
but hey, we have been in the realm of proposed rules for a few pages now.

**insaniak**

EVIL INC wrote:
This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in..

There have been models that could reach 2nd or higher floors of ruins in the game since Rogue Trader.

**Kriswall**

DJGietzen wrote:
The problem is there is no RAW awnser to this. You need to house rule it.

Step 1) Declare a charge from the Knight to the Eldar in the ruins.
Step 2) The Eldar fire overwatch.
Step 3) Assuming the Knight was not removed, the Knight rolls its charge distance.
Step 4) Measure the distance from the Knight to the Eldar. If this is greater then the charge distance rolled (including any modifiers) the charge is failed, otherwise continue to step 5.
Step 5) Move the Knight using the movement phase rules along the shortest route until it is in base contact with an enemy model.

Right here is the problem. The rules don't account for a situation where this is not possible. Nothing in the rules says the charge fails if you can't get into base contact. The charge only fails in the measurable distance between the initial charger and the enemy model is greater then the charge distance rolled. We are instructed to do something impossible here so the game falls apart on a pure RAW level. One opinion is to declare the charge failed on move no models. Another would be to move the initial charger along the shortest possible route until it cannot get any closer and move on to step 6.

Step 6.) Move additional chargers (not applicable here) and the units are now locked in combat.
Step 7) During the fight sub-phase, if the Knight and Eldar are more then 3" apart the fight concludes otherwise move on to step 8)
Step 8) The Eldar and Knight make pile in moves at the appropriate initiatives bringing them into base contact. (The Knight's pile in move will be 0" but the Eldar's 3" will be enough to close the gap).

This might result in the Knight not getting any attacks in the 1st round of combat if it has a higher initiative, because until the Eldar come out to fight him he will be locked in combat but un-engaged.,

edit: I should add that the HIWPI for my group is basically option 2. We attempt to move the initial charger along the shortest route in step 5. but declare the charge a failure if that movement can't get him 3" or closer to the enemy. if the charge fails in step 5 the charger is put back where he started.

The rules actually deal with this situation just fine. In your example, you should never have gotten to step 1. If you can't reach the target, you can't declare a charge. If you can't move forward to achieve base to base, how do you propose you are able to reach the target? Being able to reach isn't simply an issue of distance. It's also an issue of placement.

If enemy unit A is entirely circled by enemy unit B, it may not be charged. You might be within 12", but you can't reach it. Just one example that has nothing to do with ruins.

**EVIL INC**

insaniak wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
This issue did not even exist until they started adding in the huge and super huge models like dreadknights, wraigh knights and so forth and even afterwards, they never bothered to add it in..

There have been models that could reach 2nd or higher floors of ruins in the game since Rogue Trader.

I'm aware of this. i have been playing since then. the point is how many of them did you see in games? Not that many. likewise, there is a difference between a model standing on it's toes to see the second floor and an imperial warhound titan having to bend down to see the second floor (or riptides, knights and such that also have to stoop to see.Nitpicking about a few odd models that were in existence then does not change the fact that it has never been addressed.
but as we have just been proposing possible house rules for the majority of the thread, we have seen a variety of different interesting options.

**insaniak**

EVIL INC wrote:
I'm aware of this. i have been playing since then. the point is how many of them did you see in games?

Pretty much every Eldar army I played against in 2nd edition had at least one dreadnought in it.

.Nitpicking about a few odd models that were in existence then does not change the fact that it has never been addressed.

It wasn't supposed to.

**babelfish**

Rules as written, I think the wobbly model lets you charge side is wrong. I think you have to be able to place the model, in base contact, in order to charge.

With that said, I don't like that the rule works like that. I think there should be exceptions/clarification written into the rules to allow charging up into ruins event when you cannot place a model in base contact, as the lack of such exceptions allows for exploitative gameplay that weakens the already weak CC phase.

I also don't like that I can position my Trygon such that he has a marine on a ruins head in his mouth, roll double 6's on the charge, but not be allowed to be in CC with the marine.

**Lance845**

I would argue that you need to follow "what makes sense" in a cinematic way. If you have a 2 story mech standing next to/just bellow the second floor then it doesn't mater that they are not actually in base to base contact. You make the "3 inch charge" once, place him right against the floor he doesn't fit on, and consider that it's arms are big enough to assault that floor above it.

In the Flyrant example if the smaller units cannot climb up to reach it and use their melee weapons then it makes sense that they have no footing to make an assault.

Bikes... how the hell would the bike get up a floor anyway?

**der soulstealer**

rigeld2 wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
I don't believe there's an explicit restriction.

A quick reminder before we dive into this one:

A quick reminder of the Tenets of YMDC:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I've seen this tenet twice and here's my take:

First, one should make sure they understand the text of the rule properly. In that a dictionary definition can be immensely valuable. Indeed, sometimes it is not a reliable source of information, but most of the time it is a lot more reliable than "I think this means something else than what's written".

And in this case, I believe a poster (or more than one) was using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner.

And it seems to me that the same posters are still perfectly convinced that "being able to reach" somehow includes "being able to place a model in base to base contact within maximum charge distance".

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

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).

And it seems that even the BRB thought it necessary to insist on the meaning of reach, giving us an example of a unit 12" away, insisting on the fact that being able to reach means being within maximum charge range.

As a summary, I think the theory that such charges don't work RAW because reach means something else than just reach has been proven wrong.

**BlackTalos**

Kriswall wrote:
NightHowler wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
I definitely see what you're getting at. However, it's important to realize that the Beasts could never choose to finish their movement between floors... "Models can also use their move to 'climb up' terrain, as long as the model is able to finish the move on a location where it can be stood." This is from the Moving Through Terrain section.

I would agree with your stance that the Beast could move to the third floor by "skirting" the models on the second floor. In your example, if the Beast are mounted on a small enough base (25, 32 or 40mm most likely) to be able to be stood in the available space, the target can be reached and thus the charge may be declared. In your same example, I would say that the Beasts wouldn't be able to stop on the second floor as no amount of precarious balancing would allow them to be stood on that .00001" of floor while staying 1" away from the enemy.

I think the WMS is always going to be a sticking point. For me, WMS requires that you can place, however precariously, the model and have it stay there. I believe that WMS is intended to protect your models from the damaged incurred if they fall over and not to place a model in an otherwise untenable location. In other words, no amount of precarious balancing will allow me to place a Space Marine on a .00001" wide sliver of floor, so WMS should never kick in.

Well, I didn't expect that we'd agree, I just wanted to share my thoughts.

It's unlikely GW will ever give us a useful FAQ for this, but they should. In the meantime everyone will just need to work out how they would play it with their respective groups.

Yeah, waiting for an FAQ isn't really the best option. My gaming group house rules all ruins floors to be 3" apart and that charges can be declared if you can get to a spot immediately below or above a model on an adjacent floor and still have 3" of movement left. While this is clearly not RaW, everyone seems happy with it.

I'd honestly love to see ruins treated like buildings, but with an "Open-Topped" designation that makes them easier to hurt. Models inside would be embarked and would potentially take damage if the ruins is destroyed. Or maybe keep them as is, but require a Dangerous Terrain test each turn regardless of whether or not the unit moved. Sure, you get cover, but the floor might fall out beneath you at any moment. Especially if you're 8 feet tall and clad in ceramite power armour. A Techmarine's Bolster Ruins special rule could allow a 4+ to ignore the Dangerous Terrain requirement or something instead of adding +1 to cover.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. The current rules just aren't that great.

Great study!

In terms of RaW V Hypothetical, there one simple assumption as to why everyone wants the charge to succeed, but the RaW is clear on failing the charge:
- Access

Back to the Ork on the Box or the beasts running up the Ruin:
Every situation this will arise in, the Unit that 'got there first', such as the Ork or the unnamed infantry above, must have had a completely 'valid' path in order to get there. Moving from the floor up onto the Box was a very simple move.
Why, then, are the other models suddenly disallowed to repeat the same process due to 'lack of space' ?

Sure, that is RaW: Cannot declare a charge against an enemy you cannot reach. Even if he is 1.1" in front of you, stood on a Box.
I would definitely house-rule (HIWPI) that if 1 Unit got up there, the other should be able to reach the space just as well.

If you need an example of "unreachable but should be able to":
Think of an entire board made out of 1" steps (an entire staircase of a board). Your models and the enemy models would never be able to reach B2B contact, as there would always be a height difference between the Bases. But the board is technically flat (especially if the steps are slanted). What then? a board completely devoid of CC?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
In case you needed it as an example: (by RaW, this board would completely disallow any Charges to be declared)

**insaniak**

der soulstealer wrote:

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

.

Well, that quite effectively proves your argument wrong, right there.

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them. So by the definition you have provided, you can not reach them.

**der soulstealer**

insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:

So let's go back to what "reach" means, so that we can establish quite clearly that the BRB RAW does not in any way address charging a unit composed entirely of models that cannot physically end up in base to base contact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

.

Well, that quite effectively proves your argument wrong, right there.

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them. So by the definition you have provided, you can not reach them.

On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things.

And there's the precision from GW themselves in the next sentence that insists on the meaning of reach to refer to charge range.

**insaniak**

der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

**der soulstealer**

insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

Here's the difference: the rule book says "reach", you say "move alongside".

If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

You are perfectly correct that the model cannot be put in base contact. That's a fact.

But that fact does not prevent another model from reaching it. From being within maximum charge distance of it, as the rule book says.

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).

They go through the trouble of telling us "This means that a charge...." so why should we disregard that ?

**BlackTalos**

insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
On the contrary, you can get to them. What you can't do is put the model next to them. Those are two very different things..

You're going to need to explain the difference, then, because in my book, not being able to move alongside someone tends to mean that you can't move alongside them.

I can understand the view though.

You make no distinction between:
- "cannot reach" because of distance
- "cannot reach" because of *positioning*

Whereas i keep thinking there should be, as the Rules only refer to distance, and not feasibility.
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared. There is no reference but assumption that "cannot reach" would also encompass positioning.

**insaniak**

der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

They go through the trouble of telling us "This means that a charge...." so why should we disregard that ?

That rule doesn't give you permission to charge anything within 12" regardless of whether or not you can actually reach them. It just means that 12" is going to be the maximum distance most units can charge.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlackTalos wrote:
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared.

No, it can't. Because no matter how far you roll for your charge distance, you will never be able to move into base contact before you run out of movement.

You do not have enough movement distance to reach your target.

**BlackTalos**

insaniak wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
The "air" around the model (on the Box) has not become impassable, so going by "distance only" the charge can be declared.

No, it can't. Because no matter how far you roll for your charge distance, you will never be able to move into base contact before you run out of movement.

You do not have enough movement distance to reach your target.

And that is only because the direct path (by RaW you need to take) is unavailable, completely. That path is still there (the same path the enemy model took to get up there), and completely unblocked apart from the target model himself.

So it ends up being a situation where the charge distance is blocked by a model from the Unit you are targeting. I don't know if this sounds just as wrong to you by RaW as it does to me.

I can agree that "cannot reach" means "no path available", but it just does not sit well with me at all when the path did exist.

**insaniak**

No, I completely agree that is a stupid situation.

Which is why I go with either applying WMS, or following the old rule of just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough.

**BlackTalos**

insaniak wrote:
No, I completely agree that is a stupid situation.

Which is why I go with either applying WMS, or following the old rule of just moving as close as possible and calling it good enough.

The weird thing is, i would be completely against claiming WMS, as explained before about how you have to place the model first, and then claim....

The rules for vertical "good enough" were really the best option, although probably abused...

**der soulstealer**

insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.

This is what reach means in the dictionary:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

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).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

**Kriswall**

der soulstealer wrote:
insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.

This is what reach means in the dictionary:

To reach:

verb (used with object)
1.
to get to or get as far as in moving, going, traveling, etc.:
The boat reached the shore.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

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).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

You are ignoring the word usually. Distance is USUALLY the only element that would prevent a model being able to reach another model. Other things (intervening models, terrain features, etc) can also cause problems.

"This means that a charge can USUALLY only be declared on a unit up to 12" away"

**rigeld2**

der soulstealer wrote:
insaniak wrote:
der soulstealer wrote:
If you can't prove your point using only the words in the rule book, then probably it's not respecting the word of the rule, or RAW.

The point was already proven using the words from the rulebook. Then you started insisting that 'reach' means something completely different to the dictionary definition that you posted yourself...

On the contrary, the point has never been proven, and you insist that reach means something completely different to the dictionary definition that was posted.

This is the precision from the BRB in the next sentence:

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).

And this is your point:

If you are unable to move into contact with the enemy unit, you can never 'get to' them.

Do you see how your point introduces the element of contact when all that the rules and the word reach mention is an element of distance ?

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.