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.

Say my opponent has a squad of three obliterators. They are camped in the top floor of some ruins and I literally cannot fit a single model of my own onto that floor.

Is it the case that I simply cannot charge that unit? I.e. models underneath it do not count as being in base contact?

Look a few threads down, we had this conversation or a varient of it for several pages before it got closed.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641248.page
This was a key post.....
"Charge Move pg 46 of the hardback, Moving Charging Models section about the middle of the Paragraph, in bold. "-following the rules as in the movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models."

Then under Move The Initial Charger, "Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

Notice that it says contact and not base contact. this means a model could make contact if it is a standard bearer with a flagpole that is long enough to reach and touch the enemy base or even a trygon standing on ground level could chomp on a marine if say for example the marine was on a ledge and the trygon could touch it's head so it looked like it was chomping the marin'es head in it's mouth. According to RAW at least. But interpretations vary.
But I look for your thread to get closed soon enough. Your best betit to have an open forum with your local gamers that you will be gaming with and come up with a consensus you can all agree on and ask about how the locals are handling it when you play somewhere else should it look like the issue might arise in case they handle it differently than your group does.

Well, if that is the prevailing line of reasoning, then at its best, I still cannot reach the oblits with my standard infantry. Will have to get some more dakka I guess!

Base contact means literally that: the bases must be touching. So, normally they'd be safe from charges.

However, some groups opt to let an unit to resolve its charge normally if the charge distance is enough to reach the enemy, putting the miniatures as close as possible to the charged unit.

its BTb contact, people claiming you can assault, and participate in assault with no models in base contact are breaking rules with no written exception to allow them to do so.

pg 24 right after wobly model syndrome,

also explicitly states that when moving up ruins, you have to be able to stand the model up,

RAW you cannot charge in this case


most people house rule this to be that if you roll high enough, you still make the charge, though depending on what groups houserules you use, they might not allow things like BIKES/super heavies/mostrous creatures ect to go up ruins, so this is 100% a discuss with your opponent before hand thing.

 easysauce wrote:

pg 24 right after wobly model syndrome,

also explicitly states that when moving up ruins, you have to be able to stand the model up,.

Sorry to be a pedant - I found the rule, but it's actually on p21. Not trying to be annoying - I just thought it might help people in future if they come across the thread in a search

Cheers for your input. I think this rule settles the RAW discussion.

 Krusha wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

pg 24 right after wobly model syndrome,

also explicitly states that when moving up ruins, you have to be able to stand the model up,.

Sorry to be a pedant - I found the rule, but it's actually on p21. Not trying to be annoying - I just thought it might help people in future if they come across the thread in a search

Cheers for your input. I think this rule settles the RAW discussion.

ah yes, might be on pg 21, I might have been quoting SRB or forgetting the exact page #, thank you for clarifying.

but yes, RAW you cannot charge, but, many people house rule this to change, even big tournament circuits like ITC house rule it to "you can charge if you roll high enough" but they exclude super heavies, garantuans, and any standard vehicle that is not a walker from assaulting on top of ruins (super H walkers still banned)

I'm sure in 6th ed there was a section dealing with just this occurrence. Not 100% but I think it was something along the lines of a model could be engaged in assault by another model on the floor below (counting as in base contact) or a model another floor below that other attacker (like how a model can fight in a regular assault if it's within 2" of another attacker in base contact.

I may be misrembering if anyone wants to correct me, I don't have my brb to hand. Nevertheless im certain there were rules to deal with this. Are these no longer present on 7th?

I don't see why you couldn't assault them. Also pile in moves.

 WarbossDakka wrote:
I don't see why you couldn't assault them..

Because the rules require you to move into base contact in order to assault, and unless you apply WMS to the situation (which some players feel it shouldn't be) there is no way to place your models so that they are in base contact with the enemy.

The common solutions to this are to -
- Allow WMS to be used, so as long as you have sufficient charge distance you can still make the assault
or
- Use the 5th edition rule allowing you to just place the model as close as possible on a floor above or below, provided you have sufficient charge range to make contact, and treat them as being in base contact


As Evil Inc mentioned, some players also allow the assault if the model is tall enough to 'reach' the enemy models from the lower floor, but this is a less prevalent ruling, in my experience.

 insaniak wrote:

 WarbossDakka wrote:
I don't see why you couldn't assault them..

Because the rules require you to move into base contact in order to assault, and unless you apply WMS to the situation (which some players feel it shouldn't be) there is no way to place your models so that they are in base contact with the enemy.
.

you cannot apply WMS, as it only allows for placement of "hard to place" models, not impossible to place, and doesnt override the very next page. WMS is also worded specifically with the clause that "both players agree" on its use.

the page right after WMS it tells you you can only move vertically if the model can be stood up on the next level.

WMS is being used completely inappropriately to place things where they cannot be placed, and unfortunately despite RAW actually stating things like "hard to place" people insist that it means "impossible to place". Many of the same people insisting WMS applies also state things like "there is no rule saying i have to stand up my models on ruins" even though that rule is on the very next page.

 easysauce wrote:
you cannot apply WMS, as it only allows for placement of "hard to place" models, not impossible to place, and doesnt override the very next page.

Whether or not it's RAW (which is not really a debate I have any interest in going over yet again) it is the simplest solution to this issue.

WMS is also worded specifically with the clause that "both players agree" on its use.

No it doesn't. It just requires both players to agree to the 'actual' position of the model.

Remember, the rules do not require you to come into base contact. The rulebook specifically states bases when measuring but also specifically leaves the word base OUT when it gets to the part about coming into contact. This means strictly according to RAW, you coyuld theoretically have an extended swordtip touching the extended swordtip of another model without the bases coming into contact. of course, most players alter the rules to make it easier and less confusing and just require base contact even though the rulebook does not actually require it according to RAW.
Your best bet is to discuss it with your local gamers and come up with a consensus your group can agree on.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Remember, the rules do not require you to come into base contact.

That's arguable.

However, even if you do go with allowing the charging models to not move into base contact, that leaves you unable to attack when you get to the Fight step, as none of your models are engaged.

According to strict RAW, they would be engaged in combat. This because it specifically says "contact" rather than "base contact". That is a fine point where most players adlib the rulebook to mean base contact but then we are entering RAI rather than RAW.
In this case, every player I have ever come across has used the RAI adlib of base contact even though the rulebook does not say that. I only mentioned that loophole to the OP because it could be used by someone trying when your not expecting it or in cases like the other thread that was closed, be used to actually represent something that makes sense.
This is why I try to go over as many oddball scenereos and outlandish possibilities with my gaming group to guage how they feel and want to agree to play when there are such loopholes or vaguenesses. So dont take me pointing it out as trying to be a jerk, I'm pointing it out to be helpfull and demonstrate how such point points and loopholes can arise. Communication with your fellow gamers in your actual group is important and that cant be stressed enough.

No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

You only make pile-in moves if the charge is successful.

The issue is that, by RAW, the charge cannot be successful.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

You only make pile-in moves if the charge is successful.

The issue is that, by RAW, the charge cannot be successful.

Please read the three posts immediately prior to mine to bring yourself up to speed on what we were talking about.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

You only make pile-in moves if the charge is successful.

The issue is that, by RAW, the charge cannot be successful.

Please read the three posts immediately prior to mine to bring yourself up to speed on what we were talking about.

I did. None of those three posts assumed the charge was successful.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

You only make pile-in moves if the charge is successful.

The issue is that, by RAW, the charge cannot be successful.

Please read the three posts immediately prior to mine to bring yourself up to speed on what we were talking about.

I did. None of those three posts assumed the charge was successful.

Sounds like you didn't really read them, so I'll summarize for you:

Evil Inc: the rules do not require you to come into base contact. The rulebook specifically states bases when measuring but also specifically leaves the word base OUT when it gets the the part about coming into contact.

Insaniac: that's arguable.

Evil Inc: According to strict RAW they would be engaged in combat...

Insaniak: They are not engaged because not in base to base and not in within 2" of someone who is in base to base

Me: Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

So next time actually read stuff instead of just saying you read it.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

You only make pile-in moves if the charge is successful.

The issue is that, by RAW, the charge cannot be successful.

Please read the three posts immediately prior to mine to bring yourself up to speed on what we were talking about.

I did. None of those three posts assumed the charge was successful.

Sounds like you didn't really read them, so I'll summarize for you:

Evil Inc: the rules do not require you to come into base contact. The rulebook specifically states bases when measuring but also specifically leaves the word base OUT when it gets the the part about coming into contact.

Insaniac: that's arguable.

Evil Inc: According to strict RAW they would be engaged in combat...

Insaniak: They are not engaged because not in base to base and not in within 2" of someone who is in base to base

Me: Wouldn't the pile in move of the defenders bring them down into base to base with the assaulting unit (as long as the assaulting unit remembered to leave enough room to place one of the defenders)?

So next time actually read stuff instead of just saying you read it.

So again, where in there is the charged assumed to be successful? I'm not seeing it. None of it is relevant, at all, until the charge is successful.

And if you assume it is successful, you couldn't just leave "holes" for them to move down into - they can't move through your models and you're "assumed" to be in base contact already (because, well, the charge was successful).

rigeld2 wrote:
So again, where in there is the charged assumed to be successful? I'm not seeing it. None of it is relevant, at all, until the charge is successful.

And if you assume it is successful, you couldn't just leave "holes" for them to move down into - they can't move through your models and you're "assumed" to be in base contact already (because, well, the charge was successful).

Wow. Ok, I can see this will never go anywhere. Have fun playing 40k.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So again, where in there is the charged assumed to be successful? I'm not seeing it. None of it is relevant, at all, until the charge is successful.

And if you assume it is successful, you couldn't just leave "holes" for them to move down into - they can't move through your models and you're "assumed" to be in base contact already (because, well, the charge was successful).

Wow. Ok, I can see this will never go anywhere. Have fun playing 40k.

Nighthowler... the rules tells us that if we can't "reach" the intended target, we cannot declare an assault. The first movement related bit of the charge rules is to "Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route." Given these two rules, the natural extension seems to be (my paraphrase) 'if the initial charger can't come into contact with the nearest model, then the initial charger can't reach the unit being charged and an assault can't be declared'.

If we use this logic, we ignore ALL of the debate in these types of threads because you're never allowed to charge a unit you can't reach... which a large number of us interpret as "come into contact with". Your reaction is unwarranted. From my perspective, you're working off a false premise. You're assuming that you're allowed to declare a charge in the first place.

I'm not even arguing base to base, although that's how I play it. The rules simply require the initial charger be moved "into contact". How can you reach a target unit if there is nowhere you can stand a model such that it's "in contact with the nearest model in the unit being charged"?

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Although the only thing I pointed out is that it is possible for models to come into contact without the bases touching. Likewise, a canny player who uses models models with sceniry that extend past the base (or even models that actually come with parts of the model that extend past the base) to prevent being charged in your case. Imagine if you will a unit or hormagaunts all with the front facing the enemy (we all know how unbalanced these critters are and how they extend past the base in front although other models could be used as examples such as dark reapers all with the guns facing the enemy) such that an enemy wishing to assault them is unable to come into "base contact" (if we wish to adlib and change the actual rule in the book to be RAI instead of RAW) by moving in a straight line.
Can you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Cane you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

Nice try, but when measuring distances involving Vehicles, you measure to and from the hull. This is covered in the rules. You can be engaged in the combat with a Russ if your model is within base contact with the hull or within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with the hull.

 Kriswall wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Cane you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

Nice try, but when measuring distances involving Vehicles, you measure to and from the hull. This is covered in the rules. You can be engaged in the combat with a Russ if your model is within base contact with the hull or within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with the hull.

Citation? exact words that exempt vehicles and page number. Remember some vehicles such as dreads come with bases and other players model them on scenic bases. So in those cases, do you go by going to the base or your going to the hull? Because it has to be one or the other.

I'm not trying to go fishing. Someone HAS to put out the outragous possibilities because someone somewhere is eventually going to try it. I'm just making the point that in this there is a lot of room for interpretation because the simple fact is that the rule is vague and just does not cover every possible configuration of circumstances. When it comes down to it, players can twist and lawyer the rules in many different ways. The best bet is to see if there is a set concret ruling that covers all possible situations and in cases such as this when that doesnt exist, work with your actual gaming group you are actually playing with to come up with an answer. the rest of us are all just names on a computer screen and just do not carry the same weight as the actual physical people you live and play with every day.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Cane you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

Nice try, but when measuring distances involving Vehicles, you measure to and from the hull. This is covered in the rules. You can be engaged in the combat with a Russ if your model is within base contact with the hull or within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with the hull.

Citation? exact words that exempt vehicles and page number. Remember some vehicles such as dreads come with bases and other players model them on scenic bases. So in those cases, do you go by going to the base or your going to the hull? Because it has to be one or the other.

No, it doesn't. Because the rules cover how to handle walkers with bases. Please do try and read the rules when discussing them and making assertions.

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

If a Walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as for an Infantry model. If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles.

I'm not trying to go fishing. Someone HAS to put out the outragous possibilities because someone somewhere is eventually going to try it. I'm just making the point that in this there is a lot of room for interpretation because the simple fact is that the rule is vague and just does not cover every possible configuration of circumstances. When it comes down to it, players can twist and lawyer the rules in many different ways. The best bet is to see if there is a set concret ruling that covers all possible situations and in cases such as this when that doesnt exist, work with your actual gaming group you are actually playing with to come up with an answer. the rest of us are all just names on a computer screen and just do not carry the same weight as the actual physical people you live and play with every day.

Yes, the best bet is to see if there is a concrete ruling. Like the one about vehicles and bases that you pretended isn't covered by the rules and yet demonstrably is.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Cane you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

Nice try, but when measuring distances involving Vehicles, you measure to and from the hull. This is covered in the rules. You can be engaged in the combat with a Russ if your model is within base contact with the hull or within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with the hull.

Citation? exact words that exempt vehicles and page number. Remember some vehicles such as dreads come with bases and other players model them on scenic bases. So in those cases, do you go by going to the base or your going to the hull? Because it has to be one or the other.

I'm not trying to go fishing. Someone HAS to put out the outragous possibilities because someone somewhere is eventually going to try it. I'm just making the point that in this there is a lot of room for interpretation because the simple fact is that the rule is vague and just does not cover every possible configuration of circumstances. When it comes down to it, players can twist and lawyer the rules in many different ways. The best bet is to see if there is a set concret ruling that covers all possible situations and in cases such as this when that doesnt exist, work with your actual gaming group you are actually playing with to come up with an answer. the rest of us are all just names on a computer screen and just do not carry the same weight as the actual physical people you live and play with every day.

Sigh...

I don't have a physical book, so no page numbers. I'll give you section instead.

Vehicles, Vehicles & Measuring Distances section - "As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule for measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements."

The only exception appears to be for Vehicles with the Walker type.

Vehicles, Walkers, Walkers and Measuring section - "If a Walker has a base, measure ranges to and from its base, as for an Infantry model. If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including the legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles."

So, you see, all Vehicles measure to and from the hull UNLESS they are Walkers on bases and then you measure to and from the base. Note that if you have something like Logan Grimnar on Stormrider, Vehicle(Chariot, Open-Topped) type, you would still measure to and from the hull despite the model having a base. I would assume most people unknowingly house rule these situations as "if it comes with a base, use the base for measurement".

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, according to strict RAW they are not engaged.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• 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.

S you can never engage a russ as they dont come with bases. Will make my guard a lot more survivable. Cane you also site where it says that a model has to be standing feet down? Page number and exact quote?

Nice try, but when measuring distances involving Vehicles, you measure to and from the hull. This is covered in the rules. You can be engaged in the combat with a Russ if your model is within base contact with the hull or within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with the hull.

Citation? exact words that exempt vehicles and page number. Remember some vehicles such as dreads come with bases and other players model them on scenic bases. So in those cases, do you go by going to the base or your going to the hull? Because it has to be one or the other.

No, it doesn't. Because the rules cover how to handle walkers with bases. Please do try and read the rules when discussing them and making assertions.

As vehicle models do not usually have bases, the normal rule of measuring distances to or from a base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements.

If a Walker has a base, measure ranges and distances to and from its base, as for an Infantry model. If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles.

I'm not trying to go fishing. Someone HAS to put out the outragous possibilities because someone somewhere is eventually going to try it. I'm just making the point that in this there is a lot of room for interpretation because the simple fact is that the rule is vague and just does not cover every possible configuration of circumstances. When it comes down to it, players can twist and lawyer the rules in many different ways. The best bet is to see if there is a set concret ruling that covers all possible situations and in cases such as this when that doesnt exist, work with your actual gaming group you are actually playing with to come up with an answer. the rest of us are all just names on a computer screen and just do not carry the same weight as the actual physical people you live and play with every day.

Yes, the best bet is to see if there is a concrete ruling. Like the one about vehicles and bases that you pretended isn't covered by the rules and yet demonstrably is.

A lot of spam here to wade through. Actually, i do read the rules. I will assume you have skimmed through them yourself. Do you have photographic memory where each and every single word and punctuation is perfectly memorized? If you do, cheers. If your like the rest of us and dont, than you will understand that asking for a claification or citation is only to find something out. You should know this as you are constantly sending people through the book for page numbers and citation. You might try to be a little polite sometime or at least read the post your quoting.Asking someone to site a source is not saying that the source does not exist.You also conveniently "forgot" the part about players who make scenic bases for their non-walker units. but thats irreleventI getting the point across communication amongs playrs in group is important may not with that and thats fine, but many of the rest of us do.
Asking for citation is not to say that something doesnt exist. it is to encourage you to look for things instead of just assuming. When you do this, you often see foggy areas that need discussed or that you may have missed.
Again, your best bet is attempting to find a concrete answer to the question that covers all possibilities. In cases where this is not the case such as this, it is best to work with your actual gaming group you see and play with every day. As you can see going online for opinions will just get you words on a screen from faceless names. As you can obviously see here, often with their own agendas (usually to belittle or put down others instead of trying to help you). that are personal and have nothing to do with your original question. with the disclaimer that that doesnt describes anyone in this thread, of course.