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.

I have a question regarding charging through difficult terrain.

For this example assume some imperial guard models are on a sky shield landing pad and a walker is making a charge.
He successfully rolls distance but there is no physical room on the edge of the sky shield landing pad for the charging model to be on to be in base contact.
does the charge fail, or do you just *count the model as being in base contact* and place him as near as possible?

any page numbers regarding this would be helpful as well.
Thx in advance.

Azeroth133 wrote:
I have a question regarding charging through difficult terrain.

For this example assume some imperial guard models are on a sky shield landing pad and a walker is making a charge.
He successfully rolls distance but there is no physical room on the edge of the sky shield landing pad for the charging model to be on to be in base contact.
does the charge fail, or do you just *count the model as being in base contact* and place him as near as possible?

any page numbers regarding this would be helpful as well.
Thx in advance.

Strict RaW? If you can't "reach" the target unit, you can't declare a charge in the first place. The issue is that "reach" is never defined. Most people generally define it as "placed into base to base contact with". A smaller population would say to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and just pretend like the Dread is floating in the air next to where you'd like it to be.

We've discussed this here numerous times and the thread generally gets locked when the arguments devolve to he petty bickering and insults about English comprehension.

You're best off just working it out with your opponent before you play a game or ask a TO if you're participating in a tournament.

 Kriswall wrote:

Azeroth133 wrote:
I have a question regarding charging through difficult terrain.

For this example assume some imperial guard models are on a sky shield landing pad and a walker is making a charge.
He successfully rolls distance but there is no physical room on the edge of the sky shield landing pad for the charging model to be on to be in base contact.
does the charge fail, or do you just *count the model as being in base contact* and place him as near as possible?

any page numbers regarding this would be helpful as well.
Thx in advance.

Strict RaW? If you can't "reach" the target unit, you can't declare a charge in the first place. The issue is that "reach" is never defined. Most people generally define it as "placed into base to base contact with". A smaller population would say to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and just pretend like the Dread is floating in the air next to where you'd like it to be.

We've discussed this here numerous times and the thread generally gets locked when the arguments devolve to he petty bickering and insults about English comprehension.

You're best off just working it out with your opponent before you play a game or ask a TO if you're participating in a tournament.

This. Work it out with the TO or your opponent.

No, this is not something that's really up for debate. The rules for moving the initial charging model state the following:

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

A route that does not take the model into base contact with an enemy model is not the shortest possible route because it is not possible. So you have to pick a different route, even if it involves going 3' around the side of the table, through multiple pieces of dangerous terrain, and over to the back side of the unit you're trying to charge. The fact that some alternate route could take the model near the enemy models without making it into contact is irrelevant. And if this longer route is beyond the initial model's movement distance the answer is clear:

If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A smaller population would say to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and just pretend like the Dread is floating in the air next to where you'd like it to be.

That might be an appealing house rule, but it has nothing to do with RAW. WMS can only be used to move models that are hard to place, not impossible (as a floating dreadnought would be). And you have to get your opponent to agree to it, which is unlikely in a case where WMS is being used to gain access to additional movement locations instead of to protect a model.

I would pretend the model is on the edge. Making a unit unchargeable by model placement just breaks the game.

In stronghold assault there is a exception described for defence lines, because you also cant balance an assaulting model on the top of the wall.

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
I would pretend the model is on the edge. Making a unit unchargeable by model placement just breaks the game.

In stronghold assault there is a exception described for defence lines, because you also cant balance an assaulting model on the top of the wall.

It doesn't even remotely break the game. You simply have to shoot them enough to kill a single model and make space. I see this "breaks the game" argument all the time. It's simply not the case. It might expose a tactical flaw in your army list creation, i.e., the fact that you don't have enough shooting to root out entrenched opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No, this is not something that's really up for debate. The rules for moving the initial charging model state the following:

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

A route that does not take the model into base contact with an enemy model is not the shortest possible route because it is not possible. So you have to pick a different route, even if it involves going 3' around the side of the table, through multiple pieces of dangerous terrain, and over to the back side of the unit you're trying to charge. The fact that some alternate route could take the model near the enemy models without making it into contact is irrelevant. And if this longer route is beyond the initial model's movement distance the answer is clear:

If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A smaller population would say to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and just pretend like the Dread is floating in the air next to where you'd like it to be.

That might be an appealing house rule, but it has nothing to do with RAW. WMS can only be used to move models that are hard to place, not impossible (as a floating dreadnought would be). And you have to get your opponent to agree to it, which is unlikely in a case where WMS is being used to gain access to additional movement locations instead of to protect a model.

To be honest, it doesn't even come to this. You're not allowed to even declare a charge against a target if you can't reach it. Given a normal max charge range of 12", if there is no 12" path that will put you into a stable, base to base contact, you can't even declare a charge to begin with.

Sounds like a ring of imperial guard in a blob squad on the sky shield is RAW unable to be assaulted until it takes enough casualties to allow a model onto it.

Imperial knight wants to swing the chain sword at waist level but sadly hangs his head in shame as it seams stairs are the archenemy of marines so this is now his bane

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
IMaking a unit unchargeable by model placement just breaks the game.

No it doesn't, just like it doesn't break the game to have models out of LOS and unshootable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
IMaking a unit unchargeable by model placement just breaks the game.

No it doesn't, just like it doesn't break the game to have models out of LOS and unshootable.

Not sure if you're being deliberately argumentative in defense of a strict RAW interpretation or not, but you have to realize these aren't even close to the same situation. A brick wall preventing shooting is in no way analogous to nothing more than a quarter-inch height difference magically preventing close combat.

It doesn't break the game, but it's somewhat illogical that a model can't assault despite being able to freely move to the same position at other times.

The problem is that the current rules really don't handle differences in vertical height. They should, and previous editions did... but for 7th, GW for some inexplicable reason decided to through those rules out the window.

For me, going the WMS approach, or the 'move it as close as possible and call it good enough' approach from previous editions makes more sense, and so that's the way I will continue to play it.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ColonelFazackerley wrote:
IMaking a unit unchargeable by model placement just breaks the game.

No it doesn't, just like it doesn't break the game to have models out of LOS and unshootable.

Not sure if you're being deliberately argumentative in defense of a strict RAW interpretation or not, but you have to realize these aren't even close to the same situation. A brick wall preventing shooting is in no way analogous to nothing more than a quarter-inch height difference magically preventing close combat.

I would say its pretty close to the Idea that a tank can't blow up a brick wall that he just saw an enemy unit run behind.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
I would say its pretty close to the Idea that a tank can't blow up a brick wall that he just saw an enemy unit run behind.

Exactly. Sometimes the abstraction of a tabletop game causes unfluffy situations to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Not sure if you're being deliberately argumentative in defense of a strict RAW interpretation or not, but you have to realize these aren't even close to the same situation. A brick wall preventing shooting is in no way analogous to nothing more than a quarter-inch height difference magically preventing close combat.

But that was talking about whether or not it breaks the game, not whether or not the abstraction of charge distance and model placement makes sense fluff-wise in every situation. Not matching the fluff is not the same thing as breaking the game, and having a unit that can't be charged in some circumstances isn't any more game breaking than having a unit that can't be shot in some circumstances.

It's not RAW, but the ITC uses the "no non-flying model is un-assaultable" route of just calling it good enough if you roll the distance needed.

I prefer this ruling, because I would feel like an absolute jerk if I had unreachable shooting squads against my ork and daemon buddies. Like say a whirlwind on top of a conveniently whirlwind-sized raised platform. Or some invis shooting unit like grav cents on a stack of crates in the center of the board holding a relic.

I mean really, if the enemy was able to walk there, your guys should be able to walk there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, imagine you have an epic game where you get down to one tactical space marine left holding a relic, and he had just say...a swarm of 20 chaos furies. It's top of 4, so you have at least a full round left, and they are very close.

Tactical marine jimmy notices a knee-high crate right next to him that he can barely fit on top of. So the conclusion to this epic battle is that jimmy gets on top of the crate with the relic and laughs at the WINGED furies for 1,2 or even 3 full game rounds until the game ends, because despite FLYING, they can't get their little black circle on the board to touch Jimmy's little black circle, so they can't hit him.

Somehow I think that the game having a situation like that is not in the least intended.

niv-mizzet wrote:
It's not RAW, but the ITC uses the "no non-flying model is un-assaultable" route of just calling it good enough if you roll the distance needed.

Do they also allow you to measure straight-line distance between models for determining this, without having to move around impassible terrain or other models?

I prefer this ruling, because I would feel like an absolute jerk if I had unreachable shooting squads against my ork and daemon buddies.

Do you also feel like an absolute jerk if you have a model hidden out of LOS behind a wall against a Tau player?

niv-mizzet wrote:

Like say a whirlwind on top of a conveniently whirlwind-sized raised platform. .

Sounds like a brilliant idea lol

niv-mizzet wrote:
I mean, imagine you have an epic game where you get down to one tactical space marine left holding a relic, and he had just say...a swarm of 20 chaos furies. It's top of 4, so you have at least a full round left, and they are very close.

Tactical marine jimmy notices a knee-high crate right next to him that he can barely fit on top of. So the conclusion to this epic battle is that jimmy gets on top of the crate with the relic and laughs at the WINGED furies for 1,2 or even 3 full game rounds until the game ends, because despite FLYING, they can't get their little black circle on the board to touch Jimmy's little black circle, so they can't hit him.

Somehow I think that the game having a situation like that is not in the least intended.

I mean, imagine you have an epic game where you get down to one tactical space marine left holding a relic, and he had just say...a Stormsword (superheavy siege tank designed to flatten a whole building with a single shot). It's top of 4, so you have at least a full round left, and they are very close.

Tactical marine Jimmy notices a small bit of ruined wall right next to him that he can barely fit behind. So the conclusion to this epic battle is that jimmy gets behind the wall with the relic and laughs at the massive siege tank for 1,2 or even 3 full game rounds until the game ends, because despite having a gun capable of destroying an entire building with a single shot and knowing exactly where Jimmy is it can't draw LOS, so it can't hit him.

Somehow I think that the game having a situation like that is not in the least intended.

The stormsword in that situation could move to a spot where it had LOS to Jimmy's toe and bam, no more jimmy. It could also thunderblitz right over the terrain, also probably resulting in a lack of jimmies on the board. There are still easy outs for the tank in that situation.

Additionally, pointing out one flaw in the rules is not suitable defense for another flaw. Two wrongs and all that.

And before you bring up hiding behind "unclaimed buildings," we house ruled them to be valid targets long ago, and I've never seen an unclaimed building on a tourney board. If you bring one yourself, it's auto-claimed and a valid target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
It's not RAW, but the ITC uses the "no non-flying model is un-assaultable" route of just calling it good enough if you roll the distance needed.

Do they also allow you to measure straight-line distance between models for determining this, without having to move around impassible terrain or other models?

I prefer this ruling, because I would feel like an absolute jerk if I had unreachable shooting squads against my ork and daemon buddies.

Do you also feel like an absolute jerk if you have a model hidden out of LOS behind a wall against a Tau player?

Q1: yes, straight line.

Q2: no? Something about all those rules about line of sight for shooting in the book makes me think that LOS blocking terrain is not a "glitch" in the rules, unlike being unassaultable because you're taking up an entire stair step on a stairway, where the assaulting model's arms could hit you, but his little black base can't touch yours.

niv-mizzet wrote:
The stormsword in that situation could move to a spot where it had LOS to Jimmy's toe and bam, no more jimmy. It could also thunderblitz right over the terrain, also probably resulting in a lack of jimmies on the board. There are still easy outs for the tank in that situation.

Ok, let's say the terrain is a C-shaped piece positioned so that only the back is open and the marine is out of LOS from any angle but directly behind. And it's also impassible. The Stormsword could in theory get around to the back with an infinite amount of time, but if it only has 1-2 turns left before the game ends then it may not be able to move far enough to get a clear shot.

Additionally, pointing out one flaw in the rules is not suitable defense for another flaw. Two wrongs and all that.

It is when they're two equivalent situations. Sometimes units can't be shot at. Sometimes units can't be charged. Unless you're also going to demand the removal of LOS-blocking terrain then you shouldn't demand the removal of charge-blocking terrain.

Q1: yes, straight line.

Ok, so you're completely ignoring RAW and the effects of impassible terrain, which means that units get longer charge distance in situations where the "impossible to charge" problem doesn't exist. Why do you think that this is a good idea?

Q2: no? Something about all those rules about line of sight for shooting in the book makes me think that LOS blocking terrain is not a "glitch" in the rules, unlike being unassaultable because you're taking up an entire stair step on a stairway, where the assaulting model's arms could hit you, but his little black base can't touch yours.

What makes you think that a model being impossible to assault is a "glitch" in the rules? And how is your "model on the stairs" scenario more absurd than a model hiding behind a thin wall being completely immune to shooting even though a tank could shoot them through the wall without any problems fluff-wise?

 Peregrine wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I mean, imagine you have an epic game where you get down to one tactical space marine left holding a relic, and he had just say...a swarm of 20 chaos furies. It's top of 4, so you have at least a full round left, and they are very close.

Tactical marine jimmy notices a knee-high crate right next to him that he can barely fit on top of. So the conclusion to this epic battle is that jimmy gets on top of the crate with the relic and laughs at the WINGED furies for 1,2 or even 3 full game rounds until the game ends, because despite FLYING, they can't get their little black circle on the board to touch Jimmy's little black circle, so they can't hit him.

Somehow I think that the game having a situation like that is not in the least intended.

I mean, imagine you have an epic game where you get down to one tactical space marine left holding a relic, and he had just say...a Stormsword (superheavy siege tank designed to flatten a whole building with a single shot). It's top of 4, so you have at least a full round left, and they are very close.

Tactical marine Jimmy notices a small bit of ruined wall right next to him that he can barely fit behind. So the conclusion to this epic battle is that jimmy gets behind the wall with the relic and laughs at the massive siege tank for 1,2 or even 3 full game rounds until the game ends, because despite having a gun capable of destroying an entire building with a single shot and knowing exactly where Jimmy is it can't draw LOS, so it can't hit him.

Somehow I think that the game having a situation like that is not in the least intended.

Exalted.

The reality of the situation is that sometimes units can't be shot at and sometimes units can't be assaulted. If you want to be able to handle both situations, bring stabby units to assault the unshootable and shooting units to shoot the unassaultable. This isn't rocket surgery.

Here is perhaps a better situation where Terrain can make a unit impossible to assault...

"JETBIKES, MODELS AND TERRAIN
Jetbikes can move over all other models and terrain freely. However, if a moving Jetbike begins or ends its move in difficult terrain, it must take a Dangerous Terrain test. Jetbikes cannot end their move over other models or impassable terrain, except that they can end their move on top of impassable terrain if it is actually possible to place the models on top of it. If they do so, they treat the impassable terrain as dangerous terrain."

Jetbikes can end their move in the middle of Impassable Terrain. A single Eldar Jetbike could park in Impassable Terrain and shoot millions of strictly assault models to death, given enough time. Even if the Jetbike was only an inch into the terrain, his opponent wouldn't be able to declare a charge as he wouldn't be able to reach the Jetbike.

I can see it now. A huge melee of around 20 models on the single space floor on the highest level of a corner ruin.

If you let models be placed in the air to assault me, then you should also allow for other models to be placed, during movement or set up, in the same position. My entire army is on this little 2" section of floor. Assault does not let you place a model in an illegal position, you must still follow ALL the movement rules, except the 1" from enemy models rule. WMS is there for when a model could be placed in that location, but it isn't safe for it to be left there.

My 7 guys on that top floor plus your unit, plus my counter assault. Fun times.

 Kriswall wrote:

Azeroth133 wrote:
I have a question regarding charging through difficult terrain.

For this example assume some imperial guard models are on a sky shield landing pad and a walker is making a charge.
He successfully rolls distance but there is no physical room on the edge of the sky shield landing pad for the charging model to be on to be in base contact.
does the charge fail, or do you just *count the model as being in base contact* and place him as near as possible?

any page numbers regarding this would be helpful as well.
Thx in advance.

Strict RaW? If you can't "reach" the target unit, you can't declare a charge in the first place. The issue is that "reach" is never defined. Most people generally define it as "placed into base to base contact with". A smaller population would say to use Wobbly Model Syndrome and just pretend like the Dread is floating in the air next to where you'd like it to be.

We've discussed this here numerous times and the thread generally gets locked when the arguments devolve to he petty bickering and insults about English comprehension.

You're best off just working it out with your opponent before you play a game or ask a TO if you're participating in a tournament.

This. If you define reach as able to have the edges of the bases touch, a tau army could balance all of their firewarriors on GW barrel terrain, and the entire army cannot be assaulted; thanks for playing.
If you define reach as the range to the target ignoring vertical issues, then the game breaks as the rest of assault requires something to be in base to base. So you can declare the charge, but not make it.
You could go for a wobbly solution, but that only works if you've got some sort of space. The GW barrel literally nests inside a 25mm round, so their is nothing to edge onto and claim wobbly.

If I were going to house rule it (and I do), if you roll high enough to Reach, are not blocked by impassable terrain, but still cannot actually get into base to base with the first model, you can still charge, but it is a disorderly charge. Just move as close as you can.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
a tau army could balance all of their firewarriors on GW barrel terrain, and the entire army cannot be assaulted; thanks for playing.

Until you kill one model, leaving a gap for the initial charging model to reach base contact and the models behind it to be engaged by being within 2" of a model in base contact with the enemy. Honestly, if you can't kill a single T3 4+ model by shooting then the problem is your bad list-building decisions, not the rules for charging.

Say there's a ledge, or raised floor etc, with a Marine just about stood under it. I try and charge him with a grey hunter I modelled to have his arms raised as I thought it looked pretty cool when I made him. Due to his arms being raised he doesn't fit under the ledge/floor/whatever. Does this mean that purely based off a modelling decision I can't charge the marine, despite other modelling choices allowing me to?

 statu wrote:
Say there's a ledge, or raised floor etc, with a Marine just about stood under it. I try and charge him with a grey hunter I modelled to have his arms raised as I thought it looked pretty cool when I made him. Due to his arms being raised he doesn't fit under the ledge/floor/whatever. Does this mean that purely based off a modelling decision I can't charge the marine, despite other modelling choices allowing me to?

Lol. "Modelling for disadvantage"

 statu wrote:
Say there's a ledge, or raised floor etc, with a Marine just about stood under it. I try and charge him with a grey hunter I modelled to have his arms raised as I thought it looked pretty cool when I made him. Due to his arms being raised he doesn't fit under the ledge/floor/whatever. Does this mean that purely based off a modelling decision I can't charge the marine, despite other modelling choices allowing me to?

Yes. If you model other than directed in the assembly instructions, you have to take the good with the bad. Modelling for Advantage has an ugly twin... Accidental Disadvantage by Modelling.

Everyone pointing out LoS is exactly the same is missing a vital difference: If a unit is hiding behind a brick wall it can't do anything, either (except barrage weapons and the like, but that option is included in their points cost). Meanwhile a bunch of fire warriors on barrels can shoot to their heart's content while being immune to assault. That's why comparing the two is ridiculous.

How much would you pay for your favorite shooty unit to get a "can not be assaulted" buff? If you actually play RAW on this assault issue, you're basically giving that for free to anyone who happens to have helpful terrain. It's ridiculous, and I hope no one actually plays that way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
a tau army could balance all of their firewarriors on GW barrel terrain, and the entire army cannot be assaulted; thanks for playing.

Until you kill one model, leaving a gap for the initial charging model to reach base contact and the models behind it to be engaged by being within 2" of a model in base contact with the enemy. Honestly, if you can't kill a single T3 4+ model by shooting then the problem is your bad list-building decisions, not the rules for charging.

The point is that separate barrels can be placed 2" away from each other, so the fire warriors can each be on their own barrel and in coherency, but no matter how many you kill from shooting, you can never assault them.

Deathypoo wrote:
Everyone pointing out LoS is exactly the same is missing a vital difference: If a unit is hiding behind a brick wall it can't do anything, either (except barrage weapons and the like, but that option is included in their points cost). Meanwhile a bunch of fire warriors on barrels can shoot to their heart's content while being immune to assault. That's why comparing the two is ridiculous.

Unless it has barrage weapons, or JSJ, or is scoring an objective, or is denying a kill point, etc. And we aren't talking about balance issues, we're talking about what makes sense rules-wise. A unit can be overpowered without there being any rule ambiguity involving it.

How much would you pay for your favorite shooty unit to get a "can not be assaulted" buff? If you actually play RAW on this assault issue, you're basically giving that for free to anyone who happens to have helpful terrain. It's ridiculous, and I hope no one actually plays that way.

That's not true at all, because terrain that makes a unit literally impossible to assault is almost nonexistent. What actually happens in real games is that occasionally a unit will be impossible to charge in one particular situation, and movement/shooting casualties/etc will soon resolve the problem and make it possible to charge the unit.

The point is that separate barrels can be placed 2" away from each other, so the fire warriors can each be on their own barrel and in coherency, but no matter how many you kill from shooting, you can never assault them.

Why are we talking about some ridiculous game where the Tau player gets to build all of the terrain and place it exactly the way they want? This is about as much of a "problem" as the hypothetical game where I make your entire deployment zone impassible terrain and automatically win the game. If this is really happening in your game then you have a TFG problem, not a rules issue, and the solution is to stop playing with those people.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's not true at all, because terrain that makes a unit literally impossible to assault is almost nonexistent. .

That really depends on the unit.

For single-model units, for example, all they need to do is stand on a rock.

 insaniak wrote:
That really depends on the unit.

For single-model units, for example, all they need to do is stand on a rock.

True, but the context was a whole fire warrior squad standing on "no assaults allowed" terrain. A single model is easier to keep out of charges, but it's a lot easier to kill by shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
That really depends on the unit.

For single-model units, for example, all they need to do is stand on a rock.

True, but the context was a whole fire warrior squad standing on "no assaults allowed" terrain. A single model is easier to keep out of charges, but it's a lot easier to kill by shooting.

Just to say, there are a lot of pieces of terrain that have individual model sized stairs - I'm pretty sure I could fit a small squad on some of them, with no possibility of ever being assaulted base to base.

Plus, we have a couple of tiered hills at the club that are made from an old collectables display stand, on which no two 28mm models can stand base to base. They look decent, but playing them in a game where you had to make true base to base contact for assaults would mean units on that hill were simply unchargable.

So, that sort of terrain isn't as rare as you'd think, is all I'm saying.