Models in Ruins, on first floor cant be charged, when enemy Models cant be placed within 1" ?

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.

**Thommy H**

No one's "floating in the air". The attacking models are in the act of climbing up the wall when they get close enough to fight, that's all. Close combat represents a swirling, dynamic melee - some will have leapt up onto the ledge, some might be clinging on, the defenders are swarming down to fight etc. etc.

Why does that strain immersion when we're all apparently fine with an entire floor of a building being occupied because of the giant plastic discs stuck to the defenders' feet? It's all abstract.

**Dionysodorus**

Seizeman wrote:
It's not the same for a tank to have the ability to climb on top of something than to be stuck to a wall. If you don't have enough movement to reach the top of the obstacle, you just can't climb it and must go around. This makes the most sense. Because of a vehicle's limited movement and it's inability to go on second floors of ruins, they can only climb small obstacles and barricades, wich makes sense, as opposed to escale walls, wich is silly.

How it is possible to be intended for a vehicle or monster to be unable to go to a second floor but for it to be able to climb to the walls of the same ruins and attack the infantry on the top, circumventing the restriction?

Also, fluff wise it makes absolute sense for a unit to be unable to climb to a floor that is occupied. The reasons castles and fortifications exist in real life is the virtual impossibility to climb a defended wall. That's why to attack such possitions you use artillery, grenades and shooting in general.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also kicking in; TFG syndrome for trying to gain charge immunity against other infantry.

How is TFG syndrome to take advantage of a rule that is pretty clearly intended to be used that way? The reason non-infantry can't go to upper floors is precisely so they can't charge infantry, there's no other reason for the rule to exist.

Is like accusing someone of abuse for using cover.

This doesn't make any sense.

First, vehicles almost always have much higher movement than infantry. A Land Raider can scale a 7" cliff pretty easily -- it's just not true that vehicles can only go over small obstacles.

Second, vehicles without Fly can't climb ruins anyway, so I don't know why you're talking about this. The rules for ruins are clear. They can only end their move on the ground floor, not the second floor and not stuck to a wall.

Third, a lot of what people are talking about is infantry trying to charge infantry on ruins. And "stepping into a new edition" seems to be very clear that you can do this even if your models can't actually move to the floor you're trying to charge.

**Aeri**

I think WMS is only ever made to secure the safety of your model, not to make it "stand" in a position where it never could (halfway up a wall, only 1 mm on a ruin level etc.)

**luke1705**

For whatever it's worth, basically every tournament ever just says "if you make your charge roll, you're in". Thankfully, in a tournament setting, you don't have to decide these things either way - the TO does.

But IMO, It's just the most sensible thing to do. Being immune to assault makes absolutely no game sense. You can say "RAW that's how it probably works" and be correct. But if you're going to tell me that you honestly believe that:

A) GW intended for you to have assault immunity in this situation

and

B) I'm fine with playing a casual game in a way that make no sense because that's how the rules are worded

and

C) The technology just doesn't exist in the 41st millennium to get assault marines with a jump pack six feet off the ground to do the literal only thing they came on the planet to do

Then you're probably going to find that you have a lot less people who want to play toy soldiers with you.

To anyone who honestly believes that they, or anyone, should play the game like that, I say:

Man up and use real tactics instead of cheap tricks. It's how the men play war games

**Crimson**

I really don't think anyone here is trying to gain an unfair advantage, there is just genuine confusion about how the rule is supposed to work. One solution leaves filled floors unassaultable, while another results spidermen everywhere and possibly having to keep track of 'real' position of several models. Neither seems ideal to me. Personally I'd prefer if the vertical fight distance was just longer (six inches, maybe), would solve most of the problems.

**Aeri**

Crimson wrote:
I really don't think anyone here is trying to gain an unfair advantage, there is just genuine confusion about how the rule is supposed to work. One solution leaves filled floors unassaultable, while another results spidermen everywhere and possibly having to keep track of 'real' position of several models. Neither seems ideal to me. Personally I'd prefer if the vertical fight distance was just longer (six inches, maybe), would solve most of the problems.

^this.

Its not about gaining an advantage, its about getting a practical rule interpretation that is easy to handle in a game.

Can we please also adress if Monstrous Creatures can assault upper levels if the model (not the base) is in 1''?

**licclerich**

7th ed had the rule in it!....play that.
Equal to base number and sizes..ie.3 terminators (bullky) and 4 marines on a ledge equals 10 bases .
they are rolling around on the floor as in Private Ryan

**Seizeman**

This doesn't make any sense.

First, vehicles almost always have much higher movement than infantry. A Land Raider can scale a 7" cliff pretty easily -- it's just not true that vehicles can only go over small obstacles.

Second, vehicles without Fly can't climb ruins anyway, so I don't know why you're talking about this. The rules for ruins are clear. They can only end their move on the ground floor, not the second floor and not stuck to a wall.

Third, a lot of what people are talking about is infantry trying to charge infantry on ruins. And "stepping into a new edition" seems to be very clear that you can do this even if your models can't actually move to the floor you're trying to charge.

So vehicles can stick to a wall or any surface as long as it is not a ruin? Can they climb a tree in a forest? A statue? A tyranid capilar? The answer is simple, nothing can be half through a climbl. Either they are on the ground or on the top of the element/floor. It's impossible to place the model in mid air, so the rules do not alow it.

The question on the "stepping into a new edition" only covers the case in wich the model can reach the floor, but has no movement left to move horizontally into an stable position, that's why the wobbly model rule is applied.

**Thommy H**

Seizeman wrote:
The question on the "stepping into a new edition" only covers the case in wich the model can reach the floor, but has no movement left to move horizontally into an stable position, that's why the wobbly model rule is applied.

I don't think this distinction is supported by the text:

Stepping Into A New Edition of Warhammer 40,000, Page 1 wrote:Q. What happens when an Infantry model cannot
completely end its move on a floor of ruins when
attempting to scale the walls?
A. If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move
to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome
guidelines in the core rules to identify with your
opponent where your model’s actual location is.

I can't see anything in that answer that suggests it only applies to models that can scale a wall but have no horizontal movement left. That seems like a real edge case (no pun intended...) to me. Most movement will either be insufficient to completely scale the wall, or you'll have at least a little bit left over to get onto the next level. Basically though, I don't think the rules text is explicit enough to distinguish between "climbing a wall" and "walking on a floor": movement works the same horizontally and vertically. Why can't WMS also cover models partway up a wall? If it wasn't intended to work on some arbitrary direction of movement, I think it would say so.

I know it's a bit fiddly to have models halfway up walls (though, honestly, how often does it even happen?), but I think the implications of a unit that takes up most of a ruin's level being immune to close combat are worse. You need to come up with a lot more exceptions to cover not being able to climb halfway up a wall than you do if allowing it.

**Seizeman**

The implication of a unit being immune to close combat is not that much. Units on an elevated floor are already inmune to close combat by anything that's not infantry or a flyer. Being inmune also to infantry in the rare case in wich your whole unit fits on a floor AND also leaves no room for more models is not that relevant at all and adds an interesting tactical option, while being realistic.

Trying to solve it by saying units can hover mid-climb creates very serious problem. If you can do that, then I can set my leman russes on top of trees and statues like tightrope walkers, with an amazing line of sight and being extremely hard to attack in close combat. That is until a dreadnought goes king kong mode and also climbs the tree to hit the russ. How is this not infinitely worse than the other situation?

**Crimson**

Seizeman wrote:
The implication of a unit being immune to close combat is not that much. Units on an elevated floor are already inmune to close combat by anything that's not infantry or a flyer. Being inmune also to infantry in the rare case in wich your whole unit fits on a floor AND also leaves no room for more models is not that relevant at all and adds an interesting tactical option, while being realistic.

Trying to solve it by saying units can hover mid-climb creates very serious problem. If you can do that, then I can set my leman russes on top of trees and statues like tightrope walkers, with an amazing line of sight and being extremely hard to attack in close combat. That is until a dreadnought goes king kong mode and also climbs the tree to hit the russ. How is this not infinitely worse than the other situation?

Yeah. While I really don't like the results of either interpretation, the one which doesn't allow Leman Russes to balance on top of treetops or statues is clearly far superior.

**Aeri**

Seizeman wrote:
The implication of a unit being immune to close combat is not that much. Units on an elevated floor are already inmune to close combat by anything that's not infantry or a flyer. Being inmune also to infantry in the rare case in wich your whole unit fits on a floor AND also leaves no room for more models is not that relevant at all and adds an interesting tactical option, while being realistic.

Trying to solve it by saying units can hover mid-climb creates very serious problem. If you can do that, then I can set my leman russes on top of trees and statues like tightrope walkers, with an amazing line of sight and being extremely hard to attack in close combat. That is until a dreadnought goes king kong mode and also climbs the tree to hit the russ. How is this not infinitely worse than the other situation?

This is only the case for ruins though, there are also buildings (for which the only infantry can enter levels rule not applies).

I assume the same answer applies to other units for other types of scenery aswell - you simplay state its already 2 inches up, for example, and finish climbing that building next turn.

**The_Grey_Knight**

The commissar looks over his troops, hunkered down behind the ruined arms factory, 3 stories high. The Tau gunline was pounding the Imperial Guard forces and they were now sheltering, ready for an all out assault.
"Right men, the enemies of the Emperor lie just behind this building. They reject his light and deny his rule, and they must repent. We shall bring His righteous hammer down upon him! In the swirl of melee, we shall gut the xenos scum, and show our faith to Him! Draw your weapons men, for we shall charge tonight! We shall engage in the purest form of combat, in hand to hand in the name of the Emperor's glory- what is it?!?!" The commissar shouted to one of his men, who pointed wide eyed at the sky.
All looked, in horror at the entire gunline hovering mid air, before being blasted by an enemy riptide, as the rest of the sheltered Imperial Guard forces were destroyed.

Also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7-RvnDVens

**JohnnyHell**

Ever tried fighting hand to hand whilst climbing up a wall whilst a guy at the top tries to cut your fingers off? Heck, defending a staircase in a sword fight is easier if you're at the top, defending vs someone climbing a wall is simplicity itself.

I know realism =/= rules but Team Hover's argument is not cutting it for me.

**Arson Fire**

I don't see why close combat should become entirely useless just because a bunch of lardy space marines have managed to completely fill a room.

'Brother Jenkins has fallen! There's a gap in our mass. Quick, let your beer guts out lads! We've got to plug the hole!'

Eh, on second thought maybe space wolves can get a pass.

**Nightlord1987**

Had a similar siuation with my game today. Necron Immortals on a bridge, my Orks charging in. Now, there was some room for WMS to kick in, but even then I could only get 5 of the 10 or so Orkz into CC without me feeling like a jerk about it... the rest just sat on ground floor.

There are few things I miss about 7th, but the way they handled Ruins and the vertical combats was good.

**JohnnyHell**

For me, this all boils down to "talk to your opponent and don't be tools". If an area (any area of the battlefield) is genuinely so full that other models can't fit in, maybe you just can't put any guys there? Maybe it just is that well defended. Sometimes the simplest solution is the solution. Sometimes using the rules is tactics, not 'abuse' just because it doesn't work in your favour. In the photo example, all credit to the Marine player for taking a tactical position that doesn't allow them to be assaulted, and good on them for rejecting 'hovering' as a solution to attack them.

Or maybe it would be dramatic to allow this combat against the odds. If so, agree to run it. Whichever way you play it isn't necessarily a precedent for all future occasions, and doesn't have to be a situation to fall out over. What works best now? Play it and move on.

Edge cases like this just need a mutual decision on the day. If you're playing with someone who can't discuss and agree then they're not someone who's fun to play. I regularly agree with cool stuff that is to my unit/army's detriment of it is logical or fits the narrative of the battle we're playing. It's not worth spending 30 minutes arguing over.

**Silentz**

In all the games of 8th I've played, we've used the rule as written in the BRB that your base needs to be within 1" of an enemy model's base, OR within 1" of a model that is within 1".

If only 2 of my dudes can get onto the floor where the enemy models are, then only those 2 dudes can fight.

If none of my dudes can get within 1", I can't assault them and need to shoot them to make room to assault. It's annoying to not be able to assault someone hiding up a building, but not game breaking.

If this doesn't sit right with you, I would be tempted to houserule it to something like 'within 1" horizontally or 3" vertically'.

edit: by the way I would not say this is an edge case - it comes up quite a lot.

**Aeri**

there are pure melee units that become quite useless in cityfight terrain.
Idont want to change my whole terrain just to make them work.
And no, im not the one assaulting

**Nazrak**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Ever tried fighting hand to hand whilst climbing up a wall whilst a guy at the top tries to cut your fingers off? Heck, defending a staircase in a sword fight is easier if you're at the top, defending vs someone climbing a wall is simplicity itself.

I know realism =/= rules but Team Hover's argument is not cutting it for me.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me.

**plikt**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Ever tried fighting hand to hand whilst climbing up a wall whilst a guy at the top tries to cut your fingers off? Heck, defending a staircase in a sword fight is easier if you're at the top, defending vs someone climbing a wall is simplicity itself.

I know realism =/= rules but Team Hover's argument is not cutting it for me.

Okay, so you're saying that you could stop a space marine from charging up a staircase? Or that a guardsman can cut off the fingers of a terminators power fist?

**JohnnyHell**

plikt wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Ever tried fighting hand to hand whilst climbing up a wall whilst a guy at the top tries to cut your fingers off? Heck, defending a staircase in a sword fight is easier if you're at the top, defending vs someone climbing a wall is simplicity itself.

I know realism =/= rules but Team Hover's argument is not cutting it for me.

Okay, so you're saying that you could stop a space marine from charging up a staircase? Or that a guardsman can cut off the fingers of a terminators power fist?

I'm saying none of them can hover. ;-) No space, no fit. Simples.

**Bigdoza**

They should really have made ruins and buildings destroyable.

Would a huge dreadnought stand sad in defeat at models it can't reach above it or would it just rip the whole building out from under them?

**plikt**

JohnnyHell wrote:
I'm saying none of them can hover. ;-) No space, no fit. Simples.

Then you're not playing RAW. The movement rules say that infantry can move vertically up the walls of ruins and the FAQ says to use WMS to represent positions that are partially up a wall.

**Crimson**

plikt wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Ever tried fighting hand to hand whilst climbing up a wall whilst a guy at the top tries to cut your fingers off? Heck, defending a staircase in a sword fight is easier if you're at the top, defending vs someone climbing a wall is simplicity itself.

I know realism =/= rules but Team Hover's argument is not cutting it for me.

Okay, so you're saying that you could stop a space marine from charging up a staircase? Or that a guardsman can cut off the fingers of a terminators power fist?

Makes more sense than a land raider being able balance on a treetop.

**JohnnyHell**

plikt wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
I'm saying none of them can hover. ;-) No space, no fit. Simples.

Then you're not playing RAW. The movement rules say that infantry can move vertically up the walls of ruins and the FAQ says to use WMS to represent positions that are partially up a wall.

If we're being pedantic, there is nothing in the FAQ. The 'Stepping Into A New Edition' doc has the following:

Q. What happens when an Infantry model cannot completely end its move on a floor of ruins when attempting to scale the walls?

A. If an Infantry model is unable to complete a move to a stable position, use the Wobbly Model Syndrome guidelines in the core rules to identify with your opponent where your model’s actual location is.

Doesn't mention anything about being partially up a wall. Nope. To me it doesn't even mean you can half move to a place - it means you got the mode there and it isn't stable. Not that you didn't have the movement to make it. Not that a platform is full so you're going to hover nearby.

Wobbly Model Syndrome
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 painted model damaged or even broken. In cases like this, we nd it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its ‘actual’ location. If, later on, your enemy is considering shooting the model, you will have to hold it back in the proper place so they can check if it is visible.

Again, nothing about being halfway up a wall (still not sure how you'd even fight from that position). To me, WMS rule means "if you place it and it's wobbly". Not "this allows you to put things in places you cannot balance a model at all". It's not designed as a climbing/abseiling simulator allowing models to be where they could never be placed. Each to their own though. If you wanna play that way then I wouldn't be playing RAW. But it's silly to me attempting to game a rule designed for simple practicality. "I placed it and its wobbly, so I'll pop it here and count it as there." Fine. That's what it's for.

**THE_GODLYNESS**

Non flying vehicles can't climb?
Always ground floor.
So how are you saying it's on a tree?

**JohnnyHell**

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Non flying vehicles can't climb?
Always ground floor.
So how are you saying it's on a tree?

Ruins have that caveat. Do woods? (FWIW I don't think a vehicle should be able to climb a tree but outside applying common sense nothing says they can't. Can a tank end a move on top of a building terrain piece (not a Ruin)? By the rules probably. We've been going on plain common sense, and saying no.)

**BlackTalos**

BaconCatBug wrote:
p5freak wrote:
The rule says : "If you delicately balance it in place...". What if there is no place to put the enemy Model ?
Does it even matter? You only need to get within 1" to be in combat, not base to base. I am struggling to even visualise what you're trying to do.

In any case, no, being in ruins will never stop the enemy from charging you.

This question comes up in each and every edition....

Went and found the post:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606913.page

This question always comes up, and WMS is the only answer that can be used, though either side of the argument is usually being TFG... Trying to find loopholes to be "un-chargeable" ;-)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
Makes more sense than a land raider being able balance on a treetop.

Also, you have now summoned the old picture, which helps people visualise:
(I love this picture, no credit to me though)

Crablezworth wrote:

**Tsol**

8th edition effectively treats the whole board as a single 2d plane (even some of 7th). If you wish to have advanced terrain features such as ruins walkways and the like, refer to cities of death. If you don't like those rules, make up your own with your opponent.

But at the moment with the picture shown/OP. You can still be charged.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I freely admit, that is lacks detail, and is extremely dumbed down to the point of "would you even consider this a strategy game anymore?" level, but officially, that is how it is.

My gaming group uses 5th edition building rules/cities of death for most of our 7th and 8th edition house rules. I recommend you do the same, if you too think 8th has been so dumbed down that not even children find them intuitive.

*Just an FYI overall I like 8th, but its no 5th but a huge improvement over 7th