Flying models

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.

**broxus**

If you model can fly do you pay for vertical distance movement? For example if a model is on the top of a building 6” high and a flying model wants to assault them and is only 1” away how far would they need to roll on the charge?

**BaconCatBug**

broxus wrote:
If you model can fly do you pay for vertical distance movement? For example if a model is on the top of a building 6” high and a flying model wants to assault them and is only 1” away how far would they need to roll on the charge?

In short, we don't know because GW didn't write clear rules for this situation. There are arguments for diagonal movement measuring and across+up movement measuring.

**p5freak**

Terrain doesnt exist for flyers. They ignore it. To flyers the board is flat, like a 2D plane. Thats how we play it.

**Ghaz**

Remember that not all models with the FLY keyword are flyers.

**skchsan**

Until proper rule set like cities of death is released, for sanity and spirit of competition, models with fly keyword should be allowed to charge at 1" range I think.

**broxus**

The problem is I can’t find any definitive answer either way.

**BaconCatBug**

broxus wrote:
The problem is I can’t find any definitive answer either way.

Because there isn't one, because GW never bothered to make concise and consistent rules on the matter.

**Mr. Shine**

HIWPI?

Models with the FLY keyword can measure their to and from movement directly, rather than needing to follow any horizontal and then vertical measurement.

I think this is probably the most obvious and plain way to do it.

**skchsan**

Mr. Shine wrote:
HIWPI?

Models with the FLY keyword can measure their to and from movement directly, rather than needing to follow any horizontal and then vertical measurement.

I think this is probably the most obvious and plain way to do it.

This. Even cities of death ruleset in 7th ed was a big mess - dealing with vertical distance was always poorly defined in this game. Mr. Shine's direct method would be best suited as LoS, shooting, etc are all measured in a direct line.

**Mr. Shine**

It's also common sense. While non-FLY models obviously have to move along and up anything they come across, models that 'can FLY' should not be bound by the same restriction.

Interestingly though it means that, Movement stat for Movement stat, a unit like a Reiver Squad with grapnel launchers which has free vertical distance movement is potentially faster than a model with FLY, as the diagonal will always be slightly longer.

**JohnnyHell**

p5freak wrote:
Terrain doesnt exist for flyers. They ignore it. To flyers the board is flat, like a 2D plane. Thats how we play it.

This is HIWPI too.

**skchsan**

Mr. Shine wrote:
It's also common sense. While non-FLY models obviously have to move along and up anything they come across, models that 'can FLY' should not be bound by the same restriction.

Interestingly though it means that, Movement stat for Movement stat, a unit like a Reiver Squad with grapnel launchers which has free vertical distance movement is potentially faster than a model with FLY, as the diagonal will always be slightly longer.

On a slightly off note, in a matched play, high grounds that bring up issues of distance should only be available in forms of fortifications that needs to be bought with points (i.e. fortress of redemption or imperial bastion) - these 'high ground' come with rules that you can deny the advatange by blowing it up etc. More often than not these problems come up where units weak in assault take advantage of areas unreachable by conventional means, which I find distasteful and not fun to play with.

In a friendly match, I'd just go with whatever you guys decide upon before/during the game.

**JinxDragon**

I second Mr. Shrine's answer on how it should be played, as that is the path the Model would follow if it ignored terrain completely, but it is far from what the Authors want from us.

Games Workshop really does love their little 'Horizontal + Vertical' movement thing, even though it is by far the worse way to go about measuring movement. I understand what they where attempting to achieve as well, a mechanism by which we follow the motion of the Model over Terrain, but this is so clunky that it causes some very odd outcomes if you try to apply it to every situation. Not just for Models with the FLY ability, that is it's own can-of-worms thanks to instructions telling us to move across terrain "as if they were not there," but for every Model that has to deal terrain involving inclined or otherwise non-flat surfaces.

Try applying the 'Vertical + Horizontal' answer, as supplied to us by Designer Commandant, to a Model that is trying to move over an Hill with a 10 degree slope.
You don't measure along the hypotenuse, as one would expect as that is the path the Model took, but the Vertical and Horizontal axis....

**JohnnyHell**

Nonsense. Show me the rules to back up that last part, please.

**JinxDragon**

I apologize, it was in the "Stepping into a New Edition" document, not the Designer Commentary:

Q: How do vertical distances work for movement
and measurements?
A: All distances are measured in three dimensions, so if a unit moves over a hill or scales a wall, the horizontal
distance and vertical distance combined cannot exceed its Movement characteristic. This means that in order
to traverse across an obstacle, you must move up to the top of that obstacle, move across the top of it, then move
down it

It even uses Hills as the damn example of moving over Terrain by adding the Horizontal and Vertical distances... it is ******* madness!

**JohnnyHell**

Quote the whole thing... it isn't saying what you think. Hills to GW usually have steps, for example those on the Realm of Battle gameboards. So you need to measure up and across each step. For a smooth curve or sloped hill with no steps (no obstacles, to use their term from SIANE) you could absolutely measure the 'hypotenuse' as you put it. It's not as crazy as you think. :-)

**JinxDragon**

What do you mean by quoting the whole thing?
It was a single Answer from the Stepping into a New Edition guide, that was the whole thing!

If you don't believe me, look it up yourself:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Warhammer_40000_Stepping_into_a_New_Edition_of_Warhammer_40000.pdf

Look, I understand your upset over being handed a very stupid Frequently Asked Question answer that disproves everything you want to be right... I don't want this to be right!
So if you have something that can revoke instructions to combine Vertical and Horizontal Movement when we cross Terrain, please feel free to actually quote it....

**JohnnyHell**

I have read it. I have explained why it doesn't say what you think. You carry on Pythagorasing needlessly if you like, but you're basing your reading on types of hills GW don't sell. The core rules cover how to move along a slope just fine. Note the thing above mentions 'obstacles'. Is a slope an obstacle? No. Just measure along it.

Edit: I'm not upset. Please don't assign emotion. I'm actually having a lovely holiday in Barbados and am as far from upset as you can imagine! So just read what I wrote and don't infer stuff there, please? Thanks. Painting someone as emotional in a debate isn't good faith arguing.

**JinxDragon**

So your Rule-supported argument is:
Some hills have 'steps' while other hills do not, thus we can choose when to apply these instructions?

Please, quote something from the Authors that makes this to be true... Not just your own personal opinion that instructions involving Hills should not be applied to all Hills.
Cause, I do have Rule-Supported solutions for this problem but they all involve bringing 'Scratch Built Datasheets' to re-write this answer into oblivion!

**JohnnyHell**

JinxDragon wrote:
So your Rule-supported argument is:
Some hills have 'steps' while other hills do not, thus I can choose when to apply these instructions?

My argument is: do the core rules cover moving in an uninterrupted straight line? Yes, they do.
Do the SIANE examples you quoted cover how to handle moving over obstacles in more detail? Yes, they do. They mention hills. GW hills as currently sold are stepped.
Are these rules needed for moving along a slope? No. See first point.

**JinxDragon**

So... you have nothing more then your opinion....
I can quote the Authors telling us to combine Vertical and Horizontal motion, in which hills where even used as an example, and your counter is that it is entirely up to us to decide if we apply the answer or not?

I even threw you a bone by explaining how I obliterate this answer entirely from the equation, it isn't because we have permission to apply this only to "Stepped Hills" but because we have permission to re-write the entire Rulebook. As long as you bring the piece of terrain as 'Scratch Built' then you can change how Models interact with that Terrain very easily. Simply provide a Datasheet which tells your opponent to ignore the Frequently Asked Question in favor of following the direct path the Model took and you now have a Rule-Supported reason to ignore the answer.

Short of something like that, that Hills still has to obey the same Vertical and Horizontal measurement Rule as everything else.

**JohnnyHell**

JinxDragon wrote:
So... you have nothing more then your opinion?

I'll humour you even though you're baiting me. Here is the citation hinted at above. It's on the second page of the Core Rules. Third of you count the pretty cover.

1. Moving
A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or
less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet.

This sentence alone tells you you can move along a sloped surface. If you're not following this I'm not sure what to tell you.

Edit: you've edited your post and mentioned hills again. Go look at the section you quoted mentioning 'obstacles'. Is a slope an obstacle? Are you talking GW hills or scratch built ones? Stepped or sloped? That is actually crucial.

**JinxDragon**

If it is critical, please quote the Rule that requires us to distinguish between 'sloped' and 'stepped' hills.

I also want you to realize that your trying to counter the clarification by quoting the Rule it was clarifying!
The Answer must correct the Core Rule it is clarifying or else there is no point in having the answer in the first place....

**JohnnyHell**

'Obstacle'

This word. Obstacle. Does a slope present any obstacles?

**JinxDragon**

I was going to, I was going to quote Rules and other things, but I am not going to do that:
Until you can quote something from the Authors telling us to apply this answer, an answer clarifying how we go about measuring Vertical Movement, only to "Stepped Hills..." you are simply wrong, that is it.

You first accused me of referring to a Frequently Asked Question answer that did not exist
When I posted the whole answer, as requested, you accused me of misquoting it in order to apply it to hills
When I posted the link, curtsy of Ghaz, to the answer so everyone can verify for themselves that it is indeed applicable to this situation
Now you to go back to quoting 'Core Rules' so we can form an answer that completely ignores the existence of this Frequently Asked Question entirely....

No, you are simply wrong on this matter... and I for one would like it if you where not, because it is a stupid bloody answer!

Besides, even if we did somehow manage to make an argument to stop it applying to 'sloped hills....'
Those are not the only thing with inclined angles, and everything else still has the same bloody problem!

**JohnnyHell**

I didn't say it didn't exist I erroneously thought you'd missed a bit. Didn't change my interpretation.

I didn't say you misquoted it.

You are refusing to follow any of my logic, instead bleating "you're wrong". It's just as well you don't play, you'd get some weird looks for measuring up in the air to go along a slope. Honestly, I'm trying to get you to break this down and rebuild to see my view, but you are more interested in being 'right'. Good to know, as it saves me arguing with you.

**JinxDragon**

Your argument involves discarding a Answer provided by the Authors, an answer concerning Vertical Movement that also directly quoted hills as an example, in favor of... what, some person on the internet said so?
Sorry... the Authors have more input into their game then you do and I think I have made this point well enough that those reading this thread will also see clearly the problem with us needing to combine Vertical and Horizontal motion.

Less then I do as a player though, nothing stops me bringing up the stupid nature of this answer and having an opponent agree it is stupid... and to ignore it entirely!
Cause that is how we do it, we acknowledge the Rules are leading to a situation that clearly is stupid... and then we agree not to play using those Rules.

**JohnnyHell**

Problem. You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

**JinxDragon**

You don't think instructions requiring us to combine Vertical and Horizontal motion is problematic?
No wait, of course not... you believe we only apply this Answer to Terrain that lacks slopes even though nothing has granted us permission to do so.

Really wish you would quote a Rule sometime.....

**doctortom**

JinxDragon wrote:
Your argument involves discarding a Answer provided by the Authors, an answer concerning Vertical Movement that also directly quoted hills as an example, in favor of... what, some person on the internet said so?
Sorry... the Authors have more input into their game then you do and I think I have made this point well enough that those reading this thread will also see clearly the problem with us needing to combine Vertical and Horizontal motion.

Less then I do as a player though, nothing stops me bringing up the stupid nature of this answer and having an opponent agree it is stupid... and to ignore it entirely!
Cause that is how we do it, we acknowledge the Rules are leading to a situation that clearly is stupid... and then we agree not to play using those Rules.

You have a built in assumption here, that a sloped hill is an obstacle. I think you'll find that 99% of the people think that a sloped hill is not an obstacle, so you don't have to use their vertical + horizontal movement. That means that the quote that JohnnyHell gave from the rules about "moving in any direction" would cover the direction "up the sloped hill, without having to try to measure the vertical distance. That isn't "discarding an Answer", it is ignoring a statement that does not apply to the situation.

For GW's hills that have steps, the steps themselves would be obstacles in the way that barricades, walls, etc. would be obstacles, so taking vertical as well as horizontal movement into account there makes sense. You go horizontally until you hit the step, then you have to go vertically, then you go horizontally again once you hit the stop of the step. You don't deal with that with a sloped hill, however. There are no obstacles, and when you trace the line that the model takes, it goes up the incline. You don't figure horizontal then vertical movement distance for it; in both cases you are measuring the distance of the path that the model would take if it were actually walking that distance.