New 40K Big FAQ 2

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.

**Spoletta**

I actually don't read it this way,

It if you have guys on top of ruins and guys on the ground floor, i will just charge climbing the walls without ever having to go over the ground floor model's bases. Where is the problem?

**Stux**

Spoletta wrote:
I actually don't read it this way,

It if you have guys on top of ruins and guys on the ground floor, i will just charge climbing the walls without ever having to go over the ground floor model's bases. Where is the problem?

Depends on how it's laid out. You can't go within 1" of the ground floor models soif they're immediately on the other side of the wall then it won't be possible.

Unless of course you declare against them too, then you can go within 1".

A lot of factors anyway! Certainly not as simple as it was.

**Ragnar69**

happy_inquisitor wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.

My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.

My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.

The thing to do here is to slow down, go back and re-read the rules again. The rules interactions have changed so you have to go back to the beginning.

Read the rules on ruins on page 248 again. Can your Wraiths, Barges and Tomb Blades Fly? Note the bold text, that means that you should check if they have the Fly keyword. Yes they do.

Now look at the rules change on Fly. Only in the movement phase do you ignore intervening models and terrain, you no longer ignore these things in the charge phase. The Fly keyword is in no way removed, only those specific effects of the Fly keyword outside of the Movement phase. They still have the Fly keyword, the restriction on ending moves on ground level still does not apply to them in any phase of the game in which they move.

So each of those units still has the ability to go to higher levels of ruins whether in the movement phase or the charge phase. What has changed is that now they must pay the movement cost for doing so - typically that will be an additional 3" required on charging up to the first level of ruins. That definitely makes Fly assault units a bit less good because they now need to roll the same distance to make the charge as anything else but it does not invalidate them.

Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.

The way that people talk about Blood Angels you would think that they had Jump Packs baked into the base cost of every single model in their codex and all shooting options had been removed. Neither of those is actually the case and my reading of the codex was that it is a pretty balanced all-round Marine force with a bit of extra oomph in the fight phase and a couple of extra units well placed to take advantage of that. BA will tend to behave more like other marines in general now, that is not super great for BA players because generic marines are not in a super great position in top tournament play but their howls of rage at having their whole codex rendered unplayable just look like the usual over-reaction to change.

You are forgetting one thing: only infantry can move through walls and floors. So wraiths not only have to add 3" (or 5" with the new GW ruins) to reach the first floor, they also have to move over he walls of that floor. So they have to add the height of the wall where the target is hiding behind TWICE.....and heaven help if there is another level above the target…

And if the target hugs the wall and you have to place your models behind them, can you charge at all because it would mean moving over enemy models? That FLY change was short-sighted and badly implemented. You could already prevent FLY models jumping over screens by screening smartly.
If there intend was only to prevent 0" charges they should have changed the charge rule not the fly rule.

**chimeara**

ccs wrote:
chimeara wrote:
I played my first games today with the new FAQ. The first game, nothing of note relating to the FAQ came up. The second game, I was testing for a big event and I requested to play against IG cp battery/IK. A conga line of guardsmen almost stopped my DP from charging the Dominus. Just a line of little dudes straight across.
I had to use my Helverins to clear the way, thanks to rolling poorly I had to use both Helverins. I was not a fan of having to use the Helverins to kill guardsmen.
It's a very awkward, very poorly written rule. I'm not sure if they were trying to target DP's/BA captains with this rule. But it worked, they made fly charging not a thing anymore.
It makes me reconsider running DP's at all.

1) So you're complaining about shooting up infantry with what's essentially an anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle weapon?
2) Something prevents you from simply flying over those IG in the movement step? And THEN charging the Dominus?
3) Well, since you were testing for an upcoming event, I guess you learned that you're going to have to modify your attack plan. So it was a successful test.

1) To me, they are not for light infantry they're for meq or higher. But I see your point.
2) At the movement phase, i only had enough range to move up to the guardsman wall as he had the Castellan on his back line.
3) Yes, very much so.

**Pandabeer**

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.

You are... actually right o_O I assumed that since the rule speaks so specifically about Infantry being able to traverse ruins without problems Infantry and fliers were the ONLY ones that could do that. Well, this just made my Thunderlord and TWC a bit better (assuming I can fitthose huge bases on athose small ruin floors... ah well, in most of my games we simply rule that if a charge succeeds but the models don't fit they are assumed to be standing in CC while in reality they are standing somewhere they don't fall over). I now have to wonder though, since the rule is only talking about Vehicles/ Monsters/ Bikes only being able to end their move on the ground floor, can they actually charge to higher floors? Would be awesome for stuff like Maulerfiends...

**Ragnar69**

Pandabeer wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:

Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.

You are... actually right o_O I assumed that since the rule speaks so specifically about Infantry being able to traverse ruins without problems Infantry and fliers were the ONLY ones that could do that. Well, this just made my Thunderlord and TWC a bit better (assuming I can fitthose huge bases on athose small ruin floors... ah well, in most of my games we simply rule that if a charge succeeds but the models don't fit they are assumed to be standing in CC while in reality they are standing somewhere they don't fall over). I now have to wonder though, since the rule is only talking about Vehicles/ Monsters/ Bikes only being able to end their move on the ground floor, can they actually charge to higher floors? Would be awesome for stuff like Maulerfiends...

Cavalry can't go to higher floors,it was in one of the BRB erratas and is still there.

**Alex_85**

Well. I mostly play against DE. One of the players I usually play with uses a lot of jet bikes using the ability to fly over my units to cause mortals. Can he still do that?

**Ordana**

Alex_85 wrote:
Well. I mostly play against DE. One of the players I usually play with uses a lot of jet bikes using the ability to fly over my units to cause mortals. Can he still do that?

Fly units can still move over models in the movement phase. They just cant do it in the charge phase aswell now.
So yes

**wuestenfux**

The rules for matched play make a restriction for being ''weapon brothers''.
Somebody in the position to clarify this (more than one keyword in each detachment other than Chaos and whatnot).
The German translation is a bit weak.

**tneva82**

wuestenfux wrote:
The rules for matched play make a restriction for being ''weapon brothers''.
Somebody in the position to clarify this (more than one keyword in each detachment other than Chaos and whatnot).
The German translation is a bit weak.

That's the battle brothers rule. Basically within detachment ALL models must share keyword that cannon be imperium, chaos etc. However army wide different detachments can use those keywords.

So for example supreme command detachment with celestial, slamquinus and company commander is illegal. 3 detachments of IG, sisters of battle and blood angels with those units in each would be legal.

**wuestenfux**

@tneva. Thanks for the clarification.
Indeed, it doesn't prevent soup such as level32, BA scouts, and IKs.

**ClockworkZion**

wuestenfux wrote:
@tneva. Thanks for the clarification.
Indeed, it doesn't prevent soup such as level32, BA scouts, and IKs.

It cut the number of sub-factions down to 3 which is better than it was in the index days, but a less chunky soup is still soup.

**Marmatag**

This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).

**Ordana**

Marmatag wrote:
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).

a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.

**Galef**

Ordana wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.

It is hardly a nerf at all. It just kills 1 particularly toxic combo that some Eldar players were using to give the rest of us a bad name

-

**Reemule**

I’m always surprised that people think soup was going to get killed in a single ruling.

Soup is going to die a death of 1K cuts. And it’s not even going to die. It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.

Overall, a great FAQ.

**Galef**

Reemule wrote:
It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.

Which is were it should have been to start, but I agree "soup" shouldn't go away completely. You just shouldn't get more bonus from doing so that running a single Codex list.

-

**Marmatag**

Ordana wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.

They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.

Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.

Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.

**Elbows**

What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.

Terrain =/= distance.

That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.

So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.

**Ordana**

Marmatag wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.

They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.

Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.

Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.

But we we'rent talking about Rvagers, you brought up the Wave Serpent.

And losing your Ravagers turn 1 is why you only pay 125 points for those paper murder boats of death. (which is hilariously undercosted and most likely getting a 'fix' in CA.

**Marmatag**

Elbows wrote:
What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.

Terrain =/= distance.

That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.

So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.

The rule was updated specifically so that people could block flyers with screening units. 0" charges were not a thing in big tournaments, and any well run RTT.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordana wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.

They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.

Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.

Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.
But we we'rent talking about Rvagers, you brought up the Wave Serpent.

And losing your Ravagers turn 1 is why you only pay 125 points for those paper murder boats of death. (which is hilariously undercosted and most likely getting a 'fix' in CA.

We're talking about this rule, so anything that deep strikes turn 1 is relevant. And my point stands in regards to the reapers. It changes the strategy and limits options. It also allows for counterplay scenarios. You might not like what they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. You can argue till you're blue in the face but that doesn't change that this change does indeed hurt dark reapers. It also hurts Tallarn, so they can't outflank a baneblade. And i'm fine with it.

And Ravagers are made of paper, which is why they are fine.

**Ordana**

Elbows wrote:
What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.

Terrain =/= distance.

That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.

So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.

From the Rulebook faq, prior to the latest change.

Q: When a unit that can Fly declares a charge move against a
unit that is on the upper levels of a ruin, do I need to include
the vertical distance when making the subsequent charge move
for the unit?
A: No. A unit that can Fly effectively ignores vertical
distances when making a charge move. Note though that
the charging unit must still be within 12" (measured
directly ‘base-to-base’, i.e. diagonally) to be able to
declare the charge in the frst place.

So, If I am 10" above (or below) you I could make a 0" charge (or close to) because I ignore the vertical distance between us.
This was not some mythical non-existent reading of the rules. It's right there.

**BaconCatBug**

That answer is no longer in the Rulebook FAQ, so it has no bearing on how the rules currently function. Elbows is right in that the rulebook itself didn't allow it, a Special Snowflake FAQ did.

**bananathug**

Which people immediately called out as pants on head stupid and not the way it was supposed to be played. A perfect example of how bad GW is at rules writing and playing their own game.

1. Rule works fine
2. Crazy RAI "fix" in FAQ
3. Embarrassed when players use their fix
4. Knee jerk reaction the other way.

See fire raptor point costing as example 2 off the top of my head.

Wave serpents are among the toughest vehicles with their shielding, negs to hit and now 2+ save first turn. Good luck popping one of those unless you are shooting your entire army at it and then that is a comically inefficient shooting phase.

The no deepstriking into your own zone has more of an impact on deathwatch trying to keep dreads alive or trying to keep inceptors alive for counter shooting than eldar with all of their "you can't kill me" shenanigans. Reapers can still start out of LOS and then fire and fade back to LOS or just drop down on turn 2 and still be able to shoot anywhere on the board with their 48" range.

Ravagers will take it in the pants but they are only such a high value target because they are crazy efficient and under-priced for what they do (especially to 2 wound models or with the help of doom/jinx). Once disi cannons go up 5 points and have their range reduced to 24" and can't benefit from craftworld doom/jinx I'll be happy to listen to any and all complaints about them.

Not being able to forward deploy rangers is probably the biggest eldar nerf but wouldn't they now count in cover with the strat so they get the neg to hit? Also now that you can screen out stuff with fly from being able to charge your units/crazy OP flyers and will face significantly less smash captains to counter said flyers eldar seem to have come out ahead.

The cover strat helps flyers of all flavors (yay eldar again) but the stormwolf looks good with the rune priest around to keep it alive after turn 2 and maybe even dark angels and their -2 to hit talons (which got nerfed before the eldar stuff, you know, because of reasons) maybe a couple dark angel xiphons...

**Elbows**

Ordana wrote:
Elbows wrote:
What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.

Terrain =/= distance.

That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.

So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.

From the Rulebook faq, prior to the latest change.

Q: When a unit that can Fly declares a charge move against a
unit that is on the upper levels of a ruin, do I need to include
the vertical distance when making the subsequent charge move
for the unit?
A: No. A unit that can Fly effectively ignores vertical
distances when making a charge move. Note though that
the charging unit must still be within 12" (measured
directly ‘base-to-base’, i.e. diagonally) to be able to
declare the charge in the frst place.

So, If I am 10" above (or below) you I could make a 0" charge (or close to) because I ignore the vertical distance between us.
This was not some mythical non-existent reading of the rules. It's right there.

Sure...and that's an example of GW getting their own stuff incorrect. Just as some TO's did.

**tneva82**

TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...

Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.

So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.

**RobS**

tneva82 wrote:
TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...

Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.

So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.

So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.

So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.

Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?

**wuestenfux**

Galef wrote:
Reemule wrote:
It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.
Which is were it should have been to start, but I agree "soup" shouldn't go away completely. You just shouldn't get more bonus from doing so that running a single Codex list.

-

Soup gives you a larger variety of models and units to choose from.
Why should GW have an interest to change this? Looks like a monetary issue.

**tneva82**

RobS wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...

Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.

So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.

So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.

So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.

Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?

Yes. before if your horizontal distance was 0" you literally could not fail as long as base of the enemy wasn't so big that 2" movement would not get you out of base(I'm not sure is there any base big enough that being dead center you would need more than 2" to get clear of the enemy base...) you succeeded. Stupid, illogical but hey that's GW for you. Luckily they fixed that though not on a way I expected(I would have thought they would count the diagonical distance. That would have helped flyers to charge as direct line is shorter than first horizontal movement and then up but not 0" charge level of bonker advantage)

And Current FAQ made it so that fly only applies in movement phase. Bit gamey and illogical ruling resulting in hilarious situations like helldrake not being able to charge flyer because of guardsmen between but ah well. At least slamquinus is nerfed. So on assault phase they foot slog it like the rest of wimps. High ground became even harder to assault(having already become quite hard after GW removed wobbly model syndrome rule being usable to assault there resulting in situations like when I last time played dark eldars and could literally do nothing else but shoot at pistols vs DE vehicles...Yeah ork pistol shooting vs DE full shooting is going to be a fair fight!

**RobS**

tneva82 wrote:
RobS wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...

Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.

So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.

So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.

So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.

Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?

Yes. before if your horizontal distance was 0" you literally could not fail as long as base of the enemy wasn't so big that 2" movement would not get you out of base(I'm not sure is there any base big enough that being dead center you would need more than 2" to get clear of the enemy base...) you succeeded. Stupid, illogical but hey that's GW for you. Luckily they fixed that though not on a way I expected(I would have thought they would count the diagonical distance. That would have helped flyers to charge as direct line is shorter than first horizontal movement and then up but not 0" charge level of bonker advantage)

And Current FAQ made it so that fly only applies in movement phase. Bit gamey and illogical ruling resulting in hilarious situations like helldrake not being able to charge flyer because of guardsmen between but ah well. At least slamquinus is nerfed. So on assault phase they foot slog it like the rest of wimps. High ground became even harder to assault(having already become quite hard after GW removed wobbly model syndrome rule being usable to assault there resulting in situations like when I last time played dark eldars and could literally do nothing else but shoot at pistols vs DE vehicles...Yeah ork pistol shooting vs DE full shooting is going to be a fair fight!

Seems to make sense for infantry with jump packs and the like, who bounce around the battlefield but land in between.
Makes knob all sense for things that actually fly, i.e. Helldrakes.

Maybe they should have left it that you can charge over things but any unit you pass over on your way to your charge victim can overwatch you.