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.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
You wouldn’t measure the 9” horizontally? That’s how we’ve always played it. Maybe we were playing it wrong.

No, because that's not what the DS rules say. The DS rules say 9" away, not 9" away horizontally.

This is probably RAW, but if an opponent insists on playing it that way they're unlikely to get many people willing to play them. Clearly the intent of the rule is that you require a 9 on your charge roll to make it into combat. Though I'm not sure on how they'd fix the wording... I guess saying 9" horizontal distance could work, but that feels like it would be open to some other issue down the road.

They could just change it to "more than 8" from engagement range". Means you have to roll a 9 still to actually get into range, but its measured from the engagement 'bubble' rather than the physical model.

Well this is stupid in sense of self handicapping. Put burna boyz in trukk.Hey presto flamers that need to roll to hit :lol:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
You wouldn’t measure the 9” horizontally? That’s how we’ve always played it. Maybe we were playing it wrong.

No, because that's not what the DS rules say. The DS rules say 9" away, not 9" away horizontally.

This is probably RAW, but if an opponent insists on playing it that way they're unlikely to get many people willing to play them. Clearly the intent of the rule is that you require a 9 on your charge roll to make it into combat. Though I'm not sure on how they'd fix the wording... I guess saying 9" horizontal distance could work, but that feels like it would be open to some other issue down the road.

They could just change it to "more than 8" from engagement range". Means you have to roll a 9 still to actually get into range, but its measured from the engagement 'bubble' rather than the physical model.

You DS and you measure base to base. So let's say most extreme silly case. Unit in top of 9" ruin. You would deploy 9" behind.

Come charge phase, you then need to get within 1" horizontally and up to 5" vertically. So you would be 9" away from enemy but if you are directly behind 5" below is fine. So 4" charge...

Similarly if there's up to 5" tall bridge you cannot go THROUGH the bridge 5" below the enemy as you can't go inside engagement range which you would as it's 5".

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
I'll start. I realized that I can field a Superheavy detachment with household traits, in a 500 point Combat Patrol. (not that I would )

Guardsman Timmy and his bayonet can stab somebody in the 2nd or sometimes even 3rd story window through 2 floors.

(But with all the reach to stab up two floors, he can barely reach past a guy in front of him to stab)

Engagement range is pretty borked.

Yeah. I guess my previous gaming buddy and I must have house rules it and then forgot it was a house rule. It didn’t impact much with the terrain we had at the time. GW will need to do some clarification on their intent with regard to engagement range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
You wouldn’t measure the 9” horizontally? That’s how we’ve always played it. Maybe we were playing it wrong.

No, because that's not what the DS rules say. The DS rules say 9" away, not 9" away horizontally.

This is probably RAW, but if an opponent insists on playing it that way they're unlikely to get many people willing to play them. Clearly the intent of the rule is that you require a 9 on your charge roll to make it into combat. Though I'm not sure on how they'd fix the wording... I guess saying 9" horizontal distance could work, but that feels like it would be open to some other issue down the road.

They could just change it to "more than 8" from engagement range". Means you have to roll a 9 still to actually get into range, but its measured from the engagement 'bubble' rather than the physical model.

That seems like a straight forward fix.

Nope, doesn't really work. It'd just create different issues - in that case, by putting your units 5" up on ruins, you could force your opponent out more than 10" in horizontal distance. This would allow different types of shenanegins.

There's no perfect solution because the problem is fundamentally the 5" vertical engagement range, which just doesn't work make sense with the way that all other game distances are measured.

The least bad solution would probably be to FAQ all 9" DS abilities to state that you need a minimum 9 on your charge roll before modifiers, even if it would be less because of vertical engagement distance. That way you can still come down 9" from a unit up in a ruin, but you don't gain any benefit on your charge from the fact that they're high up.

There's still some issues with that, but it probably creates the least issues compared to other fixes.

An even better best way is to measure from the model instead of the base for units with the Monster or Vehicle keywords or something like that.

That way, a keeper of secrets or knight could hit something at its knee or waist, but Guardsman Timmy couldn't assail the foe through two floors/charge 4" after a 9" away deepstrike.

(but of course that's scary and difficult like armor facings were; it's much easier to remember 160 stratagems instead).

Well yeah I mean sure, the problem is the 5" vertical engagement itself. But I was assuming that GW isn't going to scrap that having just introduced it.

As weird as it is, the whole "can't move under folks on a catwalk 5" up" thing, actually kinda works, it's a super unsafe position to be in. It's a way to show the threat range.

 Blndmage wrote:
As weird as it is, the whole "can't move under folks on a catwalk 5" up" thing, actually kinda works, it's a super unsafe position to be in. It's a way to show the threat range.

It gets wonky rather fast, Particularly on city and boards with more layers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
An even better best way is to measure from the model instead of the base for units with the Monster or Vehicle keywords or something like that.

That way, a keeper of secrets or knight could hit something at its knee or waist, but Guardsman Timmy couldn't assail the foe through two floors/charge 4" after a 9" away deepstrike.

(but of course that's scary and difficult like armor facings were; it's much easier to remember 160 stratagems instead).

That's been proven to be a horrible idea in previous editions, where things like targeting from weapons existed. You can end up modelling for advantage - in this instance, you could extend all 4 of the Keeper's individual arms out to give it a bubble MUCH larger than its base.

Well, I could also go nuts and play 6x10 Tactical Marines and 3x10 Assault Marines.
That's 180 wounds for board control.

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
As weird as it is, the whole "can't move under folks on a catwalk 5" up" thing, actually kinda works, it's a super unsafe position to be in. It's a way to show the threat range.

It gets wonky rather fast, Particularly on city and boards with more layers.

I would agree with this. Might make sense for a catwalk or bridge, but not so much for a solid concrete floor.

 Flinty wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
As weird as it is, the whole "can't move under folks on a catwalk 5" up" thing, actually kinda works, it's a super unsafe position to be in. It's a way to show the threat range.

It gets wonky rather fast, Particularly on city and boards with more layers.

I would agree with this. Might make sense for a catwalk or bridge, but not so much for a solid concrete floor.

Having the high ground is always benificial.
The rules allow Infantry and what not to move through floors/walls even without stairs/ladders on the terrain, yes? Which means, they'd have the tactical advantage, maybe there's loose concrete (as most folks are thinking of the classic Ruin building), maybe there's holes in the floor that could (from the perspective of the person being zoned out) be fire points, or they could huck grenades, etc
The static nature of terrain and models can make us forget how much is actually going on.
Are there pistols with a range of less than 6"?

 Blndmage wrote:

Are there pistols with a range of less than 6"?

Turns out that there is, Death Guard's Biologus has a 3" Injector which is basically a needle on steroids

Also the Inferno Pistol, which typically has 6" range... making 3" its half-range for its special melta-ness.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(but of course that's scary and difficult like armor facings were; it's much easier to remember 160 stratagems instead).

To be fair, armor facings are pretty mechanically clunky on anything without clearly delineated sides, and things like posed walkers, Eldar anything, etc. always bogged games down unless the other player and I knew each other's lists well.

Which is not to say that current stratagems are a good thing, just that facings were IMHO not worth whatever realism/immersion they added when that also slowed the game down.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
(but of course that's scary and difficult like armor facings were; it's much easier to remember 160 stratagems instead).

To be fair, armor facings are pretty mechanically clunky on anything without clearly delineated sides, and things like posed walkers, Eldar anything, etc. always bogged games down unless the other player and I knew each other's lists well.

The Flames of War system, where armor is a binary front/back determined by a line drawn across the front of the model, is easy to implement even on non-boxy vehicles. Games that frequently use facing on non-humanoid models typically have some mark on the base to denote 'front'.

As with many things, it's more of an issue of GW screwing up the implementation than the idea being intrinsically unsound.

The problem is removed when you stick these things on big bases pre-marked with quarters.

 Argive wrote:
The problem is removed when you stick these things on big bases pre-marked with quarters.

Which is fine if you like it, but a giant eyesore for many (boy do I not like the way X-Wing does their bases). Tanks and other vehicles are big enough to not need bases to stand on and look nice and photogenic as they are (flying models not withstanding).

I mean heck, I could see datasheets that include a top-down view of the model with different areas of armor color-coded to armor thickness.

So like the wings and front of a Wave Serpent could be Green(12), the rear Blue (10), the compartment sides Red (12, with +1 on the damage chart or whatever), or the like. Then just have a model use the closest point when it shoots.

That's actually a pretty good solution, assuming GW would bother to release diagrams for all models at once and not wait 3 years until all the codices have come around.

I wouldn't mind playing with facings that way, and I'm a pretty huge fan of the old solution going away. So many arguments about battlwagon side arks...

 Jidmah wrote:
That's actually a pretty good solution, assuming GW would bother to release diagrams for all models at once and not wait 3 years until all the codices have come around.

I wouldn't mind playing with facings that way, and I'm a pretty huge fan of the old solution going away. So many arguments about battlwagon side arks...

Hardly uncommon approach, actually.
But gw so gw things Messing Systems up is kinda their thing, cue usrs ...

 Blndmage wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
As weird as it is, the whole "can't move under folks on a catwalk 5" up" thing, actually kinda works, it's a super unsafe position to be in. It's a way to show the threat range.

It gets wonky rather fast, Particularly on city and boards with more layers.

I would agree with this. Might make sense for a catwalk or bridge, but not so much for a solid concrete floor.

Having the high ground is always benificial.
The rules allow Infantry and what not to move through floors/walls even without stairs/ladders on the terrain, yes? Which means, they'd have the tactical advantage, maybe there's loose concrete (as most folks are thinking of the classic Ruin building), maybe there's holes in the floor that could (from the perspective of the person being zoned out) be fire points, or they could huck grenades, etc
The static nature of terrain and models can make us forget how much is actually going on.
Are there pistols with a range of less than 6"?

Fair point. I think I had in mind a larger building with totally solid floors, but from all the scenery I've seen people actually use.over the years thats very much an edge case that probably doesnt need official troubles to deal with. Idea retracted

I find the stupidest thing I can do in 9th is slowly eliminate my opponent's dice. He rolls all those hurricane bolter shots against my Genestealers with a big smile on his face only to find I grab those wounding dice to roll my saves. Club rules says he can't use them now as they need to be disinfected.

Statistically if those dice naturally roll better than others, I have now eliminated that variable.

I jest of course, the stupidest rule is the hit roll modifier cap in all scenarios. You are already -1 to hit so my heavy weapons moving don't suffer any penalty to shoot you. My assault weapons can advance because why not? I don't suffer any further penalties.

You can fire a vanquisher cannon in close combat.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
You can fire a vanquisher cannon in close combat.

I can beat that.

A Fellblade's accelerator cannon's AE shells are not blast like its He shells. So that's a heavy 2, S14, AP-4, D6 pistol, for all intents and purposes. The same applies to its two quad lascannon sponsons. Who wants to come close so my Fellblade can give them a hug?

Even though that imperial knight can literally poke these marines with his reaper chain sword, he can't fight them or charge them because the distance from the ground under his feet to their feet is 6.25" and engagement range is 5"

I don't know if that counts, but deepstriking 3 Deathstrike Missiles could be pretty hilarious.

 Jidmah wrote:


The only way to play Mortarion is by making him your warlord, forcing you to give him a warlord trait that is both useless to him, and the only warlord trait worth taking for anyone else.

I mean...

If you're literally saying here that it's "Rules stupidity" that if you want to bring the head of an entire faction to the table, he HAS to be the warlord.....then....

Like obviously he should have to be the warlord? And also, he doesn't HAVE to be, you CAN bring him in an aux detachment, it's just a mechanically beneficial thing always to make him the warlord.

I'd say that there is good argument for Typhus being the warlord despite Mortarion being on the table

The main point is that he is locked into a warlord trait that is essential for every single DG army but utterly useless when Mortarion has it.