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.

The new core book update 1.2 says you need a charge roll of 8 when your reinforcement unit arrives and you charge a unit which is wholly on a terrain feature that is 5" in height. Pythagoras says the distance is 7.6", when you set up your reinforcement unit 9.1" away, so isnt that a 7 for the charge roll, because engagement range is within 1" horizontally and within 5" vertically (p. 198) ?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UCwQJcYgHo0Gztjk.pdf

Reality is irrelevant. It says you need a roll of 8, so that is what you need.

Agreed. GW rules get to ignore reality. In 40k world, space is non-Euclidian and Pi is exactly 3.

 p5freak wrote:
The new core book update 1.2 says you need a charge roll of 8 when your reinforcement unit arrives and you charge a unit which is wholly on a terrain feature that is 5" in height. Pythagoras says the distance is 7.6", when you set up your reinforcement unit 9.1" away, so isnt that a 7 for the charge roll, because engagement range is within 1" horizontally and within 5" vertically (p. 198) ?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UCwQJcYgHo0Gztjk.pdf

Actually, the distance to get directly below them is just over 7.48" (5"x7.48"x9" triangle), which would require a roll of 8 to get to. However, GW forgot to include the 1" horizontal along with the 5" vertical to Engagement Range.

Since they go on to carefully explain their ruling, I would allow you to use the proper distance instead of what they wrote. This is something that needs to be brought to GW's attention to correct.

Special bonus diagram, curtesy of Dode

Basically either the 8 is a typo and should be a 7, or the intention is that they want it work that when an enemy is on another story you need to be directly above or below (ie within 0" horizontally).

Difficult to say which it is, so hopefully this clarified soon... though even soon could be months...

 p5freak wrote:
The new core book update 1.2 says you need a charge roll of 8 when your reinforcement unit arrives and you charge a unit which is wholly on a terrain feature that is 5" in height. Pythagoras says the distance is 7.6", when you set up your reinforcement unit 9.1" away, so isnt that a 7 for the charge roll, because engagement range is within 1" horizontally and within 5" vertically (p. 198) ?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UCwQJcYgHo0Gztjk.pdf

Measure 1 inch horizontally from your model's base, Is there an enemy model within 1"? (Hint the answer is no since they are above you).

Now measure vertically is there an enemy model within 5"?

P.S. vertically is defined as: "at right angles to a horizontal plane" so the charging model needs an 8, since the distance to directly under that model is more than 7 inches.

The "Charge roll Required = 7" in that pic is incorrect. If you stop at that point, the model is not within 5" vertically since vertically is measured "at right angles to a horizontal plane"

 DeathReaper wrote:
The "Charge roll Required = 7" in that pic is incorrect. If you stop at that point, the model is not within 5" vertically since vertically is measured "at right angles to a horizontal plane"

The 7 is correct. Engagement range is 1" horizontally AND 5" vertically.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The "Charge roll Required = 7" in that pic is incorrect. If you stop at that point, the model is not within 5" vertically since vertically is measured "at right angles to a horizontal plane"

The 7 is correct. Engagement range is 1" horizontally AND 5" vertically.

Agreed. That is how engagement range is defined in the BRB.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The "Charge roll Required = 7" in that pic is incorrect. If you stop at that point, the model is not within 5" vertically since vertically is measured "at right angles to a horizontal plane"

The 7 is correct. Engagement range is 1" horizontally AND 5" vertically.

But there is no model within 1 inch horizontally... 7 is not correct.

It is 8, as vertically is defined as at right angles to a horizontal plane.

A right angle means a 90 degree angle, so the model would have to be directly under the enemy model to be within 5" vertically.

Check out this pic for reference:

Orc 1 and Marine 1 are within 5 inches vertically because vertically is defined as: "at right angles to a horizontal plane" (in fact you could have any part of the base of Marine 1 at any point directly under the base of Orc 1 and it would still be within 5 inches, the whole base does not need to be directly under Orc 1 for this to be within engagement range, because you measure from the closest points on the bases).

Orc 2 and Marine 2 are not within 5 inches vertically because the blue line is not at a right angle.

Orc 3 and Orc 2 are within 5 inches vertically

Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally (if the green line is 1") and 5" vertically of Ork 2. He is within engagement range.

 p5freak wrote:
Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally (if the green line is 1") and 5" vertically of Ork 2. He is within engagement range.

No he is not within engagement range at all. (Edit to clarify: he is not within engagement range of Orc 2 at all).

Marine 2 is only within 1" horizontally of Orc 3, as that is the only model that is parallel to level ground near him.

Marine 2 is not within 5" vertically of Ork 2, as the blue line is not a vertical line, it is a diagonal line. (Marine 2 is more than 5" diagonally, but he needs to be within 5" vertically. Diagonally is not mentioned in the rules for engagement range).

(P.S. As noted in the pic the green line = 1 inch horizontally)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally (if the green line is 1") and 5" vertically of Ork 2. He is within engagement range.

No he is not within engagement range at all.

Yes, he is. Check p. 198 of the core book. Engagement range is within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally (if the green line is 1") and 5" vertically of Ork 2. He is within engagement range.

No he is not within engagement range at all.

Yes, he is. Check p. 198 of the core book. Engagement range is within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically.

No, he really is not. I checked page 198. I know Engagement range is within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically.

In that pic I posted, Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally of Orc 3, but he is not within 1" horizontally of Orc 2 as Orc 2 is not parallel to level ground with Marine 2.

Marine 2 is absolutely not within 1" horizontally of anyone except for Orc 3.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Marine 2 is within 1" horizontally (if the green line is 1") and 5" vertically of Ork 2. He is within engagement range.

No he is not within engagement range at all. (Edit to clarify: he is not within engagement range of Orc 2 at all).

Marine 2 is only within 1" horizontally of Orc 3, as that is the only model that is parallel to level ground near him.

Marine 2 is not within 5" vertically of Ork 2, as the blue line is not a vertical line, it is a diagonal line. (Marine 2 is more than 5" diagonally, but he needs to be within 5" vertically. Diagonally is not mentioned in the rules for engagement range).

(P.S. As noted in the pic the green line = 1 inch horizontally)

To make sure I understand your argument correctly, if a model is not on the same plane as another model, it cannot be in Engagement Range of that model unless part of it's based is directly above or below the other model's base? By your interpretation, the model could be 0.25" higher than the other on a vertically solid terrain piece and it would be impossible for them to be in engagement range.

Horizontally means a specific thing, vertically means a specific thing.

The definitions of those words do not include a diagonal line (sourced from the dictionary, since the rules do not define them).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Horizontally means a specific thing, vertically means a specific thing.

The definitions of those words do not include a diagonal line (sourced from the dictionary, since the rules do not define them).

People aren't talking about diagonals though. The interpretation people are using is that the vertical and horizontal components are calculated separately. So in your image Ork 2 is in engagement range because the horizontal component is no more than 1" and the vertical component is no more than 5". That satisfies the parameters of the rule. Since, as you point out yourself, diagonals are never mentioned we can ignore the diagonal distance and only worry about the vertical and horizontal distances.

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Horizontally means a specific thing, vertically means a specific thing.

The definitions of those words do not include a diagonal line (sourced from the dictionary, since the rules do not define them).

People aren't talking about diagonals though. The interpretation people are using is that the vertical and horizontal components are calculated separately. So in your image Ork 2 is in engagement range because the horizontal component is no more than 1" and the vertical component is no more than 5". That satisfies the parameters of the rule. Since, as you point out yourself, diagonals are never mentioned we can ignore the diagonal distance and only worry about the vertical and horizontal distances.

But that is the thing, Orc 2 is not within 1 inch horizontally, as he is not parallel to level ground from Marine 2.

Orc 2 is also not within 5" vertically of Marine 2, as you can not draw a vertical line from Orc 2 that runs parallel to the y-axis of the coordinate plane to Marine 2.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Orc 2 is not within 1 inch horizontally, as he is not parallel to level ground from Marine 2.

I disagree, and I think most people would as well. Your definitions do not match with those of the majority of players.

The wording is AND.
To put it simply, you are allowed to go up 5" vertically and then 1" horizontally, if you encounter a model you are in engagement range.

imagining it like you project a line 5" upwards and another 1" horizontally and either needs to encounter a model seems... baffling to me.
This interpretation CANNOT work with the inclusion of "and" in the rule, at all. As it is impossible for a model to be both directly above and directly besides another.

Additionally, as pointed out it would be IMPOSSIBLE to engage someone on a hill or staircase for example, because it would be impossible to reach exactly the same horizontal or vertical plane.
Hence you use both horizontal and vertical distance together to describe a minimum distance.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Horizontally means a specific thing, vertically means a specific thing.

The definitions of those words do not include a diagonal line (sourced from the dictionary, since the rules do not define them).

People aren't talking about diagonals though. The interpretation people are using is that the vertical and horizontal components are calculated separately. So in your image Ork 2 is in engagement range because the horizontal component is no more than 1" and the vertical component is no more than 5". That satisfies the parameters of the rule. Since, as you point out yourself, diagonals are never mentioned we can ignore the diagonal distance and only worry about the vertical and horizontal distances.

But that is the thing, Orc 2 is not within 1 inch horizontally, as he is not parallel to level ground from Marine 2.

Orc 2 is also not within 5" vertically of Marine 2, as you can not draw a vertical line from Orc 2 that runs parallel to the y-axis of the coordinate plane to Marine 2.

You don't measure the length of the diagonal line. You make a triangle like the diagram shows, and measure the vertical component and the horizontal component. You measure the horizontal distance it takes to get underneath the model above, then run a vertical line straight up to Orc 2 and measure that. That's the vertical component of what you're measuring; it doesn't matter that you can't draw a vertical line from Orc 2 that runs parallel to the y-axis of the coordinate plane to Marine 2. That's what measuring the horizontal distance between that line hitting the ground and Marine 2 is for.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But that is the thing, Orc 2 is not within 1 inch horizontally, as he is not parallel to level ground from Marine 2.

Orc 2 is also not within 5" vertically of Marine 2, as you can not draw a vertical line from Orc 2 that runs parallel to the y-axis of the coordinate plane to Marine 2.

Within a horizontal distance means you measure horizontally, not that the thing has to be on the same plane. So you take a plan view and measure there, and if the other model is within 1" given that view then the 1" horizontally requirement is satisfied. With vertically you have the same - you take a side view and measure there, seeing if the 5" vertically requirement is satisfied. If both are satisfied then you are `within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically`.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Orc 2 is not within 1 inch horizontally, as he is not parallel to level ground from Marine 2.

I disagree, and I think most people would as well. Your definitions do not match with those of the majority of players.

My definitions? I think you mean the definitions in the dictionary. I did not put meaning to the words horizontally and vertically, the dictionary did that.

And if people are not using the dictionary (or the 40k rules) to define words, then those words could literally mean anything.

Horizontally means a specific thing, vertically means a specific thing.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The wording is AND.
To put it simply, you are allowed to go up 5" vertically and then 1" horizontally, if you encounter a model you are in engagement range.

imagining it like you project a line 5" upwards and another 1" horizontally and either needs to encounter a model seems... baffling to me.
This interpretation CANNOT work with the inclusion of "and" in the rule, at all. As it is impossible for a model to be both directly above and directly besides another.

Additionally, as pointed out it would be IMPOSSIBLE to engage someone on a hill or staircase for example, because it would be impossible to reach exactly the same horizontal or vertical plane.
Hence you use both horizontal and vertical distance together to describe a minimum distance.

And there it is.

RAW It is impossible for a model to be within Engagement Range. (Since a model needs to be "within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically of an enemy model" and that literally can not happen as a model cant be above and beside an enemy model. Again another instance of GW can not write proper rules).

page 4 pdf rulebook wrote:While a model is within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically of an enemy model, those models are within Engagement Range of each other.

HIWPI would be to measure like you guys have said to measure, but that is not RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

RAW It is impossible for a model to be within Engagement Range. (Since a model needs to be "within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically of an enemy model" and that literally can not happen as a model cant be above and beside an enemy model. Again another instance of GW can not write proper rules).

Given that GW has stated that you make the measurements horizontally and vertically, and defined what is within engagement range, you are simply wrong in saying that it is impossible to be within Engagement Range, given that it has been demonstrated how a model in fact can be within engagement range. It's not another instance of GW not writing proper rules, it's another instance of you not acknowledging what GW wrote and following it.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

RAW It is impossible for a model to be within Engagement Range. (Since a model needs to be "within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically of an enemy model" and that literally can not happen as a model cant be above and beside an enemy model. Again another instance of GW can not write proper rules).

Given that GW has stated that you make the measurements horizontally and vertically, and defined what is within engagement range, you are simply wrong in saying that it is impossible to be within Engagement Range, given that it has been demonstrated how a model in fact can be within engagement range. It's not another instance of GW not writing proper rules, it's another instance of you not acknowledging what GW wrote and following it.

Yeah. GW has plenty of shoddy rules. This... This isn't one of them.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

RAW It is impossible for a model to be within Engagement Range. (Since a model needs to be "within 1" horizontally and 5" vertically of an enemy model" and that literally can not happen as a model cant be above and beside an enemy model. Again another instance of GW can not write proper rules).

Given that GW has stated that you make the measurements horizontally and vertically, and defined what is within engagement range, you are simply wrong in saying that it is impossible to be within Engagement Range,

False, because to be within Engagement Range, as others have pointed out, you need to be within 2 measurements, and that is just not possible if you know what horizontally and vertically mean.

given that it has been demonstrated how a model in fact can be within engagement range.

Except the example is incorrect, because the RAW is broken.

It's not another instance of GW not writing proper rules,

It really is if you know what horizontally and vertically mean.

it's another instance of you not acknowledging what GW wrote and following it.

Another? What do you mean? I always acknowledge what GW writes, and I follow it.

If something has to be within 1" Horizontally or 5" Vertically, then you'd be right.

It's not the case, though. It's and.

It's only broken if you will it to be.

If two models of opposing forces are on the same Z=0, and they are 0.5" of each other horizontally, then you are within 1" horizontally (1 in > 0.5 in) and within 5" vertically (5 in > 0 in).

What gives you the idea that 0 is not less than 5?

Alternatively, if two models of opposing forces are on the same X,Y coordinate, and they are 4" apart vertically, then they are within 1" horizontally (1 in > 0 in) and within 5" vertically (5 in > 4 in).

There's no problem here.

People always tend to forget that the English meanings of and/or have the opposite meanings to logical and/or.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People always tend to forget that the English meanings of and/or have the opposite meanings to logical and/or.

It still makes sense in either "English" AND and logical AND. It's simply an issue of intentionally misreading/interpreting the text for the sake of 'wELl aKChuAlReY'.